1984-06-22

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, many concerned citizens in my riding of Grey-Simcoe and surrounding area have brought to my attention the Bell Canada proposal which would change the billing procedure now in force to a system whereby the customer will be charged for individually made telephone calls. It has been correctly pointed out that this would create undue hardship for seniors, the handicapped, low-income families on fixed income, and those who rely heavily on the telephone as their main source of communication.
As well, seniors and handicapped persons often have to order medicines, groceries, et cetera, by telephone, when no transportation is available. They have to consult and report to their physicians more often than others, and the cost of individual calls would be astronomical.
This would cause extra monetary worries for those who can ill afford the extra cost, and would result in a loss of community involvement to seniors and others who have continued to keep involved in church groups, service clubs and so on, by telephone.
Therefore I call upon the Government to exercise every possible influence on Bell Canada not to proceed with such a proposal which would prove very detrimental to all Canadians.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, for years there have been discrepancies in the income tax treatment of musicians who are members of Canada's symphony orchestras. Some are treated as employees and are thus denied deduction of expenses and capital cost allowance, while others are considered to be self-employed and are allowed proper deductions in arriving at net income for tax purposes.
Even though the Subcommittee on the Taxation of Visual and Performing Artists and Writers was considering this very subject and has since recommended amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow deduction of expenses incurred by symphony musicians, the Minister, in the meantime, changed the treatment for Toronto Symphony members, leaving only the Vancouver Symphony members as employees denied deduction of expenses.
The Minister has received copies of the Vancouver Symphony Society telegram that was sent to the Chairman of the Subcommittee outlining the injustices and discrimination against western Canadians. I appeal to the Minister to implement the needed changes in treatment immediately, so that a measure of equity will be restored to the application of the Income Tax Act.



CANADA DAY


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this year Canada Day will have a special significance since we are celebrating the 450th anniversary of Jacques Cartier's first voyage to Canada and his arrival in Gaspe.
As part of the Canada Day celebrations in Gaspe, the flag raising ceremony will take place at five o'clock in the morning, at sunrise.
I invite all Canadians to celebrate Canada Day with pride and joy and to recite the Salute to the Canadian Flag at the flag raising ceremony, as we do in our schools and especially in the Scout movement. These are the words of the Salute to the Flag:



SALUTE TO THE CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
To my Flag and to the country it represents, I pledge RESPECT and LOYALTY.
Wave with PRIDE from sea to sea and within your folds, keep us ever UNITED.
Be for all a symbol of LOVE FREEDOM and JUSTICE God keep our FLAG God protect our CANADA
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1984


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday a joint statement issued by the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia warned that they cannot indefinitely accept the burden of existing loan repayment plans. The total foreign debt of 11 Latin American countries is estimated at $300 billion. The increase in the U.S. prime rate of half a percentage point added $4.5 billion to the Latin American debt.
[DOT] (mo)
Canada is no stranger to this fiscal strangulation of developing countries. Three of Canada's five major banks have a total of $14 billion in loans outstanding with Latin American countries. When the Canadian prime rate rose from 11.5 to 12 per cent, an additional burden of $5.8 million monthly was added to that debt.
While the International Monetary Fund, the enforcer for world capital, wants to impose austerity measures, such as withholding wage increases for an already overburdened population in Latin economies, and the American Federal Reserve Board would "cap" interest rates, postponing additional interest payments in fact, the OECD argues that only an easing of international interest rates can provide any lasting solutions.
I call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to protest to the U.S. that this deliberate impoverishment of struggling Latin economies must stop and there must be no further hikes in interest rates, that the developing nations-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took issue with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) view of earlier this week that his Government has been without a serious scandal for 16 years. I mentioned many examples of the abuse of public office by Liberal Members of Parliament, Cabinet ministers, and political friends over that period.
The reality is that a Prime Minister sets the tone for conduct in this city. The reality is also that, as far as this Prime Minister is concerned, virtually anything has been tolerable. "Say anything, do anything, break any commitment, as long as it might help us cling to office" has been a major operating principle of successive Governments over 16 years.
In the 1980 election campaign, for example, the Prime Minister and his Liberal candidates campaigned on four promises: "The 18 cents a gallon gasoline tax of the Tories is too much, we will slow Government growth, we will reduce unemployment, and we will reduce interest rates." Since 1980, of
course, the Liberals have done precisely the opposite in all four areas. Government tax on gasoline has tripled, the cost of gasoline and heating oil has at least doubled, federal government spending and growth have increased geometrically, 1.5 million Canadians, including 600,000 younger ones, have been out of work for at least the last two years, interest rates are high now and moving higher, as our dollar yesterday reached an all-time low.
The one reason, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are going to elect a Brian Mulroney Government this summer is the general feeling that we can conduct the national business both more competently and more honourably.



CHANGE IN VOTING PROCEDURES

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in this day and age of advanced technology in information gathering and recording it is a regressive and backward practice to be a slave to a traditional voting procedure in this House which necessitates an individual personal response of standing and then bowing to the Chair in sequence to one's announced name.
As a medical doctor I feel that such a mode of voting, when numerous votes are scheduled on a given day, can be a type of psychological and physical torture to Members. Being confined to their seats for hours places considerable physical and emotional stress on Members, regardless of their baseline state of health. It is unwise to push Hon. Members to, or beyond, their physiological limits. These limits are marginal in those with underlying medical difficulties.
In other words, this traditional mode of voting in the House, carried out to the extreme as it was the night before last and through the early hours of the morning, can be a form of personal physical and mental assault on Members, and thus is no longer an acceptable procedure. I strongly recommend that the parliamentary committee which reviews the rules of procedure and the Standing Orders of the House should consider the introduction in the House of an electronically activated recording mechanism for voting, such as the one used by the United States House of Representatives.



DISASTERS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we are all shocked and saddened by the tragic events which occurred in one of Sudbury's mines on Wednesday morning. Four miners were trapped by a sandfill cave-in, and yesterday



*

*

June 22, 1984

the body of Sulo Korpela of Garson, Ontario, was found and removed from No. 5 shaft of the Falconbridge Mine.
Heroic rescue efforts were not enough to save the life of 22-year-old Wayne St. Michel who survived the ordeal for 27 hours, only to succumb to his injuries in hospital after his rescue. At this moment we are still anxiously awaiting the fate of two more miners whose presence is not yet accounted for.
As one who has lived in a mining town and has witnessed similar tragedies, I am painfully sensitive to the traumatic effects on the whole community, and the anxiety with which every bit of news about the situation underground and the fate of the miners and the rescue team is received. Our thoughts are with everyone who is touched by these tragic events in Sudbury.
I know the House would wish to join with me in expressing on behalf of all Canadians our deepest sympathies to the families of the deceased, as well as our hopes and prayers for those still missing. We also commend all those who, often at risk to their own lives and safety, are contributing in heroic fashion to the rescue efforts.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing higher interest rates to protect the Canadian dollar, which is falling out of sight. The reason is that money is being sucked out of the country to the United States.
News reports this morning quoted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) as saying that he approves of the economic policies being pursued in the United States. No one should be surprised that the Leader of the Opposition stands firmly behind Ronald Reagan, but everyone should be aware of what it means. One of the reasons for the growth of the American economy is a level of military spending which stands at the highest in the history of the world.
It is time to stop and look at what this massive military spending in the United States-and perhaps later in Canada- is doing. Helmut Schmidt, a former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and a defender of the Atlantic Alliance, made a statement recently in the New York "Review of Books". He said that because of this massive military spending:
The high interest rate policy-the highest real interest rates in centuries- dictated by the Reagan deficits let the world's richest economy become the world's greatest importer of capital. This has been occurring at the expense of real investment... and therefore employment in the other industrialized countries and in all the developing countries that do not export oil.
The policy of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Turner Liberals applauds the fact that it has cost thousands of jobs in Canada and driven poorer nations to the verge of bankruptcy. That is the kind of policy which they both want to adopt in Canada, and it has to stop.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. As he will know, the Canadian dollar has dropped yet again, this time this morning to 76.52 cents, a new record low. In light of such a dire situation, would the Minister tell the House whether it is the policy of the Canadian Government and of the Bank of Canada to allow interest rates to continue to rise in order to maintain the value of the dollar at its current level? If so, how high does the Minister think the Government will have to push up interest rates to achieve that purpose?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite will be aware, in drawing attention to the fact that the exchange rate with the U.S. dollar has indeed declined in past days, that at the same time the Canadian dollar has appreciated against every other major currency. Further, every major currency has depreciated against the U.S. dollar. Therefore the situation facing the Canadian dollar is not unlike that which faces every major currency at a time when interest rates in the United States are increasing.
Interest rates in the United States have increased as a result of high government deficit and high private sector borrowing. Such interest rates attract money into the United States, seeking a higher rate of return. Interest rates in Canada and in other countries then go up, and the exchange value of their currency vis-a-vis the United States dollar goes down.
What the Hon. Member opposite overlooks in drawing attention to the fact that in the last days we have seen a decline in all major currencies against the U.S. dollar is that the Canadian economy has been performing well. If he will wait until later this morning, Statistics Canada will release the first quarter national accounts. He will see from that that the growth in the first quarter has been very real. It has been at .8 per cent.


Mr. Andre:: Hallelujah!


Roy MacLaren: To the skeptics opposite, .8 per cent will give us an economic growth rate between 4 per cent and 5 per cent during 1984. The Hon. Member opposite scoffs at that. He thinks that a growth rate of 4 to 5 per cent during 1984 is something to laugh at. The OECD does not think it is something to laugh at. In fact it forecasts that our growth rate will be second only to Japan during the course of the current year.
Canada's economy is performing well. It performed well during the last quarter of 1983. With a revision upwards, to be released today, the growth rate in 1983 was 3.3 per cent, not 2.9 per cent as forecast in the Budget. The Canadian economy

June 22, 1984
Oral Questions
has in fact performed better than forecast. In those circumstances it is evident that the Canadian economy is strong, is growing, but equally that we are faced with a situation vis-avis the U.S. dollar that we share with all other major trading companies, that is our vulnerability to increases in U.S. interest rates.
1980 ELECTION PROMISE


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who has just blamed Canada's devastated dollar on trends in the United States and on policies of the American administration. In the February, 1980, election the present Prime Minister promised "to manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would in fact come down because the economy would be administered in a sounder way". That is what the then leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, promised in the 1980 election. In other words, the Prime Minister made a direct link between interest rates and sound management of the economy by the Canadian Government, not by the American Government. Now that interest rates are soaring, why has the Liberal Party changed its position so fundamentally on the issue, blaming the mess on the United States rather than on the incompetence of the Government?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite should know, if he does not already, that Canada to a substantial degree is dependent upon economic movements and trends in the United States. Having 70 per cent of our export trade with the United States we are vulnerable to exchange rate and interest rate movements there. Traditionally that vulnerability and the influence of U.S. interest rates in Canada have meant that Canadian interest rates have been a point or two or three above those in the United States as a means of attracting capital into Canada and retaining capital in Canada.
What has happened recently, thanks to the success of government policies and to the very real growth in the Canadian economy, including our success in beating inflation, is that the differential between Canadian and U.S. interest rates has largely closed. Today, for the first time in a long time, Canadian interest rates are only marginally above, and in some cases lower than, those in the United States. That is a measure of success of economic management in Canada.
The Hon. Member opposite speaks of some sort of regime in which Canada would be free of U.S. interest rate pressures. Throughout much of his question he quoted the Prime Minister. Let me quote back to him the words of his finance critic, the former Finance Minister in the Conservative Government. Back in 1979 he said:
We have a free market economy and the forces of competition will regulate rates.
That is what is happening today. We have a free market economy, and the forces of competition are regulating rates as
much today as when the Hon. Member for St. John's West spoke in 1979.
If that quotation is not enough for the Hon. Member opposite, let me remind him that the former Finance Minister of the Conservative Government also said in October, 1979, "We see why interest rates have had to continue to go up, and why they have gone up in the United States". That's why they have gone up in Canada. The situation today is no different. We have a free market economy, including free transfers of capital between our two countries. The borders are open. Unless the Hon. Member opposite has some cloud cuckoo-land idea about closing the borders between our two countries for currencies exchanges, he must know that American interest rates will continue to have a significant impact on Canadian interest rates.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In the 1980 election the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, said that high interest rates were a function of the sound management of the economy by the Canadian Government. Now members of the Liberal Party and of the present Government are saying that high interest rates in Canada, interest rates which are rising through the ceiling, are a function only of trends outside the country over which the Government has no control.
Would the Minister tell the House, and through the House the electorate of Canada, why it is that members of the Liberal Party promise one thing in an election campaign and do exactly the opposite when they get elected to government on the strength of those same promises? For instance, they campaigned against wage and price controls in 1974, and against high interest rates and high gasoline prices in 1980. Why is there such duplicity? Why the double standard? Why the hypocrisy for purely partisan purposes at the expense of the Canadian people who are now being punished by high interest rates and the incompetence of this administration?


Roy MacLaren: many, Switzerland, France or any other major trading country. Further, in the past, thanks to the management of the economy by the Government, we have had the opportunity to bring Canadian interest rates down to a level equal to those of the United States. That is a substantial achievement. It is one that we have not often seen in the past. It is an achievement which has brought real benefit to Canadians. Although we have closed the gap between U.S. interest rates and Canadian interest rates, if the Hon. Member opposite believes that there is some nostrum by which we can release ourselves completely from the influence of U.S. interest rates when we are the major trading partner of the United States, and when provincial Governments, the federal Government, and the private sector are dependent on U.S. capital markets, he is very much mistaken.


THE ECONOMY
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He must be the only one in the country who has any confidence left in the Government and the direction it is going.
If, in fact, things are so marvellous and if, in fact, we are growing at the rate the Minister indicates, how is it that the unemployment rate in Canada is 11.7 per cent compared to the unemployment rate of 7 per cent in the United States? How is it that the smart money of Canadian investors is leaving Canada as quickly as possible and heading for the United States, driving our dollar down? The dollar is falling like a stone, and interest rates are again reaching record levels.
In view of those circumstances, which can only be described as a crisis, could the Minister indicate when he expects the dollar to reach 70 cents U.S.? When does he expect interest rates to reach 15 per cent and 16 per cent? That is precisely what will happen unless there is some recognition by the Government that the country is in a crisis situation. The nonchalance and Pollyanna attitude of "I'm alright; everything is fine" is no satisfaction to the 1.5 million people who are unemployed and have no hope under the leadership of this Government.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that I would prefer to be a Pollyanna rather than a Dr. Pangloss or a Cassandra. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite raised about six points in one question. I should like to deal with the first point.
He raised the question of levels of unemployment in Canada. The Member opposite should know that the increase in our labour force has exceeded the rates in any other western industrialized country. For example, between 1968 and 1984 the growth in the Canadian labour force was 40 per cent. The growth rate of the labour force of the other five Summit
Oral Questions
countries averaged about 13 per cent. We have had a substantial growth in our labour force, a record growth which far exceeds the rate of growth in the labour force of any other industrialized country.
We have succeeded in creating jobs at record rates in an effort to provide employment for all those who seek employment in the workforce. Nevertheless, with the very high rate of growth in our labour force, there is, and there will continue to be, a level of unemployment which none of us are happy about and which we, as a Government, are continuing to combat through private sector policies and public sector policies.


CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA FORECAST
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, according to the economic overview of the Conference Board of Canada for 1984, Canada will have, under the policies of this Government-unless things change and there is an election- the worst growth rate in the coming year of the 14 nations which it surveyed. That is the confidence which the Conference Board and international investors have in the economic policies of the Government. That is the reason why the dollar is falling like a stone. That is the reason why interest rates are going up. That is the reason why 1.5 million unemployed Canadians have no hope for the future.
Has the Minister informed the new Leader of the seriousness of the situation? Can we expect some action from the new Leader? Obviously the current Prime Minister is not willing to take action. Can the Minister offer some hope to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians? If he cannot, will he recommend to his Leader that we have a general election soon in order that the people of Canada can have the chance to judge on the question?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, we are ready for a general election any time. We shall take on the Tories, and we shall beat them. If the Member opposite wants to quote statistics from the Conference Board, I could quote some statistics from the Gallup polls in connection with elections. He would do well to read those numbers. It might give him a more sober attitude toward his prospects.
However, if he wants to trade statistics and wants to quote the Conference Board, I should like to quote an organization which is a good deal more prestigious internationally then the one to which the Hon. Member referred. The OECD stated in its recent report that Canada's growth rate in 1984 will be greater than that of any other industrialized country, except Japan. The OECD forecasts a growth rate in Canada for 1984 of 4.5 per cent. That is approximately the same growth rate which the Government forecast in the April Budget. The OECD forecast for Japan is slightly higher. It is 4.75 per cent. However, for every other industrialized country the forecast growth rate is substantially lower than for Canada this year. The growth rate which is forecast for Germany is 3 per cent. The growth rate which is forecast for the United States is 2.5 per cent.

June 22, 1984
Oral Questions
The Member opposite is on the wrong track when he engages in his usual doom and gloom forecast about the Canadian economy. He should know that in almost every sector of the Canadian economy there was real growth in the last quarter of 1983. In the whole of 1983 there was a growth of 3.3 per cent. The continuation of that real growth during the first quarter of 1984 is spread over every section-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some concern with the length of the argument. The questions obviously invite long answers. Sometimes the answers are short, and sometimes they are longer, but is it fair to other Hon. Members who have been seeking day after day to be recognized? With regret, the Chair interrupts the Hon. Minister. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


OECD REPORT-REQUEST FOR NEW POLICY TO DEAL WITH INTEREST RATES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep my question short, although I cannot guarantee that the answer will be similarly short. It is directed to the same Minister. The OECD also indicated, in taking into account such things as unemployment and the decrease in domestic output and demand, that Canada's record is the second worst among the nations which the OECD surveys. Canada is second worst only to Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain. The Government indicated in its budget documents this year it expected that by 1985 unemployment would be down to 10.1 per cent. The OECD has indicated that it anticipates that the current level of 11.7 per cent will be maintained through the next 18 months to at least the end of 1985. It identifies the primary cause of this problem as being high interest rates in Canada.
I would ask the Minister of State what new policy will the Government come forth with, which will tackle the interest rate difficulties that the country presently faces, and which result in unemployment, decreased domestic demand, and people who are forced to face lives of misery?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is wrong when he quotes the OECD, if he is referring to its report of recent days. In fact the OECD stated, while reviewing Canadian unemployment, that it expected it to be at a rate of 11 per cent this year; not 11.7 per cent as the Hon. Member said. It cited that number as a result of what it described when it said:
Canada's economic performance last year was unexpectedly favourable-the recovery saw output rebound and unemployment ease, while inflation decelerated.
The fact is the OECD recognizes, as the Hon. Member does not seem to want to recognize, that as a result of bringing down inflation below 5 per cent-and it was 4.8 per cent in April-and as a result of our increases in productivity, we have succeeded in reaching record levels of export. We have also succeeded in improving our productivity and our international competitiveness to the point where we can have an interest rate
policy which will allow us to maintain our rates at the level of, or in some instances below, those of the United States.
I would say to the Hon. Member opposite, as I said earlier, that this is a very real achievement in Canadian economic management. If he believes that there is some way in which the Canadian financial markets can be isolated from the impact of the U.S. financial markets, he is mistaken.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members are crying "order" to the Chair. There have been six questions in a row which essentially put the same question. The format of a debate on interest rates, employment, projections, and forecasts, within Question Period does raise very serious problems for the Chair in terms of the length of answers and in terms of the nature of the questions which invite long answers. It is for Hon. Members to decide if there is to be an equitable sharing of Question Period time with back-benchers. I am inviting Hon. Members and Ministers to bear in mind that there are other Hon. Members who would like to be recognized.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate you lecturing those people beside me. It is time they shortened their questions.
However, I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. Recognizing that the OECD identified that the average level of unemployment among the member nations would be 8.5 per cent in the foreseeable future, at least until 1985, and recognizing that Canada's interest rate was identified to be at the level of approximately 11.7 per cent, as I said before-during the same period, and that Canada's record is the second worst in the world as it is monitored by OECD, and that interest rates are the primary reason, why does the Government not rethink its position with regard to tying itself so closely to the U.S. interest rate structure, strike out on its own, and attempt to establish some sense of fiscal responsibility, while at the same time recognizing that people in Canada must have jobs in order to eat?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member speaks about fiscal responsibility he should recognize that we have managed our economy and government spending in a way which stands comparison with any of the industrialized countries. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member overlooks a factor which the OECD does not, that is, that the Canadian labour force has been growing faster than any other industrialized country. It has grown faster for the past two decades.
We have had the challenge of producing proportionately jobs for many more people than other industrialized countries. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we have created three million more jobs since 1968, at a rate which stands comparison with and, indeed, exceeds that of other industrialized countries. The
June 22, 1984

root problem of unemployment in Canada is not economic management but the very large numbers of new workers coming into the workforce during the past two decades.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that last answer is absolute nonsense. The 1.5 million people who are unemployed are primarily people who were in the workforce up until two years ago and who no longer can find employment.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the Government's answer to the falling dollar has apparently been higher interest rates in Canada, and recognizing that higher interest rates have in fact caused unemployment, have in fact reduced economic output in this country, have slowed down consumer demand, and have not resulted in a strengthening of the Canadian dollar, are there no alternative measures which can be proposed by the Government which will in any way ease the massive problems which unemployment creates? Is there no way the Government can bring forward new policies, rather than simply following lockstep the policy of the U.S.A. which is intended to solve its problems, not ours?


Roy MacLaren: The
Hon. Member opposite, Mr. Speaker, should be aware that Canada is a principal beneficiary of economic growth in the United States and, more important, a principal beneficiary of the high degree of trade with the United States. Does the Hon. Member opposite seriously want to jeopardize our trade with the United States which, as I mentioned earlier, represents some 70 per cent of our total export trade? Does he believe that there are practical ways in which Canada can somehow maintain an independent interest rate policy-


Ian Deans: Yes!


Roy MacLaren: -while at the same time benefiting from trade with the United States?


Ian Deans: Yes!


Roy MacLaren: Well, I shall tell the Member opposite that that is not so.


Ian Deans: Other countries have done it.


Roy MacLaren: You cannot. One cannot maintain a high level of trade with another trading partner and at the same time cut off capital flows between the two countries.


Ian Deans: What did Japan do?


Roy MacLaren: Does the Hon. Member opposite believe, in addition, that we are going to curtail the free flow of capital with regard to tourists and with regard to the purchase of seasonal produce? Are we going to tell the stock markets of Canada and the United States that they can no longer engage
Oral Questions
in a free market, and tell provincial Governments that they may no longer borrow on the U.S. capital markets?


Ian Deans: Are you going to tell the unemployed that they can starve?


Roy MacLaren: There would-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair again hesitates to interrupt, but in 25 minutes only three questioners have been recognized. The Chair will now recognize the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River.


DISASTERS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. I know that the Minister is aware, as we all are, of the tragic events which occurred at the Falconbridge Mine in Sudbury. I know that the Minister is as concerned as we all are for the families of the two Miners who lost their lives. I wonder if he could take this opportunity to update us on the situation there, particularly with regard to the safety of the mine. What is the Minister's latest information?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am sure he joins me, along with all Hon. Members of the House, in expressing our deep sympathy to the families of the two miners who lost their lives, Mr. Wayne St. Michel and Mr. Sulo Korpela, and we would also like to express the hope that the other two miners will be found alive.
This is certainly a tragic accident, and I believe it shows that we have to redouble our efforts in health and safety in that respect. We on this side, certainly, through CanMet, intend to do just that. We are at the service of Falconbridge and the Ontario Government in helping to investigate. The Ontario Minister of Mines will be calling an investigation into the accident and we stand ready to help with our research branch.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must on the whole redouble our efforts to find out why these things happen so that we can try to prevent them in future. The mine is closed at the moment, and I have no indication of when it might open, but we are certainly working closely with the company and doing all we can.


FUTURE OF MINE
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it might be early for the Minister to make an assessment. I know his officials have worked with the provincial officials who are on the scene. A shock like this disaster is always more difficult to absorb for a community which is already hard hit by the uncongenial economic circumstances

June 22, 1984
Oral Questions
which the mining industry faces at the moment. May I ask the Minister whether he would be prepared, perhaps next week, to make a statement in connection with this accident, particularly with reference to the future of the mine? Can the mine be repaired? Can the situation be improved so that working conditions will be safe? Can the Minister give us the assurance that everything possible will be done to save the jobs of those people who are, hopefully, out of work only on a temporary basis?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is also my hope that this is a temporary situation. We will be keeping in touch with the company and with the Ontario Department of Mines in order to make sure that everything possible is done. If it is possible to reopen the mine in the near future, I would hope that that will be done. Certainly next week I should have further information, as we keep in touch on a regular basis.


NATIONAL REVENUE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the Minister of National Revenue, but since he is not in the House, perhaps I may direct it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, if I may have his attention, in the hope that he will want to make a final decision for the arts community in Canada.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister is aware that the treatment received by musicians with the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra with respect to their income tax is less favourable than it is for members of the Toronto Symphony. Since working conditions in both orchestras are practically identical, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House when his Government is going to stop discriminating against Western Canadians and when it is going to change the rules for musicians with the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I am not aware of the situation. If the Hon. Member had given me advance notice, I could have checked the facts.
Nevertheless, I object to the Hon. Member's insinuation, and this is typical of the Official Opposition, that we are discriminating against the West. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the situation is in Vancouver compared to Toronto. If the situation is as the Hon. Member says, I would be surprised if similar circumstances did not exist in Halifax or Moncton, for instance.
So are we discriminating against the West or against the East? I would be surprised if there were not some orchestra in
Quebec whose circumstances were a bit different from the one in Toronto. Why does the Official Opposition insist on spreading the myth of systematic bashing of Western Canada by the Government? This comes up in all their questions, and I am sick and tired of it!


TREATMENT OF TORONTO MUSICIANS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain how his Government, his Minister of National Revenue, was able to make a decision to change the treatment given to the Toronto musicians while the sub-committee studying the matter was still studying the matter, and now he is unable to make a decision about Vancouver?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we were unable to make a decision about Vancouver. I said the Hon. Member did not have the courtesy of giving me notice of the question; therefore I do not know the answer. I did object to his insinuation that we are discriminating against the West, which is a pure fabrication on his part, which is added on to the question and which has nothing to do with the difference between the orchestra in Vancouver and that in Toronto. But it will not be the first time that pettiness emerges from the other side.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Just salute western Canada again.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-GRANT PAID TO EAST COAST ENERGY LIMITED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I have a report which says the Government of Canada paid $1,645,540 to a company called East Coast Energy Limited between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1983. A Mr. Walter Wolf, in part of that period, owned 10 per cent of the shares of East Coast Energy. Mr. Wolf has declared he participated in the funding of the dump Clark campaign.
Has the Government investigated East Coast Energy to see if any directors were doing any political work at the same time the company got the grant, and were being paid, directly or indirectly, with Canadian Government money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no knowledge of the facts or of whether an investigation has taken place. I presume the Hon. Member is not making an allegation. If he is, we will investigate. If he is just stirring up dirt, then I will not investigate.
June 22, 1984


PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL WORK
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about this $1.6 million in PIP grants going to this company. Mr. Wolfs nominee on K.D. Marine (Maritime) Ltd., Michael Cogger, said he was paid a retainer of between $3,000 and $4,000 to do political work. A Mr. Alfred Doucet, in June, 1981, was a shareholder in East Coast Energy and he went on to do political work as chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition. In light of that, what assurances does the Government have that no government money went to pay directors of this company to do political work? Wolfs nominees and directors were doing political work in other companies with which he was associated. If the Government does not have those assurances, is it not worth doing some sort of investigation, since this involves $1.6 million in government money?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has a concern again about the nature of the question. It seems to the Chair that such a question should be on the Order Paper, the response to which can possibly be followed up. A presumption that knowledge in that level of detail about a specific situation could be expected of the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet seems to be unreasonable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can ask the Prime Minister a more general question. The Prime Minister must be concerned, as a lot of people are, that it is getting pretty expensive to pay for a political leadership campaign. One can easily end up in the hands of big business, big labour, or whatever it is. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to start an investigation into ways of funding and accountability, so it can be above board, to pay for leadership campaigns of any political Party in Canada on the federal level, in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, now I understand the Member is making a representation. It may well be a valid one. If I do teach political science in the future, I will make it the subject of a thesis for one of my students.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He kind of promised the whole field to the people of the agricultural community while he was campaigning in the Liberal leadership campaign. He has not been able to get much done in the last 12 years. Is he going to table the Bill today regarding red meat stabilization? If he is, does he have any House time from the House Leader to get that Bill through? The livestock industry is in serious trouble in Canada and is looking to this Bill as an opportunity to breathe some life into that community.
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to follow my track record he will find that there are very few federal Ministers of Agriculture who have as good a track record as I have in performance for the agricultural community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is just what John Turner was saying to me the other day.


Eugene Whelan: Any of the things I promised in the campaign are all reasonable and possible, if anyone wants to put them in place. I understand the Bill will be given first reading today. We have already had discussions about it. It is a reasonable Bill, and I am sure we can find reasonable time to have it passed so that whoever happens to be the federal Minister of Agriculture can deal with the provinces on July 20, I believe, on that Bill. They are the ones who want it. That is the kind of Bill they want, and I am sure it is not an unreasonable presentation. He will see it when it is presented to the House later today.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the Minister is not too sure that he will remain the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps he is making some announcement today.


PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister waited so long to bring these bills forward? The Western Grain Stabilization Bill is here and it is needed by the agricultural community, as is this other Bill. Can he give any assurances that he will press for House time to get these Bills through next week?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have already had discussions. The Western Grain Stabilization Act is not a controversial piece of legislation. I am sure if the House wanted to take ten or fifteen minutes we could pass them all.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Some weeks ago he stated that if he became Prime Minister he would establish 12 per cent interest rates for farmers. Now that he is not going to be Prime Minister, has he given up on the 12 per cent, or has he given up on the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I quoted a well-known Albertan, the head of the Nova Corporation, who said in August of 1982 that interest rates should not be over 12 per cent and there should be international monetary control. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of that person. We know one another to speak to one another, and we certainly agree on that. It might be even better if you had that

June 22, 1984
Oral Questions
farmers' bank that I talked about. We could call it a "gene" bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, there are seven Cabinet Ministers here out of 37. We should either have an election, or someone should make them come here and do their job.


Mr. Rossi:: Where is Mulroney?


Frank Oberle: Out saving the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is aware that comments on the presence or absence of Hon. Members in the House are not in order. The Chair can only observe that it appears to be a general phenomenon.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which of the seven Ministers is prepared to answer for government policy but I am very disturbed about this. Backbenchers in all three Parties in this House are concerned about safety in the workplace. We worked until 1.30 this morning trying to increase the degree of safety for workers. However, it is now clear that it is government policy that the rights we extend to workers to protect their safety are rights that the Government is not prepared to give to unborn children.
Pregnant women will not be able to refuse a task in the workplace simply to protect the life of an unborn child. When did the Government reach that policy decision, and is it willing to reconsider that policy decision? I am pleased to see that the Minister of Labour has just come back into the Chamber. Perhaps he can answer that for us.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that discussions that took place in committee should be commented on in this way in the House. The question was debated and it was even voted on and settled in committee.


SAFETY OF UNBORN CHILDREN
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am not commenting on a vote taken in committee. I am commenting on the fact that the spokesperson on behalf of the Government told Members of Parliament of the three Parties that it was government policy that unborn children would not have the same protection in the workplace as other people would have. I am wondering when that decision was reached and whether
the Government is willing to reconsider that decision and give that protection to unborn children. That is all I am asking.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is all wet. He does not reflect accurately the discussion which took place in committee. He cannot do that. He should know better. The rules of Parliament do not allow him to comment on discussions that took place in committee. The report of the committee is not even presented. I think it is grossly unfair of the Hon. Member to reflect on the discussion which took place in the committee, and more particularly to reflect in such a contrary way on the discussion which took place there.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Labour tell us whether it is the policy of the Government that practices and regulations respecting the workplace will not extend protection to unborn children? If that is the policy of the Government, will the Minister tell us why that is, and whether the Government is prepared to change that policy?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the former Leader of the Official Opposition and former Prime Minister would certainly have been welcome last night in committee to express his position. The question was voted on when the Bill was being considered, and I think I have nothing to add to what was said yesterday.


MEDICAL CARE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare perhaps the Minister of State (Finance) may be able to comment on this. In Ontario some of the acute hospital care beds are being surcharged $100 a week over and above the cost of the bed. This charge is being made to patients who are forced to wait for a transfer to chronic care or nursing homes. What action has the Government taken to ensure that the Ontario Government will stop this outrageous use of the sick and elderly as hostages for extortion?


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary may answer if he wishes. However, it appears to be a question within provincial jurisdiction or policy.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, what you say is absolutely correct. It is a question primarily within the provincial sphere. As far as the federal Government is con-
June 22, 1984

cerned, the question is well looked after within the Canada Health Act. The sanctions are in place. If the provinces disagree with the position of the Canada Health Act they are within their rights to take whatever legal action they can. We feel the protection is there for the citizens of Canada. We only ask the provinces to do what we feel is equitable for those same people. If they do not, the provisions are there to deal with the inequitable actions of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary. The Chair is concerned about the jurisdictional aspect of the question.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raised the question in this jurisdiction is because of the Canada Health Act which the hon. Parliamentary Secretary has just mentioned.


ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Is the Ministry of National Health and Welfare taking action with Ontario to ensure, inasmuch as the Government pays part of the cost of the health program in Ontario, that the health program in Ontario will be protected so that the patients in these cases will not be overcharged by this $100 a week? What action is the Government taking to ensure that Ontario honours the obligation which it undertakes by receiving the money from the federal Government?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member. That concern is shared by myself and many other Members as well. I am sure that he can appreciate that the federal Government has no way of intervening in provincial jurisdiction. Discussions are continually taking place between the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the one hand and the provincial Ministers of Health on the other. Dialogue is continuing. The Minister is presenting what she would like to and hopes to see in relation to this situation. However, what the provinces do within their own sphere of jurisdiction is entirely up to them. All we can do is follow the regulations and stipulations as set down under the Canada Health Act and deal with them as the Act provides.


PRIVILEGE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in replying to my question during the past hour. I notice that the Prime Minister has left the Chamber. Perhaps I could reserve my right to raise this question when the Prime Minister is present and after I have had a chance to refer to the record in
Privilege-Mr. Clarke
Hansard. During his response I heard the Prime Minister say the words "complete fabrication".
Referring to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition I note in Section 320(2) that "Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:" Included therein are several examples of the word "fabrication". With Your Honour's permission I would like to reserve my rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member alleging unparliamentary language?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is alleging unparliamentary language, the Chair is concerned with the changing practices of the House. If the Chair attempted to enforce all the items on a list of 1958, the proceedings of the House would be substantially disrupted. The Chair will review the "blues" and will see if, in the judgment of the Chair, there is an element of unparliamentary language, if that is the allegation of the Hon. Member.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I obviously have not had the time to consider at any length the implications of the statement you just made. However, I think that many of us in the House would be concerned if the Chair were going to use the occasion of this particular matter to render a judgment which would make obsolete a list that has been serving the House-


Mr. Pinard:: That is not what he said.


Charles Joseph Clark: -of terms that were seen to be unparliamentary. If that is in the mind of the Speaker, I am sure he would be the first to admit that Members of Parliament would both want and have the right to have an opportunity to debate that question before a decision were entered.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the present occupant of the chair has been in the chair, the term "fabrication" has been used so often I could not count it. If the suggestion is that the Chair should go back to the list of 1958 and literally try to enforce it, I can only say that, in the judgment of the present occupant of the chair, the usage has changed so substantially from that time that I do not think Hon. Members would accept it. The Chair is quite prepared to look at situations where unparliamentary language is used. If Hon. Members have a view that unparliamentary language is used, the Chair is quite prepared to look at situations.
However, the Chair must be expected to exercise consistency. The Chair has overlooked the term "fabrication" so often that to ask the Chair in this instance to judge it unparliamentary is to ask for a substantial break in recent practice of the House.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Chair will give due consideration to the record as it appears and to the list as it appears. I am sure that the Chair would not wish, by any decision which it would arrive at, to authorize the use of all of
5072

June 22, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Clarke
the words that are in the list which the Speaker referred to as the 1958 list. It only says that "Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:". If that list were to be liberated, we would find such expressions allowed as "sick animal, pompous ass, bullshit", and a few others all the way down to "treason" and "untrue".


Yvon Pinard: Order. That is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not fair. The Chair has tried to use discretion and good judgment. I can remember on one occasion the Chair ruled an expression about a chief reptile unparliamentary. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is laughing because he well recalls the occasion. Let me quote from the latest edition of Erskine May, the Twentieth Edition, page viii of the Preface:
Such a list can never be exhaustive and its value to the Chair appears increasingly doubtful. Those who wish to learn of expressions which have been held disorderly from time to time in this and other Parliaments may continue to have recourse to the annual volumes of 'The Table' (the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments).
The Chair is trying to indicate the policy that the Chair will follow. An expression that appears to contribute to the disorder of the House will be very carefully examined. Use of unparliamentary language is something that the Chair feels does offend the decorum and dignity of the House. As such, the Chair will try to exercise its best judgment in the circumstances. However, the term "fabrication", I call to the attention of Hon. Members, has been used frequently in the House.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my only concern is that the term "a complete fabrication" is synonymous with calling a person a liar. While other words may be used, I know that the word "lying" has not been allowed. It is really synonymous.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has accepted "fabrication" in place of "lying". When the Chair has asked a Member to withdraw that word, the Member has said: "I withdraw the accusation that so and so is lying; it is just a fabrication that he uttered".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has accepted it. The Chair is simply calling to the attention of Hon. Members that they have to expect the Chair to be reasonably consistent. Do not ask the Chair to rule as unparliamentary expressions that have been used on a number of occasions by different members of the Hon. Member's Party.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on one of these rare occasions to support the Chair wholeheartedly and to suggest to the House that, this being 1984 and the punk era, perhaps we could update our swear list in the fall.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that that is helpful.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Government House Leader also wants to gain the floor. I was going to suggest that perhaps the way to solve this problem is simple and straightforward. Let us call a lie a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that that is helpful.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members in this House who think they know everything. They are behaving like real aliborons. I repeat: they are behaving like aliborons.
Words should be considered in the proper context. I think it is wrong to take a word out of context, interpret it subjectively, and thus give us an erroneous interpretation.
I think the Chair is right in saying that lists of words that go back to 1958, and I see here the word "ignoramus". Apparently, it is unparliamentary to call someone an ignoramus. To say that is to say somebody is ignorant. I think this is absurd and out-dated. I think we have all heard expressions that shock us a bit more than that one. In any case, people who are claiming today that the word "fabrication" is unparliamentary do not know what they are talking about.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use up too much time on this matter but there is an important element to it. I am concerned about the kind of advice that you are getting, not only from members of the New Democratic Party who are now suggesting that we accept the use of the word "lying" and "liar", but from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who is condoning the use of derisive references to Members of this Chamber.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament who has served for some years now, will fully understand that what we are talking about now is the integrity of this institution. We are not talking about whether individuals are worthy of serving in this particular institution but whether we are going to have a poisonous aspect to our debates and an element of unreasonable personal accusations in debate. We want to avoid that. We want to debate the issues.
There are strong feelings held with respect to the issues and with respect to the personalities in the House. I do not think that this is a flippant matter at all. I do not think that the way we address each other and address this Chamber is a laughing matter at all. I do not think these matters are cute or funny at all.
I suggest that we get the kind of legislature we deserve by virtue of our activities and the way in which Members of Parliament conduct themselves. There is a difference between levity and accusations against another Member. I think that should always be in the back of the minds of Members of Parliament, even as we come to the end of this Parliament.
The important consideration is that this is a great country and a great institution and we are only worthy of serving here
June 22, 1984

if we in fact respect each other despite our political differences.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot help but agree with everything that the Hon. Member has said. I will review the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not at all want to prolong this. I believe there may well be a problem for Private Members of the House to which I want to draw your attention, although I am sure you are already seized of it.
The practice has been that when there is a suspicion of unparliamentary language, either the Chair intervenes or a Member raises a point of order based upon the list at hand. I quite understand that the passage of time may have ruled as acceptable language which might not have been acceptable at an earlier time and that the list may be in need of changes. However, if the Speaker needs a list for his interventions on these matters, so do Private Members need a list for our interventions on the matter.
My simple request would be that if there is to be a change in the list or in the principles determining language that will be parliamentary and unparliamentary, those of us who sit in the House and might be either guilty of using that language or accused of being guilty of using that language would like to know what the new standards are. That is the extent of my request.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's request is very reasonable. It is not easily answered. The Chair will certainly reflect on the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 171, 533, 632 and 715.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Expert Advisory Committee on the Management of Severe Pain and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: 1. Yes, there is an Expert Advisory Committee on the Management of Severe Pain. This was established by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, December 31, 1982, when the Minister wrote to each member confirming their participation on the Committee.
1. (a) and (b)(i) The members of the Expert Advisory Committee and their background or expertise are as follows:

June 22, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Dr. Gordon W. Bethune,
Professor,
Department of Surgery,
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Dr. Louise M. Chevalier, Associate Professor,
McGill University,
Director, Oncology Clinic, Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec.
Dr. John G. Edmeads, Associate Professor, University of Toronto,
Head, Division of Neurology, Sunnybrook Medical Centre, Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. Robert A. Macbeth, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute of Canada,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. J. William Meakin, Executive Director,
Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. Paul A. Mitenko,
Associate Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dr. Balfour M. Mount, Professor of Surgery, McGill University, Director, Palliative Care, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec.
Dr. Ian H. Plenderleith,
Professor of Medicine,
University of British Columbia,
Clinical Head, Medical Oncology,
Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dr. Yves Quenneville, Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec.
Dr. Edward M. Sellers (Chairman),
Professor of Medicine,
University of Toronto,
Director, Clinical Research,
Institute Addiction Research Foundation,
Toronto, Ontario.
(ii) Members of the Export Advisory Committee were appointed for the time required to accomplish the task of the Committee, namely producing a review document of therapeutic monograph on the medical management of severe pain.
(c) The members of the Committee receive no salary. As expert medical consultants, the members receive a per day fee of $250 for the time involved in committee meetings, in addition to travel and accommodation expenses for attending these meetings, in line with federal Government travel regulations.
The total amounts received to date by each member are: (Note: Travel and accommodation costs for March 9 meeting not yet available.)
	Remuneration	Travel and Accommodations
Dr. G. E. Bethune	$ 1,500	$ 2,170.39Dr. L. M. Chevalier	2,250	1,593.40Dr. J. G. Edmeads	2,250	363.15Dr. R. A. Macbeth	2,250	955.25Dr. J. W. Meakin	3,000	726.92Dr. P. A. Mitenko	4,250	3,021.85Dr. B. M. Mount	2,000	1,203.74Dr. I. H. Plenderleith	2,250	4,796.71Dr. Y. Quenneville	2,625	1,617.23Dr. E. M. Sellers	4,375	1,090.56(d) Additional funding: (i) Ad-hoc consultants to the Com-	nittee (non-public servants)	Remuneration	Travel and AccommodationsDr. D. Jasinski	$ Nil	$ NilDr. R. Melzack	250	230.00Dr. H. Mersky	250	297.75Dr. R. Twycross	750	1,206.80(ii)	Public Servants Travel-$ 4,109.84.(iii)	Other administrative costs (i.e. rental of meeting rooms, hospitality, rental of flip charts, photocopies)-$1,616.17.
2. (a) The terms of reference of the Expert Advisory Committee on the Management of Severe Pain are as follows: (i) to provide a review document or therapeutic monograph for distribution in Canada on the medical management of severe pain; (ii) to discuss within this document the optimal clinical use of various analgestic drugs, including the medical need for heroin, for the treatment of pain associated with preterminal malignant disease.

June 22, 1984

(b)	Not applicable. The Committee was established in 198283, with the first meeting scheduled for the fiscal year 1983-84.
(c)	The Committee did not meet in 1982-83. There is no requirement as to how often the Committee is required to meet. However, it is expected that the Committee will meet at least seven times in 1983-84.
(d)	No reports or recommendations were published in the fiscal year 1982-83. A report is expected sometime in 1984.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1. Executive Officers of AECL
(a)	(b)
Name	Position
Robert Despres James Donnelly L. Amyot P. R. Cote
H. T. Hughes
D.	D. Molnar A. J. Mooradian W. P. O'Neill
A. Scott R. Veilleux T. A. Wardrop
E.	Deslauriers
Chairman of the Board
President and Chief Executive Officer
Vice-President, Quebec Operations
Corporate Vice-President and General Manager,
Maritime Nuclear
Vice-President, Personnel
Vice-President, Finance
Senior Vice-President
Corporate Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer Secretary
Vice-President, Public and Governmental Affairs
General Counsel
Treasurer
Board of Directors of AECL (a)
Name
(b)
Position
Robert Despres James Donnelly B. A. Beneteau
L.	J. Celeste
A. Charron
M.	A. Cohen D. A. Golden P. M. Liba
H. W. Macdonell, Q.C. G. M. MacNabb
D. J. Smith P. M. Tellier
Chairman of the Board
President and Chief Executive Officer
Vice-Chairman, Northern Telecom Limited
Vice-President, Planning, New Brunswick Telephone
Company Limited
President, Levesque Beaubien Inc.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance Chairman of the Board, Telesat Canada Executive Vice-President, CanWest Broadcasting Limited
Partner, McCarthy and McCarthy President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council President, Ellis-Don Limited
Deputy Minister, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Information regarding individual salaries cannot be released to the public because AECL considers such information to be of a personal and confidential nature. However, total salaries paid to AECL's executive officers in respect of the above positions in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 were
Order Paper Questions
$999,699 and payments to the Board of Directors were $47,100.
Mr. A. Scott is not included in the salary total because he was not an executive officer during 1982-83.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Advisory Committee on Federal Water Strategies and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the Fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
Yes. (a) See below, (b) (i) Dr. Peter Pearse, Chairman, Ms. Frangoise Bertrand, member, Mr. James MacLaren, member.
(ii)	Dr. Pearse-Professor of Economics and Forestry at University of British Columbia and a specialist in resource management. He is member of the Economic Council of Canada and most recently served as Commissioner of Inquiry to examine the Pacific Coast fishing industry.
Ms. Bertrand-Associate Dean of Resource Management, University of Quebec at Montreal.
Mr. MacLaren-Headed nationwide firm of consulting engineers in Toronto until recently.
(iii)	Eighteen months for all three members, beginning January 27, 1984.
(c)	(i) Salary-Chairman-$400 per diem to a maximum of $80,000 for full term. Members-$300 per diem to a maximum of $45,000 each for full term. Travel Expenses-Are to be covered in full as per Treasury Board directives.
(ii) None.
(d)	A ceiling of $1.5 million has been set on the Committee work, which will cover remuneration to Committee members, salary of a full time secretariat (five employees), travel, work contracted out, expenses associated with public hearings, and publishing reports.
2. (a), (b), (c) and (d) No. Not applicable.
Terms of Reference For Advisory Committee on Federal Water Strategies
Given the distinctive geography of Canada and the character of water as a natural resource which has significant national and interjurisdictional dimensions, the Committee will report and make recommendations within 18 months on the following and, in particular, on specific strategies which the Government of Canada should adopt in support of such recommendations:
(1)	identify and substantiate the nature of emerging water issues, including the interjurisdictional dimensions thereof;

June 22, 1984
Order Paper Questions
(2)	identify available supplies and future requirements for the conservation, development and utilization of water resources so as to ensure the enhancement of the health, well-being and prosperity of the people of Canada, including, continued regional economic growth and the quality of the Canadian environment, together with estimates of benefits and costs where possible;
(3)	seek the views of governments and governmental bodies, private citizens, public groups, industry and the academic community with regard to such issues as future supplies and requirements;
(4)	assess the needs for and nature of additional scientific and research expertise in water management in Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canadian Dairy Commission Advisory Committee and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, pursuant to Section 5 of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. (a) The Advisory Committee advises the Canadian Dairy Commission with respect to matters arising under the Act and as are referred to it by the Minister or the Commission.
(b)	(i)	(ii)	(iii)
Term of Appointment
Members	Expertise & Organization Affiliation	From	ToClaude Chevalier (President of Committee)	Dairy product advertising Dairy Bureau of Canada	01/11/83	01/11/86Ken McKinnon	Dairy Farmer Ontario Milk Marketing Board	01/11/81	01/11/84Jacques Boucher	Dairy Farmer L'Office des producteurs de lait du Quebec	01/11/83	01/11/86Raynald Giroux	Dairy Processor Agropur	14/01/83	13/01/86Neil Gray	Dairy Processor Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association	01/11/81	01/11/84Raymond Lafrance	Dairy Processor St. Albert Co-Operative Cheese Manufacturing Association	06/10/83	01/11/86Gilbert Vienneau	Food Retailer Retail Council of Canada	20/12/83	20/12/86Eugene Vallee	Food Retailer Association des detaillants du Quebec	14/01/83	14/01/86Victoria Billingsley	Consumer Advocate Consumers' Association of Canada	14/01/83	13/01/86
(d) No other direct funding is provided. However, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the Canadian Dairy Commission budget.
2. (a) In 1982-83, the Committee met twice.
(b)	No fixed number of meetings is required.
(c)	The Committee has been considering subjects such as alternative domestic skim milk powder pricing systems, dairy product promotion and sales to the food service industry, the quality of dairy products, and monitoring programs, attitudes towards nutrition and health aspects of dairy products, coordination of industrial and fluid milk price increase announcements, new users for skim milk powder, and low fat dairy products, etc.
(d)	The Committee's opinions and recommendations are not published but are recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(c) Remuneration and expenses are fixed by the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 6(2) of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act; The members all receive the same per diem rate of $200 per day for attendance at meetings of the Committee as well as $200 a day for the time spent to travel to attend meetings and return home, plus travel and accommodation expenses.
Members Claude Chevalier	$	2,107.35Ken McKinnon	$	7,098.34Jacques Boucher	$	6,625.05Raynald Giroux	$	6,129.72Neil Gray	$	15,077.15Dwight Stacey	$	4,141.81Francis Goulet	$	2,034.30Eugene Vallee	$	5,434.55Victoria Billingsley	$	17,033.19Gilbert Vinneau	NoneRaymond Lafrance	None
Former Members
June 22, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary escaped quickly, but I want to bring to his attention that questions Nos. 302 to 317 inclusive were put on the Order Paper on December 20. The Government is now in the process of attempting to sell NTCL and these questions have not been answered. I have commitments that they shall be answered. Will the Parliamentary Secretary in fact be answering them next week?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make it again if necessary.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that, as I indicated yesterday, there is unanimous consent to allow second reading of Bill C-47 to take place now without debate. After that, I would like to rise on a point of order to outline the business for Tuesday.


Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Indian Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the business for Tuesday will be Bill C-5, which is a Bill that has been reported by the committee, it was in the committee for ten minutes or so; Bill C-7 which is at report stage; Bill C-8 which is at report stage;
Old Age Security Act
Bill C-49 which was introduced yesterday; and Bill C-43. We will proceed in that order.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (for the Minister of National
Health and Welfare) moved that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary might like to have preceded me, and if he so wishes, I would be quite happy to accommodate him.


Mr. Speaker:: It has just been brought to my attention that a Minister should have moved the motion for third reading of Bill C-40 rather than the Parliamentary Secretary. The Bill will, therefore, be moved by Mr. Pinard.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say that I am quite prepared to speak following the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to lead off this third reading debate. I thought perhaps we might have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary initially. I am hoping that he will have something to say on this Bill that will be news for us. There are some areas that were raised in the committee stage which we had hoped the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary might have addressed this morning.
Let me say first that I am a little disappointed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is not here today. It would seem to me that a Bill as important as this one on pensions, about which the Minister from time to time has shown such concern over the years, is not one she sees fit to bring into the House herself at third reading. She may very well have some important business to attend to today and I am in no way denigrating the presence today of her Parliamentary Secretary. In my ten years in the House and with the experience I have had with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, there has never been a Parliamentary Secretary more co-operative with us in the Opposition and easy to get along with in a non-partisan way than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLellan). We appreciate his co-operation because occasionally we are sometimes too partisan on certain important issues.
Be that as it may, it is disappointing to note that the Minister is not here. I thought she would have some rather

June 22, 1984
Old Age Security Act
interesting announcements about some new thoughts or attitudes she might have toward addressing the income security problems of the disabled, particularly those who receive workmen's compensation benefits or compensation itself. However, we hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address that.
As we move into third reading, the purpose of this Bill is to make amendments to the Old Age Security Act, and in particular to change the maximum amounts payable under the guaranteed income supplement. None of us will dispute the need and we are glad the Government has seen its way clear to bring in something that will bring to a more reasonable level the payments made under the guaranteed income supplement Act for certain pensioners.
In addition the Bill does provide a number of technical amendments that are certainly non-controversial, such as amendments regarding residency requirements with respect to retroactivity for people who have, for one reason or another, not made their application at the usual time for benefits. I do not think we want to debate that or indicate any question about the wisdom of those technical amendments.
As for the general purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition support it completely and as a result we are willing to support this Bill. But I think it is incumbent upon us to point out to the Government and to the people that this Bill does not really address the whole problem of pension reform. When one considers the amount of talk we have had from the Government for years and years, going back at least five years, and the number of times we have heard the Minister herself speak about the need for pension reform, we would have thought that by this time, particularly with an election in the offing, we would have had something more definitive and substantive regarding the question of pensions.
Let us look at what Bill C-40 does address and at the very limited way it addresses the subject of appropriate increases to the guaranteed income supplement. The actual amount of the increase will be $25 effective in a few days, on July 1, and another $25 effective on December 1, for a total of $50. I will not become involved in giving statistics in this third reading debate. However, I remind the House, the Parliamentary Secretary and through him the Minister, that when the OAS and GIS were originally brought into effect in this country there was an existing relationship between the maximum combined payment available and the average industrial wage. The maximum payment available under OAS and GIS amounted to approximately 20 per cent of the average industrial wage. One might have argued that it should have been more, but nonetheless that was the figure accepted at that time. It is interesting to note that today even with a $50 increase, the level is only 14 per cent of the average industrial wage in Canada.
The Government could have avoided completely the necessity of this catch-up Bill if it had treated our senior citizens more properly from the beginning. Having given them an initial payment which amounted to 20 per cent of the average
industrial wage, why did it not see fit in the interim-and it has been in government most of the time since then-to maintain that ratio? Rather, it let it slip down to 14 per cent, as is the case now, just because it refused to increase the payments sufficiently to maintain that ratio in light of the inflation we have suffered. It is disappointing that we have to deal with this Bill when it could have been completely avoided had the Government maintained its original promise of a payment sufficient to provide 20 per cent of the average industrial wage.
Let me look at the delays of the Government in most recent years, particularly this year, in bringing forth such a simple amendment to the Old Age Security Act. The Minister has repeatedly said over the years that pensions were one of her prime concerns. We took her word on that. It was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in December, 1983 that it would be a priority of the Government to increase the benefits payable to pensioners, particularly those entitled to GIS benefits. Then we had the Budget on February 15 of this year. At that time, over four months ago, a commitment was made by the Government to bring in amendments to the Old Age Security Act which would boost inadequate payments with respect to GIS benefits. Having waited from February 15, we in the Official Opposition thought it was ridiculous to have to wait longer before bringing the subject before the House of Commons for debate.
Among the subjects which we as members of the Official Opposition thought had high priority was the subject of pension reform. Therefore we used one of our very precious Opposition days or allotted days on May 10, almost three months after the Government had promised in its Budget Speech that there would be amendments, to bring the whole subject matter before the House for debate as nothing had been brought forward by the Government. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), among others, led off in a very effective debate drawing to the attention of the House and to the people of Canada the failure of the Government to deal adequately with Canadian pensioners. Despite our exhortations at that time, we had to wait until May 29 for first reading of a very simple Bill which effectively offered an extra $25 in July and another $25 in December as increases in the benefits to be paid under the GIS provisions of the Old Age Security Act.
There was a lesser delay with respect to the presentation of the Bill for second reading on June 4. Of course, at that point the Government realized that time was running out. If one looks at the time sequence and the delays which the Government built into the delivery of Bill C-40 just to provide an extra $50 in payments, one realizes that the Government had ulterior motives. It was more interested in something other than offering senior citizens $50. It was more interested in providing something which it thought would be of benefit come election time. Therefore, within a month or two of the probable dissolution of Parliament, we find a simple Bill before the House which could have been before us late in
June 22, 1984

February or early in March if the Government had been really serious and anxious to use it for other than ulterior motives.
We did not delay the Bill at second reading. We thought it was a very essential amendment to the Old Age Security Act with which we should deal as quickly as possible for the benefit of senior citizens. We were anxious to see the Bill reach committee stage, which followed fairly promptly after second reading because the Government had no alternative if it wanted the Bill passed before the end of this Parliament. If my memory is correct, the committee met on three different days to consider Bill C-40.
A few moments ago I took the trouble to total the number of hours which we were allowed to discuss the Bill at committee stage. According to my calculation, it came to slightly under three hours or very close to three hours during the course of three different days. Witnesses appeared before the committee, including the Minister herself, which we appreciated. It provided us with an opportunity to direct questions to her. She did a reasonably good job and made a good attempt at trying to answer our questions. There were some to which she could not reply, such as the question dealing with the relationship between workmen's compensation pension benefits that 25,000 Canadians receive and how they will suffer either a complete or partial reduction in their GIS payments. Of course, the Minister acknowledged the problem. It was one area on which she promised further review and discussion with her colleagues. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to elucidate today some of the thinking of his Cabinet colleagues who have expressed disappointment at what turned up regarding the earlier amendments to the Income Tax Act which worked to the disadvantage of these 25,000 Canadians.
While we had the Minister and her senior officials concerned with the welfare side of her Department and with the pension plan before us in committee-and I must say that they gave good testimony and answered our questions in a reasonable manner-I must say there was one item lacking in the evidence at that time. I am referring to the results of the studies which had taken place between the federal department and various provincial departments with respect to income security for disabled persons. The big disappointment was that on a subject matter as important to Canadians as pension reform, we had a Bill which dealt only with a slight increase in GIS payments. We did not have a chance when dealing with a subject as important as pension reform to have other witnesses before the committee, obviously because of lack of time. That was probably done deliberately because the Government held off first reading of this Bill until so late in the session that it was impossible for the committee to discuss at greater length some of the important issues which flow out of the whole subject of pension reform.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that a task force dealt with this, and that is true. Unfortunately, the Minister has refused at this point in time to implement any of the recommendations coming out of the task force other than
Old Age Security Act
the matter of the increase in the guaranteed income supplement.
I have alluded to the fact that this Bill, good as it is for what it does, is completely inadequate as far as pension reform is concerned. I made reference to the fact that in the last five years the Minister has repeatedly said how important she feels pension reform is, that we had a national conference two or three years ago and a task force, as well as dealing with it in Parliament. Out of all those efforts in Parliament, in the private sector and at the national level by way of the national conference held in Ottawa, we still have no definitive or substantive legislation being brought forward by this Government that will bring meaningful reform to our pension system.
There is an increasing need and urgency for this. The Minister voices this and acknowledges that fact. We have to admit that we have seen what happens when we have a big bulge in our population at the elementary and secondary school levels, the pressure that places on society in general to accommodate that increase in population at that age group.
Today the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) alluded to the massive increases we have had in the labour force and the pressures that brings to bear upon our society. Here we have this Liberal Government refusing to look ahead to the days when we will have that same bulge in our senior citizen ranks of those over 65.
If we do not take cognizance of that now in a meaningful way and do something other than talk about it, we will be in great difficulty in a few years, the year 2000 for example, when we have this massive increase in the number of people who will be in that age group. It will require not only pension reform and support for them in their older days, but support will also be required for their health care.
This reminds me that not many months ago we debated Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. We had there the same situation as we have now. That Bill was brought in by the Government allegedly to improve the health care of Canadians. When we got to studying that Bill, we found it was the same situation that we now have with amendments to the Old Age Security Act. It was nothing more than a very technical amendment to the provision of health care in Canada whereby the provinces would be penalized if they did not fulfil certain obligations that the federal Government thought they should fulfil.
The Canada Health Act, like Bill C-40 before us today, refused to address the future needs of the health care of Canadians. It ties in with this same bulge in our population. When this same bulge hits those aged 65 and onwards, we will have massive increases in cost vis-a-vis our senior citizens. The increase will be in the order of 50 per cent above what we have now in proportion to the general population. It is something we have to look at well in advance of being faced with the crisis.
This is the second time within six months that this Liberal Government is bringing in picayune legislation to address a very minimal problem in the health care situation or pension problem situation. It is not tackling the real problems that

June 22, 1984
Old Age Security Act
exist, namely what we are going to do for health care and pensions when this big bulge in our population hits those aged 65 and onward.
On March 17 of last year, about 15 months ago, the Minister gave the "cold, hard facts" about our pension needs in Canada. She was saying at that time essentially what I am saying now. She recognized the fact. I do not deny that she realizes what I am saying. I am sure she would be the first to admit it. She acknowledged then that the cold hard facts demanded that there be some pension reform in Canada. Fifteen months later we do not have one substantive change to our pension system which recognizes these cold hard facts that she spoke about, other than this simple social assistance increase. All we get in this Bill is an increase of S50. There are no new ideas in it, no new approaches to the pension system of this country. It is a simple increase in a monetary sense prior to an election to try and convince Canadians that the Liberal Party is a good Party and that it will give them a little extra money. They have refused to tell Canadians that we need more than that kind of a change to our system. We need fundamental changes to our pension system that recognize the difficulties this country is getting into today.
This ties in very closely with the subject of pensions. I will not get into a lot of figures. As I said earlier, third reading is not the appropriate time for that. However, let me remind the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary that there is a lot of talk about the poverty line. The Minister tries to pretend that what she is doing by way of this $50 increase will make some magic increase in the level of income for those unfortunate Canadians who live below the poverty line. It may be if you apply averages and take those from the rural areas and smaller municipalities and average them with those in the urban areas, she may be able to claim that Bill C-40 will bring Canadian pensioners up to the poverty line. The figures we have do not suggest that at all.
Even with this increase in the minimum that will be payable under the OA/GIS payments, if you take pensioners who are eligible for those payments living in cities of 20,000 or more, those people would be receiving something in the order of $1,900 under the poverty line. Therefore, it is not fair to say that Canadian pensioners will be brought up to the level of the so-called poverty line. Tens of thousands of Canadians will still be under the poverty line, particularly those who live in urban areas. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that. If he has figures to disprove that fact, we would like to know about it.
The other major disappointment and inadequate component or feature of this Bill is that it has failed to address the severe problems of the old age pensioner in this country who is female. The Minister was one of the first in this House to deplore the inadequate pension that was and is being paid to women in so many facets of our society. There is no area that is neglected more, even by this Government, than pensions for women. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands probably more than any other person in this Chamber throughout the years has attempted to bring to the attention of the House and
the Government the fact that this is one of the great deficiencies in our pension system in Canada. I refer to the fact that the women of this country are not adequately covered by appropriate pensions. That is true not only for women who are in the workforce, some of whom are obviously better covered than others, and women are more inadequately covered than men, but it is true as well for housewives.
The biggest deficiency in the pension system exists for the two million or three million Canadian women who are housewives and who do their day-to-day work on behalf of the country and on behalf of their families in the home. No provision has yet been made by the Government to supply any kind of pension for those women. That should be a real priority for any Government but this Government, after talking for years and years about the need for pension reform and after the Minister having been aware for the last 15 months of the cold hard facts, has still not been able to bring before the House any legislation to correct this problem.
I suppose the Canadian people realize that this is one of the deficiencies of the present Liberal Government. I daresay that the Canadian people are now making up their minds and in fact may have already made up their minds that the time has come for a change in government if they are to receive the kind of legislation they are looking for. I think the women of Canada have long since realized that the present Government is not interested in providing that kind of legislation. The Government has had years to do so. Nothing has come forward other than seminars, conferences and parliamentary debate. Nothing meaningful has been done for the women of Canada with regard to pensions.
Let me now turn to another subject to which I alluded briefly a few moments ago. This represents another of the gross deficiencies in this Bill and it is the need for pensions for the disabled and the handicapped. I had the privilege of serving for three years on the Special Committee of this House on the Disabled and the Handicapped. I thought it was one of the most enlightening, rewarding and satisfying experiences I have had in my ten years in the House of Commons. This committee was headed up by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) who was an excellent chairman of that committee. He gave good leadership to the committee. I would also like to give him credit for the nature of the report that came out of that committee. That report has received what I would deem to be unjustified criticism from some Members of the House because of its alleged elaborateness.
I think the committee deserves credit for coming up with some 130 recommendations, some of which dealt with the subject of pensions and income security. Among those recommendations were something in the order of 11 recommendations that dealt significantly with income security for disabled people. I think with some chagrin that Members on both sides of the House have shown some disappointment in that report. As well, the administration of the House has made some
June 22, 1984

suggestions regarding reforms to approval of committee expenditures, suggestions which give me cause for alarm. The administration has made these suggestions because we spent some extra money to produce a very effective report, a report with an innovative layout and one which included a number of pictures of disabled people designed to show that a disabled person was not different, Mr. Speaker, from you or me. Because we included these pictures and because our format was innovative and probably used a few more pieces of paper and some coloured photographs which had not traditionally been used in parliamentary reports, attempts are now being made to cut back on expenditures on subsequent committee reports.
I believe that committee report was probably the most effective report that has ever been produced by a special parliamentary committee. It is a report which has received world-wide recognition from groups of disabled people. There have been three printings of that report, indicative of the fact that when it was first seen it brought to the attention of Canadians the need for some action in this area and the fact that it was so well received by the people who understood the need in that area that there was an increased demand for copies of the report. Parenthetically, as it were, I wanted to bring this up in debate today because it is germane to today's discussion that that special committee on the disabled and the handicapped spent a significant amount of time on the subject of income security for Canadians who are disabled. Among that group of disabled Canadians are many who are over the age of 65 and are eligible for the OAS and the GIS benefits.
One of the things that our committee tried to get across in its report-and if I can brag for a moment, perhaps no one pushed this point more than I did-was the need for the acceptance of the fact that disabled people have expenses over and above the expenses of those of us who are able-bodied. If we are to provide adequate income support for those people when they are in their senior years, we must provide them with more than the traditional OAS and GIS benefits. Those benefits are not sufficient. They need more benefits because they have added expenses. That is one of the recommendations that the Government has completely ignored up until now in its assessment of the report of the Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.
I would like to stress the fact that there is a real need for the Government to look into the matter of how we shall adequately reimburse the handicapped of the country, particularly with regard to income security and the acknowledgement of the fact that they have increased expenditures. Along those same lines my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), when he spoke at second reading, and several others including the colleague of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), have spoken of the fact that senior citizens who now receive GIS as well as worker's compensation benefits because of disabilities suffered years ago will suffer a loss of income because they must now take those compensation benefits into account when calculating their GIS benefits.
Old Age Security Act
In closing, let me touch upon two or three more points. First, the lack of adequate coverage in the pension system partly stems from the fact that the results of the Government's economic policies have been catastrophic. The Government has failed to introduce any kind of economic policy to make it possible to pay adequate pension incomes to our senior citizens. As acknowledged by Dr. Larkin Kerwin, the President of the National Research Council, the Liberal Government saw fit in its early years following the Second World War to set a policy of spending no money on research and development. In order to have a sound economy today, it would have been necessary to make such expenditures. That is why Japan's economy is so good today and why ours is so inadequate as compared to those of the United States and Japan.
Had the Government adopted different policies some years ago and spent some money developing the economy in the country, there would have been a more adequate pension system than the one that exists today. Instead of that, the money that was available to the Government was spent on bailouts for Maislin, bailouts for de Havilland and the purchasing of Petrofina gas stations when it could have been spent on pensions for senior citizens.
Let me conclude by saying that we in the Opposition feel that Bill C-40 needs to be passed. Indeed, pensioners are in desperate need of this $50 increase. That increase is perfectly fine, but let us not forget that the real purpose of this Bill, coming before the House as it does months and months after the Government recognized the problem, coming before the House one month before the House is to be prorogued, is political opportunism. The Bill was brought before the House for one reason only, and that is because it was a matter of political expediency for the Government to tell the senior citizens of Canada that the Liberal Government allegedly cares about them and will offer those who are entitled to receive GIS benefits another $50 per month. I do not think the people of Canada will be fooled by that kind of legislation when the election rolls around in the next few months.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is right. It is entirely possible that the measures which are being introduced are being introduced for strictly political reasons. If that is the case, I am not satisfied with the measures. I would not be satisfied with those measures even if that was not the case. Quite frankly, any government which thinks it can buy the votes of the Canadian public with $600 a year is dreaming. Therefore, I do not much care what the motivation was, because the end result is inadequate.
First, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Oxford. He covered a variety of different legitimate and related concerns. I was particularly interested in his comments with regard to the plight of elderly women who are single. Indeed, that is a legitimate concern and should be a major concern of the Government. As well, I concur with the suggestion that he made at the end of his speech concerning the

June 22, 1984
Old Age Security Act
matter of financial support for those who fall into the category of being disabled. That matter has not been adequately addressed by the Government. We must find new and innovative ways to provide additional support. The majority of those individuals who fall into that unfortunate category will not receive benefits from this particular measure. I mention those two items because I found them interesting and worth listening to in terms of their substance.
The Bill which is before us is totally inadequate. It is another example of the piecemeal approach of the Government to matters of financial support. In many ways it is misleading inasmuch as it left the impression-one which was first brought forward when the suggestion was made-that there would be an increase in pension levels. The inference that Canadian pensioners would benefit in the over-all, rather than simply those who happen to be single and on GIS, was there. It is unfortunate.
No one in the House would deny that my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been in the forefront of the debate on the inadequacies of pensions in Canada since the time before which many of us were born. Had it not been for his tenacity, his strength of character and his capacity to influence by the spoken word the direction which government should take, the inadequate levels of pensions which we now have would have been even more inadequate. I know that if my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre were here today, he would be the first on his feet trying to convince the House of Commons to do what I am proposing should be done-that is, to immediately increase the base level of the Old Age Security.
It must be recognized in Canada that this piecemeal approach to income maintenance will not satisfy today's recipients. Neither will it satisfy the large numbers of people who will ultimately become the recipients of Old Age Security. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Minister, I do not deny for one moment that the providing of adequate pensions to Canadians is costly. I am prepared to accept the fact that there will be some in society who will want to argue that the cost is too high. But I want to make it clear that I neither subscribe to nor support that view. I find it offensive. When people who have the means and find themselves quite comfortable in their existence can argue the point, as they frequently do, that the cost of guaranteeing others less fortunate than themselves an adequate level of income during their retirement years is too high and impossible to provide, we must rethink the ways in which we spend tax dollars. If it is true that the current treasury cannot find the money to provide levels of pension for those who retire and who have built this country, and if it is true that we have to do that, then there is no time more suitable for starting than now. The Government is charged with a responsibility and that responsibility goes beyond its terms of office. The Government and Members of Parliament must assume that the actions which they take on behalf of the public of Canada will be beneficial in the long term of office, and that successive Parliaments will be supportive of the new direction that should be proposed. We must
build into our pension system, not only the adequate base of which I speak, but a means of ensuring that those who retire and those who must exist on pensions are able to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of living. I am prepared to be in the forefront of those who say that, whatever the cost is, it must be borne. However we find the money, we must find it. Therefore, we must start that process.
There have been reports on this subject. My colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), sat on a committee which discussed the problems of pensions, which included the interrelationship between private and public pensions and the interrelationship between the Old Age Security system and the Canada Pension Plan, together with all of the assistance programs which flow from that-the guaranteed income supplement, all the way through to supplementary benefits which are given by certain of the provinces to the aged.
The question arises as to how to deal with the contribution which is made by housewives. What is that contribution to the over-all growth of society? How can it be measured when there is no clear income which flows to those women? I do not think that anyone has been able adequately to come to grips with that question. There have been a number of suggestions as to how it can be done, but the one thing which worries me is that there does not appear to be the parliamentary political will to proceed with those suggestions. We can find time in the House of Commons to do any number of things some of them valuable, some somewhat less valuable. But on a question as fundamental and as basic as guaranteeing a woman who has worked at home, raised a family and looked after the household an income at the time of retirement, due to age, loss of husband or partner, we should provide that woman with the opportunity to live in a society of which she has been so much a part. For some reason that question does not seem important enough for the House of Commons. For many women in this country, it is the single most important question that they face.
It worries me, Mr. Speaker, that we end up dealing with a $50 a month increase for a select few individuals in need. It is a $50 a month increase which, no doubt every single one of them will be delighted to receive, but it is a $50 increase which will in fact be totally inadequate at this time to meet their needs. We can find time to deal with that but we cannot find time to deal with the basic and fundamental question of how we can establish an income maintenance program. Perhaps it is time for us to look at how we can guarantee people an income. Perhaps the whole thought process must be changed. Perhaps the way pensions per se have been allocated in the past is not the right way. Perhaps we have to move towards the adoption of a guaranteed annual income program, which can be more easily funded, I say to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). These things are difficult, but I think he will agree that we can work them out.
I believe this House of Commons should be meeting in session and trying to find a solution to a guaranteed annual
June 22, 1984

income. I believe that is important. We would then begin to address a number of questions, not only the problems of pensioners, but the question of giving the disabled an income which would begin to meet their needs. We would begin to address the question of those who are single, who go through their lives without partners, who perhaps do not have an adequate private pension arrangement. We would speak to unemployment in many ways and to the question of early retirement. What happens to people when they get to an age when they are physically unable to do the work they have always done? Yet these same people continue to have obligations which demand an income sufficient to meet those obligations. What do you say to someone who has been a labourer in a field of work which is onerous and physically demanding when that person reaches the age of 50 or 60 and time has taken its toll? They can no longer continue to climb to the top of a high building to put the bolts in place which hold the girders. What do you say to that person when he gets laid off or he cannot climb up there any more on a daily basis and does not qualify for a pension or any kind of assistance? To tell him to go find another job is ridiculous.
I feel we are evading the real question. The real question before us today, surely, is how we can make sure through legislative action that people who live and work in Canada- and I include people who work at home-are able throughout their lives to have a base income level which will be sufficient to meet their basic needs. I am not talking about extravagance; I am talking about basic needs. That is never talked about and we must do so. The question is always, can we afford to give another small supplement to this group? Can we afford to subsidize this or that group? Can we extend UIC a little for another group? Can we in some way meet the peculiar needs of one group of individuals who happen to have peculiar needs which are different from the needs of the balance of society? Frankly, I believe in doing it that way, but we tend to approach the topic in a piecemeal fashion and, therefore, lose sight of what the real problem is.
The real problem for people basically is, how do they get enough income to meet their needs? That is why they work; that is why they need unemployment benefits when they cannot work; that is why they need workmen's compensation when they hurt; that is why they get a pension when they retire; that is why we provide an allowance when they are unable to work and do not qualify for any other assistance; and that is why Canada Pension Plan was brought in and extended to meet the needs of those who are ill for long periods of time. It was not done on a humanitarian basis-or perhaps it was partly. It was certainly not done primarily on a humanitarian basis. It was done because we recognized that people's financial needs are fundamental and, therefore, must be addressed.
What I am really saying today is that it is always disappointing to be handed a piece of legislation which-and I say this quite categorically-is no doubt being welcomed by those who will receive the benefit, but which does not address the real problem. Obviously, any little bit of help is going to be supported by everyone. It is certainly better than leaving
Old Age Security Act
things the way they are. But I would ask that we begin in this House to start talking about the real problems. We must begin a process of making sure that the committee of the House of Commons start to look seriously at what is involved in creating an income base program which will guarantee that Canadians, in whatever condition they find themselves at any point in time, will have an income at least sufficient to meet their daily requirements.
One might argue, and I can see the argument coming, how do we decide what are the basic daily requirements?


Mr. Gamble:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I can appreciate that the Hon. Member who applauded, the Hon. Member for-what is the riding?


John Albert Gamble: That is all right; you just wander on.


Ian Deans: I am not wandering on. I want to say that I can understand that someone as affluent as that Hon. Member from the Conservative Party would expect that his basic needs would be considerably higher than those, say, of the average New Democrat. I can understand, therefore, that the average Conservative would not want to share his ill-gotten gains with the balance of society.


John Albert Gamble: Why do you not make a contribution yourself?


Ian Deans: I can appreciate that Conservatives would want to have income-tested programs to make sure that people at the lower end were subjected to the humiliation of having to provide information about their day-to-day lives.


John Albert Gamble: No one said that.


Ian Deans: I can understand the Tory position.


John Albert Gamble: You are dreaming again in technicolor.


Ian Deans: I have lived through the Tory years. I know what the philosophy of the Conservative Party is. The Hon. Member who is interjecting is reinforcing on a daily basis that those who have hang on to what they have, and those who are in need, to hell with them.


John Albert Gamble: That is your theory. That is what you practise.


Ian Deans: That is the typical Tory attitude. I listened to the Hon. Member when he ran in the leadership contest of the Conservative Party. I saw through all of the smoke and mirrors-


Mr. Taylor:: I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: -as he tried to appear as if he was in some way-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) rises on a point of order.

June 22, 1984
Old Age Security Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, let us use another day to discuss our political Parties. We are now talking about the disabled and the pensioners.


Ian Deans: That was an interesting interjection. You are afraid to hear the truth, are you? However, as I was saying, I understand the Tory philosophy and I can appreciate that they do not want to see the kind of support base for the people I am talking about.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is completely untrue and you know it.


Ian Deans: I can well appreciate that they want to hold on to what they have, no matter how they got it, and share it with no one.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is complete baloney!


Ian Deans: It has always been the case. I do not deny for one moment, Mr. Speaker, right on that point, that if those Hon. Members came across a poor person on the street who should be benefiting from one program or another, they would be the first people to put their hands in their pockets and hand that individual a dollar. I do not deny that for a moment because they believe in the charity approach. They believe that if they give that poor person something, that person should be grateful forever.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney!


Ian Deans: What they do not seem to understand is that that poor person they meet on the street is but one of thousands, if not one of tens of thousands, of people who are facing similar kinds of problems. It is to that larger group that we are speaking today. We all want individual generosity but what we want more is to have people with an income by right, and an adequate income at that. I know it is foreign to the Tory philosophy to propose something like that, or even to listen to it. If they want to get up and tell us that somehow they will bring forward these programs, why have they not done so? I just find it offensive to listen to them.
However, let me say in conclusion that this particular proposal will pass because it does begin to address one particular small problem. But the real and more fundamental problem is one of basic income maintenance. Until we address that problem in a satisfactory and adequate way, we will be forever faced with piecemeal legislation which will never satisfy the basic needs of the majority of retired or unfortunate Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: A ten-minute period is now provided for questions or comments related to the Hon. Member's speech.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested as always in the Hon. Member's speech. I listened to him very carefully. He was talking about a guaranteed annual income, which has a great deal of attractiveness and it is something we should be
looking at very carefully. Later in his speech he said, in response to comments from the Conservative Party, that the Conservatives would like to see everything means-tested.


Mr. Fennell:: No way.


John Leslie Evans: I am just repeating what the Hon. Member said. He said that means testing was demeaning and it is not the way that we should be going. Is he not aware that a guaranteed annual income is the ultimate means-tested form of income security? It is given to people so that everyone has a minimum and it is phased out beyond that point on the basis of a means test. You cannot have a universal guaranteed annual income where everyone gets exactly the same amount regardless of their need. The purpose of a guaranteed annual income is to give it only to those who have the need, and it is phased out for income above that. There is a fundamental inconsistency in what the Hon. Member said. A guaranteed annual income is the antithesis of universality.


Ian Deans: I disagree with the Hon. Member. We, of course, disagree on a number of technical points and on this one I disagree again.


John Leslie Evans: You cannot disagree with that.


Ian Deans: You can. If you had a universally applied guaranteed annual income, you establish a tax base that will allow you to tax back from those who are in excess-


John Leslie Evans: So then it is not universal.


Ian Deans: Of course it is universal.


John Leslie Evans: Universal in the front row, selective in the back row.


Ian Deans: No, it is absolutely universal. I think the Hon. Member would agree with me that, although he may not find it a satisfactory way of dealing with it, it is a practical approach to the problem he raises.


John Leslie Evans: You are going to have a 100 per cent tax rate at some point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay the debate. There are just three points I want to raise. I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that the socialists of Canada do not have any monopoly on compassion, love or sharing.


Ian Deans: That is right.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I take objection to any Member imputing motives to members of any other Party. He claims we do not have compassion.


Ian Deans: I did not say that.
June 22, 1984


Gordon Edward Taylor: Our record will show that we have. However, I am not going to deal with that now. The Hon. Member is fully qualified to speak on socialism but he certainly does not know much about the PC Party or free enterprise.
One of the two main points I got up to speak on today is the Canada Pension. It is a splendid thing, but there are a number of people who never had the opportunity of contributing to the Canada Pension Plan. Consequently, when they reach the age of 55, 60 or 63, particularly if they are ill, they have no access to that fund. Many years ago we had pensions like the disability pension or the widows' pension. They have gone by the board and now we have the Canada Pension. It is a sad indictment of our society today that we leave a group of people without access to anything other than welfare when they reach the senior years of their lives. I think it behooves every government to look at this problem very carefully and come up with some solutions.
I am sure that every one of us here has had people come to us who, at age 55 or 60, have a sudden sickness and can no longer work. They are used to a reasonable standard of living. They are hard workers. Some of these people have looked after a widowed mother or a crippled father and so on. We do not need to go into all the causes, but there are people in that category and they have applied for the Canada Pension. They have to be told that we cannot pay them because they have never contributed. Well, they never had the opportunity to contribute. I hope we can deal with that problem because I find it very heartbreaking.
Another part of that question concerns the person who, because of sickness, has had to apply prematurely for the Canada Pension. They have not yet reached the age of 65. It takes too long, six to nine months, to process the application. This is a period of anxiety for these people. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that we endeavour to cut that time down to some degree.
The second reason I wanted to speak on this motion has to do with the misunderstanding about workmen's compensation. When a person is injured on the job and is no longer able to work, he gets compensation. During the period he is off work, that compensation is replacement of wages. He gets two-thirds or three-quarters of his wages and sometimes the employer provides the rest. Those are wages, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about those who have a permanent injury. They lost a hand and will never get it back. They are not on ordinary compensation; they are on what is called a temporary, partial disability, or they lose both legs and are on a permament total disability. The payment received is compensation for losing part of their body. I want to emphasize that difference. The compensation should not be included in wages.
It is so sad to see that some people who are getting the $50 increase this year are actually going to end up with less money than they had before. That is sad and it surely was never intended. I am sorry the Government has not brought in an amendment to cover this, because it was outlined very carefully by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and several others. I raised it personally with the Minister of Consumer
Old Age Security Act
and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) and she was going to take it up with the responsible Minister. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) raised it on the floor of this House at least twice, and he indicated that he raised it in caucus also. I hope the Government will give this matter further consideration because it is utterly unfair for these people to get less money, when they have been promised an increase because of a sudden change in the rules and these payments are considered as wages. They are not wages and they should not be considered as wages.


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


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks. I thought you were going to ask if there are any questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No one rose, but I will find out if anyone wishes to put questions to the Hon. Member who just finished speaking.


Ian Deans: I have a very brief question just to clear up a point. I do not believe the Hon. Member thought that I said that Conservatives did not have compassion. It was the opposite. I said that I did not doubt for a moment that Conservative Members had compassion.
However, that was not the issue. I said that I did not doubt for a moment that they would be the first to put their hand in their pocket to give some poor person $1 or $5 or $10. That is not the issue either. The problem is the tens of thousands of people you do not meet who are in dire need. Obviously you cannot reach into your pocket for all of them. That was the only point I made with regard to compassion. I think they are Neanderthal but I do not think they have no compassion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that requires an answer. However, we were not discussing handing money out of our pockets to people. We were talking about pensions for disabled people, old people and people in general. That is what we were talking about, not handing money out of our pockets because we feel sorry for someone.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on debate.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his comments. I certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's sincerity in the remarks that he has made, as I appreciate the sincerity of his colleague, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).
I would like to take exception though to the comment made that the Government is not tremendously concerned about the question of pensions. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first outlined the federal Government's major objectives for

June 22, 1984
Old Age Security Act
pension reform in 1979,1 wonder how many of us realized how difficult this question would be and how much research and questioning would have to be done on this subject. The first thing which was done was to look at the system in place and discover why it was not working. This was done through a number of studies, including those by the Economic Council of Canada, the task force on retirement policy and the special Senate committee's report, Retirement Without Tears. Next came the national pensions conference in the spring of 1981.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary at this time. I must inquire of him whether he is closing debate on second reading on behalf of the Minister.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Third reading, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is fine.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Included in the national pensions conference were representatives from the federal Government, provincial governments, private sector pensions employees, employers, women's groups and other individuals who were interested in this question from across the country. All of these groups continue to play an important role in the reform process and will continue to do so.
After the national pensions conference, work quickened on this subject and many groups came out with specific proposals. These proposals were very carefully studied. In December of 1982 we released a green paper that outlined these options and proposals which we felt needed further feedback. The parliamentary task force on pension reform was formed as a result of this green paper. After several months of public and private hearings the task force reported and two months later the federal Government, via the February, 1984 budget, outlined its strategy for reforming Canada's retirement income system.
While this is a very sketchy history of what has been done since 1979, I think Hon. Members will agree that it shows just how thoroughly pension reform has been studied. We have studied this subject well and I agree that at the present time we must implement some of the recommendations which came from this very important study. Bill C-40 is evidence of the period of study. As Hon. Members know, during the study period just past, a great deal of effort was directed to the various pension arrangements available to Canadians on retirement. The emphasis was on improving pension vehicles so that when an individual retires he or she will have a standard of living not unlike that enjoyed prior to his or her retirement.
The problems and concerns of pensioners within this retirement income system have not been forgotten. That is what we want to deal with through these amendments to the Old Age Security Act. We are not saying that we have a panacea for all questions within the retirement income system. It is for a specific purpose that we do not say that. The reason is that the subject is so detailed and has so many ramifications that we cannot possibly deal with this whole question in this particular Bill. We are saying that there is a very definite need among
pensioners, particularly single pensioners in the country. We must deal with this question as soon as possible.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) says that the Government should be doing more on this question. He says that we should be looking at other aspects of the retirement income system. That is a very accurate statement but very much a simplification of the problem and the question. I sat with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in committee on the security Bill. In my opinion that Bill was literally filibustered by the Hon. Member. If the Hon. Member is serious about dealing with these questions, he must realize that these questions have to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
With regard to the record of certain Opposition Members in the very recent past, if we are going to tie up Bills the way Bills have recently been tied up-and I refer to the security Bill specifically-these important specifications are not going to be brought into law and made available to the very people who need them.
The guaranteed income supplement benefit was first introduced in 1967. It has been increased specifically by the Liberal Government since that time. Work toward the level of income that is needed in the country has taken place. Single pensioners received a full $20 increase as the first increase in 1969. Under the GIS program in 1980 single pensioners received an additional $35 increase. Married pensioners each received $17.50.
The proposals contained in this Bill will ensure that the two groups of pensioners that are not yet guaranteed a sufficient income under the Old Age Security Program, that is single and partial pensioners, will receive the increases they require. The first major proposal contained in Bill C-40 is the $50 increase for all pensioners getting what we call the single rate guaranteed income supplement. That includes GIS pensioners who are single, widowed, divorced and separated, as well as one-pension couples where one spouse is an Old Age Security pensioners and the other spouse is under the age of 60 and therefore does not yet qualify for spouse's allowance.
The $50 increase also goes to the spouse's allowance recipients who have been widowed and are now living alone. This increase will be made in two stages. The first $25 payment will be made next month and the second in December. These increases will, of course, be over and above the regular quarterly cost of living increases. In total, $50 in increases to the GIS single rate will be made. By December of this year single pensioners will be guaranteed 62 per cent of the income guaranteed to two-pension couples through the GIS and OAS programs.
The Hon. Member for Oxford stated that the OAS has been reduced from 20 per cent of the average industrial wage since its inception to 14 per cent of the average industrial wage. That is an accurate statistic. While we on this side of the House support the universality of programs such as Old Age Security, such a statistic demonstrates the need to pay particu-
June 22, 1984

lar attention to certain areas. Although we believe in universality for assistance to pensioners, should the funds that we have available be distributed to all pensioners to bring them from 14 per cent to 20 per cent of the OAS, or should we pay particular attention to pensioners in need through the GIS? With due respect to the Elon. Member for Oxford, I believe the funds would be better targeted toward the GIS for those people in particular need.
Appropximately 750,000 people will receive the $50 and approximately 25,000 more pensioners will qualify for the GIS for the first time as a result of the higher benefits under the GIS program. Hon. Members will know that this helps a segment of our population that is particularly in need.
The Hon. Member for Bow River talked about the needs of single women. Of this group who will receive benefits according to this Bill, 73 per cent are women. This is particularly important, as the Hon. Member for Bow River pointed out, because the majority of people living below the poverty line are single women. These are women who have spent a lifetime working in the home and in the community without access to the various work-related pension plans that are available to members of the workforce. Their only access to a pension plan is usually indirectly through their spouse. Quite often, these women are ultimately alone in retirement without the benefit of their spouse's pension plan.
Special emphasis on the problems facing women has been evident throughout the whole pension reform process. Today, the Government is taking a very important first step toward alleviating these problems. It is a first step because the $50 GIS increase has not solved the pension problems of all women. The Government fully recognizes that this increase is a short-term, even stop-gap measure to deal with an immediate concern, which is the well-being of today's elderly women and men who stand little, if anything, to gain from the reform of other aspects of our pensions system.
The partial Old Age Security pensioner is another group who have not yet been guaranteed a sufficient level of retirement income. They will receive the required increases as a result of other major amendments in this Bill. This will be accomplished by adding a flexible element to the GIS paid to partial pensioners. We will ensure that these pensioners will have access to the same total income as that provided to full pensioners through the OAS and GIS programs.
For example, according to the provisions of the Act, a pensioner who is entitled to only one-quarter of the basic Old Age Security pension is entitled to the same level of GIS as is provided to full pensioners. According to the proposals contained in this Bill, That pensioner will have access to the GIS benefit that is equal to the maximum benefit guaranteed to full pensioners, plus an amount equal to three-quarters of the OAS pension.
The Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) stated that even the inequitable treatment of one Canadian is worthy of the Government's attention. I agree with him. Some of the provisions in this Bill are particularly geared toward addressing the specific needs of some Canadians. For example,
Old Age Security Act
according to the present Act, Canadians can only apply for Old Age Security one year retroactively. According to this Bill, that period of retroactive application will be increased to five years. It is estimated that this only applies to approximately 50 people per year who do not apply for Old Age Security within a year after reaching the age of 65. Therefore this provision is very important to those 50 people.
Incidentally, I believe a partial reason why there are only 50 people who do not apply is that the Department is very efficient in giving notice to people approaching the age 65 to ensure they apply for their earned right. It is an earned right, as Members opposite have pointed out, because these people have built this country. We owe them for what they have done for the country during their working lives as homemakers or people in the workforce.
In the time I have remaining, let me deal with some of the questions that have been raised by Members at this stage of the debate. The Hon. Member for Oxford spoke of the workmen's compensation problem, as did the Hon. Member for Bow River and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. Unfortunately, a provision implemented in a finance Bill means that workmen's compensation benefits have now been deemed to be included in income. This is not something that the Government can ignore and it is currently studying it very carefully. However, it is not a matter which can be dealt with in this Bill.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the poverty line. We must consider the poverty line in the context of the whole question of income and the needs of senior citizens. As I said, the increases in the GIS payments will bring single pensioners to within 62 per cent of the incomes of married pensioners in this country. I think that is a significant statistic.
The general needs of pensioners are an ongoing question. It has been stated that the Government should have introduced this Bill earlier and that third reading should have taken place before now. That is completely irrelevant. It does not hold any credence at all. The first increase under this amended Bill will be due in July. Whether the Bill were passed February 29 or whether it will be passed June 30 is of no consequence. The importance is that it is passed in time for our senior citizens to receive the increases they so richly deserve.
I find that this is a tremendously important piece of legislation, and that has been recognized by the co-operation all Members of the House have given to its passage.


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


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

June 22, 1984
National Housing Act NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As Hon. Members know, there are two motions at report stage of Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney).
The required notice for these motions was waived last night by unanimous consent of the House. Nonetheless the Chair has the duty to draw any irregularities in any motion to the attention of the House.
May I direct the Hon. Members' attention to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(8), which states:
(a)	An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the committee. Journals, March 28, 1969, p. 862. Journals, June 11, 1970, p. 993.
(b)	An amendment may not amend sections from the original Act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee.
Of course, these rules apply equally to the report stage of Bills and I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesnes' Fifth Edition, Citation 792, to that effect.
In a similar situation, Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled that similar motions-
-clearly seek to amend the parent Act in a way that was not envisaged by the amending Bill.
For these reasons, I regret that I must rule that the report stage motions are irreceivable.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order. Could you enlarge on this matter a little bit, Mr. Speaker? In the Alberta legislature we followed the rule that when there was a Bill to amend a statute it then was left open to any Member to amend any item in the original statute. While these two amendments amend the original statute, they are also very germane to the statute we are studying. I would appreciate your comments. I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair appreciates the Hon. Member's comments. However, the ruling I have just made is based on the practices, customs and Standing Orders of the Canadian House of Commons. The Chair recognizes that other Canadian legislative assemblies may from time to time follow a different course. That is quite proper in their jurisdictions, but the practice in the Canadian House of Commons has not been parallel. Therefore, I will now put the motion to the House:
Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Whelan, moves that Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act as amended, be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LeBlanc moved: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in connection with third reading of Bill C-37. May I also express with regret that our critic, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), is unable to be here. I want to express regrets on his behalf.
Let me say that I hope at least the gist of the amendments might be included in the regulations. The Hon. Minister I believe is prepared to take a careful look at them, and I appreciate that very much.
For a few moments now I would like to deal with third reading of this Bill, a very important Bill. We should cover a few points. First, what is the Bill going to do? It introduces something new as far as legislation in Canada is concerned, at least as far as the federal Government is concerned, and that is to provide a mortgage rate protection plan, which we refer to as MRPP. This was mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his Budget. We have been waiting for it, as have a great number of people.
The MRPP is an attempt to protect mortgagors from unaffordable increases in their interest rates, and as such, this has merit. The program is supposed to pay for itself. The Minister expressed the hope that no general revenue would be required to handle it. The premium is 1.5 per cent of the principal, and the highest principal permitted is $70,000 of the mortgage debt, or the face value of the mortgage, whichever is less. There is no repayment for the first two percentage points; there is a 2 per cent deductible, after which the program will pick up 75 per cent of the increase to an additional 10 percentage points. There is no protection at all beyond an increase of 10 percentage points.
I think it is important to make note of those items as well, as another one to which I will make reference. I am referring to the reference rate or the reference point which was discussed in committee. Many people will think that at whatever rate their mortgages are established, even if they are below the market value at the time, that the two percentage points start at that point. Of course that is not so. The program refers to a reference rate, and I would like to read into the record the information given to the committee in connection with that, so that the people who are following this debate with the idea of taking advantage of the program will not be under any misapprehension. Page 6:38 of the committee report reads:
This reference rate will be established by talcing the five major lenders on the market and taking the median of these five rates at any given time. So today, for example, the five-year term may be something of the order of probably 14.5 per cent. Let us say that five years from now, just for the sake of illustration, it is 19.5 per cent on that day. So then we will say that the reference rate has grown from 14.5 per cent to 19.5 per cent.
There is another statement which I think should be read. It appears on page 6:40 of the same report and reads:
June 22, 1984

The 5 per cent it goes up will be covered provided it is not only yours which goes up 5 per cent; it is the market which has gone up 5 per cent in that interval we are talking about.
The reference point should be taken into consideration.
A number of points have been raised about the MRPP which do not bear repeating. They were mentioned at second reading. However, I want to indicate that the Progressive Conservative Party is very concerned about the Canadian housing industry. We feel that Canada needs a housing program which will meet the needs to the greatest possible degree of all people. Of course that is easier said than done. We feel that there should be a multiple number of programs because home ownership is distinctive to our way of life. We think everyone possible should have the opportunity to own homes. It should be feasible for as many people as possible to own homes. This particular mortgage protection plan will not enable the housing industry to start meeting all needs. It will provide only one item of protection that may benefit a number of people.
Of course a great many people are concerned and interested in it. The document given to us in committee by the Minister's Department indicated the amount of interest evident at that point throughout Canada. It gave the number of telephone calls and written requests following the address of the Minister of Finance. The total accumulated telephone calls and written requests according to that document amounted to 5,161, most of which were from the Province of Quebec with 1,197 inquiries. My own province had 357. The second highest was the Province of Nova Scotia with 698, followed by British Columbia with 569. It is interesting to note that Yukon had none, but every province had some interest in the program. We have to conclude that a number of people are interested in it.
It behooves those people to check very carefully the premium payable for the life of the mortgage. It is not a one-year premium. It could amount to $1,050 on a $70,000 mortgage. They have to weigh the chance of interest rates rising more than the 2 per cent deductible and whether they will go up high enough to cover the increased interest as well as their premiums. They may actually be better off to use the premium of $1,050, or whatever it happens to be, to reduce the principal or their over-all mortgage. Surely the objective of everyone with a mortgage is to reduce it and eliminate it entirely as rapidly as possible. It will be a responsibility of the people themselves to look carefully at the provisions of the program. This Bill gives them the opportunity to purchase protection if they think it might be needed.
Had such a program been in effect in the last 10 years, there were very few occasions when it would have provided protection. Of course it would have provided gigantic protection in 1980 when interest rates rose from 14 per cent to 21.4 per cent. It would have provided tremendous protection during that period, but over the last 10 years or so there would not have been any particular advantage to a protection program. Of course, when people take out fire insurance they do not know whether their houses will burn down. They hope they will not, but they are purchasing protection in case they do. It
National Housing Act
may be that many people will be interested in coverage from that point of view as the interest rate is very unstable. It may rise significantly or not very much. We are all hoping that it will go down, not up.
If a person takes out this protection policy and the rate goes down, he is simply out the premium and would argue that it would have been better to reduce the principal on the mortgage rather than take out the policy. It will be up to people to decide in light of their own circumstances and the interest situation across the country.
Also the Bill deals with mortgage and home ownership security. The Government has indicated that there is a feeling that longer term mortgages should be available, for example, that mortgages should be renewed every 10 years instead of every five years. It feels that would contribute to the stability and growth of the building industry. It may. However, I would question going into a longer term mortgage unless I was fairly sure that the interest rates would keep rising. Over a 10-year period there is a great chance of interest rates falling as well, and one could end up stuck with a longer term mortgage. A large number of people lost their homes in 1980 and 1981 because they could not meet the costs of their mortgages as a result of large increases in rates of interest. While there are arguments on both sides for longer term mortgages, I am inclined to think that they might give stability to the building industry, but I am not so sure they will give any particular benefit to the rank and file.
I should like to deal for a moment or so with another aspect of the legislation. People certainly want the opportunity to own homes. However, many people across the country have reached the conclusion that they will never be able to purchase homes. For example, I spoke with a young married couple who have a son. They have given up all hope. This man works steadily, as does his wife. They have no hope of raising the down payment for a home. That is sad, but they reconciled themselves to that fact. They would like some security in renting, and we must give careful consideration to rental security.
The other day I received a letter from a constituent. He had been renting the same apartment for over ten years. The apartment building has been sold and he has been given his walking papers. That will disturb his whole life and that of his family. He thought he had security. We have to look at every angle of rental accommodation so that it meets the housing needs of our people. If they cannot have a home, rental is the next best thing.
There are a number of rental programs. I will just deal with one of them, co-op housing. I have an interest in this. I know people in the Calgary area who are very happy to be in a co-op housing project. It gives them security. They have a house, social life, and are happy with the amount of rent. Their rent is not subject to all the fluctuations that occur in normal renting.
If I owned an apartment, I could well increase the rent and still be competitive. I may want to charge all the market can bear. On the other hand I could be compassionate and charge

June 22, 1984
National Housing Act
the lowest rent possible. The rent in co-op housing is only affected by increased expenses. The co-ops have a democratic organization to run their projects. If there is an increase in taxes, the rent is increased to cover just that amount. It is not increased to provide a profit. If there is an increase in the insurance cost or other expenses over which they have no control, cognizance is taken of that and it is dealt with. That is one of the big advantages.
Something I like about co-operative housing is that it meets the needs of those who need it most. I made a check on this at a meeting I attended in Toronto. I wish to put on record how their wages relate to co-operative housing: 18.4 per cent had an annual income of less than $5,000, which is very low, at the poverty level; 52 per cent had an income of less than $10,000 a year, not a very high amount; 12 per cent had an income of $15,000 or less. That means that 82 per cent of those in the housing project had a salary of less than $15,000. They had a home, security, and a social life. They can run their own affairs. The others earned above that: 2.5 per cent with an income of less than $25,000, and 3.4 per cent with an income of more than $25,000.
People in almost every wage bracket live in the project. There is no social stigma if one person earns $5,000 and his neighbour earns $25,000. That is something I like about it. In building the houses, the construction industry benefits. The building of 10,000 units creates 16,000 jobs. That is what normally happens. There are a number of advantages to such a project.
There are other types of rental accommodation that I will not mention. We should look carefully at the building of new houses to see what benefits they provide, particularly for those who need it most, those with lower incomes. We should spend a good bit of time and provide a good bit of money in this area. We should increase that type of rental accommodation. That is very important. Many times subsidies to landlords do not help with rental costs. They do not produce one new house. That is the sad part about many of those programs. Money provided to co-operative housing projects produces new homes as well as the other advantages I mentioned. That is an important aspect of housing.
The third item covered in this Bill is very close to my heart, the rural and native housing program. This program does a tremendous amount of good. I recently referred a widow in my constituency to this program. She did not know what to do. Her roof was leaking, and she needed new windows and doors. This woman had two children. She was working but did not have enough income to repair her house. She did not want to give it up. Her husband had paid for it before he passed away. She cannot borrow money. The RRAP Program covers that need. She can get much of this work done. Some of it she will pay back, and some of it will be forgiveable.
This program is of tremendous advantage for such people who needs their homes rehabilitated, something all houses need sooner or later. I like this program very much. It was questioned to some degree in committee. In committee we received a lot of information about the number of people who
benefit from it. I will not deal with that. The program is applicable both to those on reserves and those in rural areas. A good percentage of the money is spent in both places.
There are three reserves in my constituency. I visit them periodically. They require more housing. Those that have been built are excellent. You have to be proud of them. When a family moves into such a house, it is like entering a new era. It brings happiness and satisfaction not only to those who live there but to everyone who sees it. Others on the reserve want this type of housing as well.
This program does a tremendous amount of good. If there were nothing else in this Bill other than the rural and native housing program, I would support it. The members of the New Democratic Party say they are going to oppose the Bill. Maybe they will have a change of heart. I hope so. I know the need on our reserves for new housing and the rehabilitation of present housing.
I know the need in rural areas. The Drumheller Valley was once a rich coal mining area. The mines have closed. Miners are not noted for building wonderful houses. The inside of their homes is better than the outside. The widows of those miners have been left with those homes. They are nice inside, but the windows do not keep out the cold. Storm windows and other things are required to make that house the kind of house that can stand weather with temperatures of 20 degrees below zero and 40 degrees below zero. This program is an excellent one and I would like to commend the Minister for continuing it.
He is now going to continue the program unilaterally. I think that is a good idea too. We asked the Minister in committee if the provinces would still be able to contribute if they wish. The answer was yes. We are getting the best of both worlds. Those of us who live in provinces in which the provincial governments want to contribute get 25 per cent more added to the total. No province will lose. The provinces can gain by joining the program, but if they do not wish to join, they then exercise their freedom of choice. That part of the Bill is, as well, an excellent part.
Canada needs about 210,000 housing units every year. We have not been meeting that need, but every old house that is made habitable goes toward meeting the housing need. Many people do not wish to leave the houses in which their children were born, or the houses in which their husbands or wives passed away. Those homes form a part of their entire being. This Bill enables them to keep their homes right up until the time they are no longer able to look after themselves.
As the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said, we are supporting this Bill. I could go into a great deal of detail about housing but I will not do that today. I hope there will be other opportunities to do so. I will simply close by saying that we in the Progressive Conservative Party were somewhat disappointed with the Bill. First, we think it should have included some kind of tax credit program which would enable people who are otherwise unable to buy homes to do so. We
June 22, 1984

would like to see the building of a greater variety of homes. We would like to see the building of a greater variety of rental homes so that those who cannot buy a home can live in a good home. We would like to see all those things, but I suppose we cannot do everything at once.
We are somewhat disappointed with this Bill, but we are going to support it because it does give people an opportunity to protect themselves in some adverse circumstances if the interest rate rises. It will enable people to consider longer mortgages, which will perhaps have some benefit to the industry upon which we depend to build new houses. Finally, it extends the funding available to the rural and native housing program, and I think that that is excellent. We plan to support this Bill on third reading.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Bill has already been debated at second reading, has gone through committee, and has been studied in detail. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has discussed the various component parts of the legislation, the only problem I have with the legislation is with that part which deals with the mortgage insurance plan. The balance of the legislation is supportable, although perhaps inadequate.
Unfortunately the mortgage insurance program is not, in my judgment, a particularly good proposal. It does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is not the insurability of mortgage increases but the fact that mortgage rates have now reached the point where a significantly large proportion of the total population is excluded from home ownership, the events of the last two or three days alone have excluded something in the order of another 100,000 renters, who previously had the option of purchasing a home, from being able to qualify for mortgages at the current rate. This Bill does nothing about that. Those are the fundamental problems related to home ownership. The capacity to insure oneself against usurious increases does not solve that problem.
Quite bluntly, I do not like this approach to the problem. I do not think this is how we should deal with what has become a cancer in our society, the apparent right of individuals to gouge others. That is what has happened in the mortgage field. When mortgage interest rates rose to 21 per cent some 20 months ago, there was not one single person in the House who did not feel that something had to be done to separate mortgage interest rates from all other interest rates and recognize the absolute necessity for the funding of affordable accommodation. This Bill does not do that.
The only redeeming feature of this proposed legislation as it deals with mortgage insurance is that the program is voluntary. I suppose if people want to spend something in excess of $1,000 to buy themselves protection, then all I can say is I think they are being gypped and are making a mistake. Perhaps they should protect themselves some other way. Perhaps they should reduce their mortgages, or put their money in a bond, or do something as productive, rather than handing it over and finding that in the long run they will receive virtually, if not totally, no benefit from it.
National Housing Act
We know that mortgage interest rates would have to rise by 4.2 per cent before the people who had paid $1,000 out of their pockets would receive any benefit, taking into account the interest value on that money or the direct benefit they would receive if they reduced their mortgages by that amount. Taking those factors into account, mortgage rates would have to rise by 4.2 per cent before they would receive one single penny of benefit. They have to pay 1.5 per cent on the premium and do not receive anything for increases of another 2 per cent. They then receive the benefit of a reduction of three-quarters of 1 per cent for the next full point of increase. Even at that there is no guarantee that the calculation will be based upon their current mortgage interest rate since the Government has come up with some magic number called the reference rate.
All I can do in the time available to me is to say to the people: "For heaven's sake, be careful." To anyone who is listening today, or who might read Hansard, I say: "Be careful. Do not spend your hard earned money on this. It will not satisfy you, it will not protect you, it will not solve the problem of interest rates." In my judgment this program may in fact contribute to the interest rate difficulties, because the financial institutions will now feel less pressure as a result of the availability of an insurance program. The financial institutions will not feel compelled to work as actively as they might otherwise have worked to hold interest rates down.
From my point of view the main point of this exercise is to recognize that if interest rates for mortgages go from 14 per cent-and they are now in the environs of 14 per cent-to 18 per cent or 19 per cent, then the whole damned economy will be in a mess. If we allow that rise in interest rates to happen, then the problems of unemployment, domestic production, and domestic consumption, will be problems that will have to be faced by the House of Commons. If interest rates ever rise to a point where the purchase of this insurance would benefit anyone, then it is pretty clear to me that that rise in interest rates by itself will have triggered so many other problems in society that the end result will be a deterioration of Canada's economy.
The Minister knows my feelings on this matter. I have told him about them privately, and I have told him about them publicly. Without taking up a lot of time, I would therefore say to the Minister again: "I do not like it." In my judgment this program may exacerbate rather than solve the problem of mortgage interest rates.
I do believe it will become necessary, if not for this Parliament then for some subsequent Parliament, to devise new ways of funding mortgages in order to ensure that people will be able to acquire homes while retaining some sense of stability about repayment and the degree to which they have indebted themselves. I think that that will inevitably have to come to pass, and when it does then this program will be of absolutely no use.
Having said that, I am prepared to say that I do not disagree with the balance of the Bill. I found some little wrinkles in it of which I was not particularly fond, and I do

June 22, 1984
National Housing Act
worry about the capacity of the owner in some instances to benefit from the tax dollars that are apportioned for repairs and improvements to properties which otherwise might be uninhabitable. In my opinion that might encourage certain absentee landlords to deal improperly with their properties, to let them run down and to use access to government funding to offset their own obligations. However, it will, by virtue of the fact that it can be made available to the tenant, improve the living standards of the individuals in the homes. I suppose that is a benefit. I am prepared to live with that.
I would vote against the Bill because of the mortgage insurance program, but quite clearly I will not do that because it does not make much sense. I just hope that people who might be encouraged to buy into the program will heed my words, look at it carefully and come to the conclusion, as I have, that it might not help them. I hope they will decide to do something else with their hard-earned cash. If they choose to buy in, then I hope to God they will not receive any benefit from it because, if they do, the rest of society will suffer intolerably high interest rates.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-37. The Bill is designed to accomplish three major purposes, one of which is to provide some measure of mortgage relief to home owners. It is with respect to that aspect of the Bill that I will make my comments.
The Bill is designed not to be a give-away program because people are expected to pay for what they are getting. What they are getting is a lot less that I fear they may think they will be entitled to. For a fee of 1.5 per cent of the amount of the mortgage, the mortgagor is granted relief with respect to 75 per cent of mortgage rate increases above a level of 2 per cent that is really self-insured from the beginning, up to a maximum of 10 per cent in terms of increase. That 1.5 per cent of the principal part of the mortgage is limited to $70,000. I am quite convinced that the majority of the people in the country think that-given the figures which I have referred to-in the event there is an increase in the mortgage rate at renewal above the 2 per cent which is covered, 75 per cent of that increase will be covered by this plan. That may or may not be the case.
I say it may or may not be the case because of the provision of Clause 34.83. Through a very convoluted system of prescribing interest rates, the insurer or, in this case, the corporation, may indeed determine that when a mortgage on an individual's home is up for renewal, the interest rate that is normally charged in the marketplace is less than the interest rate charged by the mortgage at the time of renewal.
Let us assume that the prescribed rate, which is an average or determined rate by the corporation, is less than the rate which would be charged by the existing mortgagee. What is the position of the insured who has paid 1.5 per cent? It is very clear that he will not be entitled to be covered for 75 per cent of the increase over the initial 2 per cent up to a limit of 10 per
cent of the renewal rate, but rather 75 per cent of the prescribed rate which is in effect at that time after taking into account the initial 2 per cent self-insured amount. That may be a difference of a substantial nature, depending upon the circumstances at the time. I think the public should be aware of that fact and recognize that they are not necessarily getting what they believe they are getting.
What is the justification for these differences? The Government may well say that if the average rate in the trade is something which can be determined, then the mortgagor should in fact renew at the average rate. How can anyone know what circumstances will apply at the time the mortgage matures? It is not a simple matter for someone to say that there is half a percentage point that he can obtain it for elsewhere if he will only go out and obtain it.
If one goes to another mortgagee-another financial institution which will provide funds-it means the following-the retaining of the solicitor of the mortgagee to search the title for the property so that he may in fact certify by legal opinion to the new mortgagee that the mortgagor has good and unencumbered title to the property. How much does that cost? Once again it depends upon the amount of the mortgage. In these cases it is not inconceivable that the cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 or $600.
What else is required? It may well be that the new mortgagee will say that he does not wish to accept an old survey which the former mortgagee was prepared to accept and that he wants to know that the building is situated upon the land on which he has taken the mortgage. What would a new survey cost? It too may cost $400 or $500. In addition it is necessary for the mortgagor to discharge the existing encumbrance. Once again, the preparation of the discharge documents- which are set by fee under a schedule in most provinces-will cost $50 or $75.
We are then told that the mortgagor should-for the half a percentage point which he will lose-go to the average mortgage lender and obtain the average rate of interest and not have this corporation, for the payment of his premium of 1.5 per cent, cover the actual-not the deemed or the assumed- rate of interest that is in effect in the country at the time that the mortgage comes up for renewal. It is obvious, by the time that individual pays $1,200 or $1,300 to change mortgages, that it is more appropriate for him to assume the loss personally that he would sustain as a consequence of buying this insurance which does not cover him for what he thinks it will cover him. There will be a great number of times when individuals with this kind of coverage will ultimately be confronted with this problem. That will happen as mortgages mature. People will come screaming to the Government, telling it that they did not get what they bargained for. It is the fine print that those people are not reading. It is the fine print which is not being advocated and publicized by the Government so that the people will know exactly what they are getting for what they are spending.
There is another matter which I would like to draw to the attention of the House. It arises as a consequence of the
June 22, 1984

provisions of Clause 34.85. The concept is that with this insurance-having paid 1.5 per cent of the principal amount of the mortgage-the mortgagor has an asset which can be assigned to a subsequent purchaser of the property. Or, so it seems.
If one examines the provisions of Section 34.85, one will notice under subparagraph (b) there is a provision for that assignment which reads as follows:
A contract entered into under subsection 34.82(1)
(b) may not be assigned on the part of the home owner, except to a person
(i)	who assumes all the liability of the home owner in relation to any base loan or protected loan outstanding ...
(ii)	who acquires the interest of the home owner in his principal residence, subject to any encumbrance securing the base loan or protected loan ...
There are two ways, in effect, which are covered specifically by this section. One is with an absolute assumption of liability, which very rarely, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, any purchaser of a home undertakes. In most circumstances there is no specific assumption in law; if you acquire the interest of the home owner and begin to make those mortgage payments you are one of the persons obliged to continue to make those payments. Without actually being on a covenant, you are one of the persons obliged to make the mortgage payments but there is very rarely any direct assumption of the mortgage loan.
Section 34.85(b)(ii) normally covers the situation where you simply buy the property subject to a mortgage and do not assume the obligations of the original mortgagor. The only trouble with that circumstance is that it applies to the principal residence. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the way in which we have dealt with principal residences, that the purchase by the new owner is not of the principal residence. It may not be in fact the principal residence of the home owner at the time of the acquisition, because he may indeed have used it in the interim for some other purpose which destroys the principal residence concept. Accordingly, I draw that matter to the attention of the House as well because the full ability with respect to assignment may not in fact be as it appears on the surface of the Bill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a few moments and discuss the mortgage protection plan under Bill C-37. I worry about this plan. I believe it gives the Canadian public some false hope that possibly there will be security in interest rates. But this Bill is not really accomplishing that and I can give you some statistics on it.
It will not help a person in a period of very low interest rates who at that time takes out a five-year mortgage-and that is only if the mortgage renewal happens to come at the right time. But if that person takes out his mortgage at an interest rate of between 10 per cent and 11 per cent and those rates soar up to 17 per cent or 18 per cent it will help. However, it is too costly for a person today to gamble with $1,050 which is in essence added to the principal of his mortgage. It costs too much. I believe it is too expensive and I do not feel it will work.
National Housing Act
If this Bill was to be effective it should have been brought in when interest rates were high, not when they started to decline.
I believe this Bill, as a solution to our housing problems today, fails Canada.
I know the Hon. Minister who is responsible for CMHC has a problem in these times. I know he is not in control of the economic situation in the country. However, the statistics on the housing industry show a very serious situation right now. I understand part of the reason for this situation, to which I am going to refer, is because of the grants given by both the Ontario Government and the federal Government last year.
When housing starts were down 27 per cent in the month of April, I started to worry. When housing starts are at 50 per cent of what they should be, I worry. One of our key responsibilities should be to encourage all Canadians to own homes. I believe the Minister agrees with me on that. I believe that the Minister is totally in agreement with home ownership, to as large an extent as possible.
There are several other statistics on housing which worry me as well. In 1983, home ownership dropped-and this will not sound like very much-to 62.4 per cent from 62.7 per cent in 1982. That is a downward trend, but that is not the trend that bothers me as much as the longer term trend. The percentage of all owner households in the country is now below what it was ten years ago. In trails 1963 levels by almost six percentage points. That is the period of time in which the Liberals have been in power. It proves to me that this Government has not identified this crisis and has not dealt with it. It has not put the proper incentives in place to solve the problem.
I feel that this Bill is not going to solve the problem. This is a patchwork bill, it is a band-aid bill. We have seen enough band-aid bills in this House. This Bill is not going to encourage home ownership so that we can even get back to the 1963 levels. I know the Minister would tell me that it is a different society today, there is greater mobility in the work force and people do not have the same interest in owning homes. Perhaps the Canadian psyche today is not to save money, but to spend it while we have it, but I feel very strongly that one of the prime interests we should have in this country is to create home ownership for every single person.
My constituents have called me about the mortgage protection plan. They have asked me what they should do. I have told them that at the present time I cannot recommend it. And I put it in a partisan way. I said to them, "There will be an election. I am certain that following the election a Conservative Government will come in. Because of our policies we will put stability into interest rates. We will not allow these large troughs and peaks which the Canadian people have had to suffer through".
I read in an article the other day that since 1977, $40.5 billion in equity funding has left this country. We then in turn go overseas to borrow debt capital to bring it back in. Part of the trouble in the housing industry is that the Government, which is trying to provide so many safety nets, has not paid attention to the average Canadian who wants to own a home, or to the farmer, many of whom, as the Minister of Agricul-

June 22, 1984
National Housing Act
ture (Mr. Whelan) knows, are in a very critical position. Many of them have over financed, which I will acknowledge, but those who have not, cannot afford to borrow money at even a 12 per cent interest rate and make a decent return on capital.
In essence this plan protects the homeowner for 75 per cent of an increase above 2 per cent. For example, someone takes out a one-year mortgage at 12.75 per cent and renews at 18 per cent. After deducting the $1,050 premium he would be saving only $431. I could not recommend to anyone spending $1,050 in order to receive $1,481 in return. 1 think that is bad business.
We are on the right track here, and I would like to see this given deep study. The idea is good. It is a beginning. I have not had enough time to really analyse it. It has to be looked at in a broader sense. Perhaps two or three years down the road when interest rates are at a reasonable level it will be to the advantage of the home owner. But at present, when mortgage rates are 13 per cent and 14 per cent, if they went up to 18 per cent there would not be much protection. The premium would be an additional burden in that critical first year.
We must have a committee to analyse housing in this country. We have to determine what we can do to get homeowners back to the 1963 level, which was in excess of 68 per cent. Everyone should own a home. Home construction is 100 per cent Canadian. They are manufactured here, the raw materials come from here, as do the finished products such as kitchen and washroom fixtures. Everything is made in Canada. If you doubled the number of homes being built this year you would create 230,000 jobs, given 2,300 jobs for every 1,000 homes. That would take a big chunk out of our unemployment figures.
The program of last year, even though I do not agree with grants, did work. It assisted people. I have to commend the Minister. I have had some difficult problems with those grants. Some have been marginal because of a question as to whether the foundations were in on time. I appreciate the co-operation the Minister has given me because it has assisted my constituents. For that I am grateful. The grant system worked last year in a recession, but possibly it will not work this year.
We should sit down and see what will work. I am afraid this program will not catch fire. I am afraid that if we pass this today, by the end of the year it will be as successful as the Sports Pool, which was a disaster. If this is in place when interest rates go down to-and I am dreaming now-8 per cent, then I would recommend that every home owner buy mortgage insurance. Possibly the problem is in the timing, but obviously if it is in place it may help in the future, as long as interest rates go down. But we must not underestimate the problem. How can interest rates go down when the Government borrows 92 per cent of our savings? That is not the Minister's fault, it is the fault of the entire Government. It is a problem brought upon this country after 21 years of Liberal rule.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that I will not support this Bill. I do not think it is right or that it has been well thought through. It should not be approved at this time because it is patchwork. It may fool the public but it cannot fool the actuaries or the Members of this House. It will not solve the problems we face. However, I have appreciated the opportunity of saying a few words on the Bill. I hope the Minister will continue to think about it and look for ways to improve the housing program to assist all Canadians to own their own homes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a short intervention on this housing Bill. The only point I want to discuss is the mortgage insurance program. I want to associate myself completely with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
In my view this mortgage insurance Bill is politically motivated. It is only a veneer so that the Liberal Party will be able to go out during the next election campaign and tell people it has done something to try and stabilize interest rates for those who are going to own their own homes. You have heard the figures given by the two Members I just mentioned. People in the insurance industry feel that the homeowner would be better off paying $1,000 off the principal amount of the mortgage rather than paying this premium for so little benefit.
I think to a certain degree that the Private Members' Bill I introduced a number of years ago is the reason that this sort of politically motivated Bill has been brought forward. At that time my Bill proposed that if people had paid a mortgage for a year they should be allowed out of the mortgage on payment of a three-month penalty. That is the situation in the United States and in the United Kingdom. However, the banking community in Canada was very upset about that. As a matter of fact, a few days after I introduced this Private Members' Bill I had a visit from the president of the Bankers' Association who thought it should be withdrawn.
But my proposal went to the real problem faced by people with mortgages at high interest rates. If they had taken a five-year mortgage at 18 per cent interest, for example, after one year they could have paid it off with a three-month penalty. If they went the full term the difference could be as much as $13,000 between what they might pay at interest rates as they were last winter compared to what they are now, around 12 per cent.
This Bill has been introduced to try to show the people that there is a concern by the Government and a sort of protection. In actual fact I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that very few Canadians will ever take advantage of this mortgage insurance plan. The reason is that you can try to bring forward good looking legislation, and you can dress it up, but the native intelligence of the people at large is such that they are not going to waste their money. Most of them are going to believe that they are wasting their money. If they reduce their principal by $ 1,000 each year over the period of time they are going
June 22, 1984

to save themselves an awful lot in interest payments. They are probably going to save themselves as much as they could gain by investing in a mortgage insurance protection program.
I really believe this is a politically motivated Bill designed to give the perception to the Canadian public that the Government is acting in their interest. All Parties are going to let it go through because no one wants to be perceived as being against something which is being dangled out. It is only cosmetic in nature. Other provisions in the Bill are more meaningful than this cosmetic provision. I think it is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public.
The interesting thing is that there is a small credit union in Prince Rupert, British Columbia which has been offering mortgage insurance at .5 of a percentage point rather than 1.5. If they have been able to do that for three years, why are we charging three times the premium? Having said that, there is no doubt that it is going to go through. It is not going to be used by anyone. The perception may be there but the Canadian public is going to be an awful lot wiser than the Government thinks. In the long run this is just going to be another useless statute on the books.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Chair should explain to the House that the Hon. Minister chose not to speak when he moved the motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Have we motivated him?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As an observer of the proceedings in the House, it was my understanding that the Hon. Minister, out of courtesy, allowed his vis-a-vis to speak first. I nevertheless have to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister to make his remarks at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the intervention of the Minister with respect to this legislation. We would be interested to hear his response, particularly to some of the questions which have been raised by my colleagues on this side of the House with respect to the legislation and also with respect to the situation which has been discussed between my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) and himself, and between myself and the Minister, with respect to the floating homes problem, if I may put it in those terms. On our part we welcome the intervention and are anxious to hear the Minister speak and explain the Government's position with respect to the items which have been raised during the course of this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc).


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will first thank the House for its courtesy. I was distracted and thought we were on second reading. I would like to make a few short comments.
National Housing Act
In response to the Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), under no circumstances have I indicated that this was a total solution to some of the longstanding housing problems, although I did put some statistics on the record in an answer to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) yesterday which indicated that the picture may not be as dark as it seems. In fact there was an increase of 7 per cent in housing starts between April and May of the current year.
With regard to the question raised by the Opposition House Leader referring to an amendment requested by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), it was ruled out of order. But we were sympathetic to the substance of what was proposed. In fact, in the case of the mortgage protection plan, floating homes or that type of houseboat will be covered under the mortgage protection plan. The difficulty arose, and arises, when the mortgage insurance applying to floating homes is discussed, for the same reason that mobile homes at one time were not covered by mortgage insurance. Discussions with the industry and a willingness to try and find solutions brought forth some amendments which have worked.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre forced us to focus on the issue more quickly than we might have liked. Although we were quite sympathetic to the substance, I am sure that it will come up again and we will continue to work and where possible, by regulation, try to find some acceptable solutions.
Some Hon. Members have referred to the mortgage protection plans as an innovation. Some have expressed doubts as to whether it will see heavy take-up in applications. Some have pointed out some of the limitations that it does contain. I do not think I should spend too much time quibbling with some of these opinions. It is innovation. In our examinations in other countries we have not found cases where this type of program is used, although in some countries we have found an insurance formula for people who were threatened with the loss of their homes because of the loss of a job or similar problems.
The legislation is voluntary and obliges no one to make a decision in this matter. My hope is very firm that over time we may find that there are some amendments which would bring considerable improvement. The mortgage protection program is a service to Canadian home owners who may be worried about possible increases in mortgage interest rates. It is addressed to people who are afraid that, when the time comes to renew their mortgage, interest rates may have risen so high that they will not be able to make the monthly payments. To these people it offers, for a fee, some help and protection to assure that any increases will be kept within their ability to pay.
I hope that it is clear, and I believe Hon. Members on both sides have said that it is not a subsidy program and is not designed to protect home owners against any increases, however small, in mortgage interest rates. It is not designed to shelter home owners from every shift in interest rates. Most Canadians who decide to invest in a home anticipate changes and are prepared to cope with them. During the interest rate crisis of a couple of years ago we saw that many Canadians were prepared to make rather considerable adjustments. The

June 22, 1984
National Housing Act
MRPP is intended to help with abnormal circumstances, with eventualities which we do not expect and which people may not be in a position to deal with.
There are other reasons as well, Mr. Speaker, why the plan includes risk sharing provisions such as the 2 per cent deductibility feature. It is important that the mortgage market, like other free markets, should remain competitive. As long as the home owner is going to have to share the cost of higher interest rates, he will shop for the best deal he can get when his mortgage comes up for renewal.
In that connection I would like to emphasize again that the mortgage plan is voluntary. If in their judgment it is not a wise investment, then obviously Canadians will make the judgment that they feel is right.
Although we dealt with the Bill rather quickly, I believe that the committee discussion was informative and useful. I think it went a long way to answering some of the hesitations that Hon. Members had.
I would like to thank Hon. Members for their support and their interest in that part of the Bill which deals with the rural and native housing programs which extend, for the first time, benefits to all parts of Canada. Perhaps I should indicate quickly what the changes are.
As Hon. Members will recall, the legislation as it is now requires that assistance to allow people in designated areas to acquire their own houses can be provided only if the cost is shared between the federal Government and the provinces. Some provinces dropped out of the program and one province never participated. Other provinces, while participating, made their assistance conditional on such terms and conditions that we felt they were inconsistent with the very objectives of the program.
Some Hon. Members have expressed regret that we have not achieved unanimity among all governments as to the objectives and methods of operation. I agree, it is regrettable. This divergence of opinion, however, cannot be allowed to deprive people of urgent need of shelter. That is why we are proposing that the funding and administration of the program can be assumed unilaterally by the federal Government. But those who wish to continue to participate will be welcome. In fact, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) indicated, it will be an additional contribution to that sector of the population which is very often most in need.
I appreciated the contributions made by all Hon. Members who expressed a sincere interest in the operation of this program and in the welfare of rural and native people who live in remote areas of the country. I believe that by enacting this Bill into law we will have given new life and strength to this vital and rather successful program. I am grateful that we have been able to move as we have with this legislation. Again, it is not a cure-all for all housing problems, but I think it goes some way and makes available to those who choose to avail themselves of it a form of insurance and a form of protection.
However, I suspect that over a period of time we will be back with some improving amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, let me say first to the Minister that I appreciate his contribution on third reading. When the Minister is handing out tributes with respect to this matter I know he would want to say that we in the Official Opposition have been constructive. We have attempted to deal with legislation on the floor of the House in that manner, particularly with respect to this legislation.
He will appreciate that we find that there are considerable shortcomings. We have tried to point these out to the Minister, and have tried in many ways at committee stage and in the course of debate in the House to indicate to him that some of the initiatives fall far short of the mark. We rather take the position that when it comes to the question of mortgage interest protection, it is because of the Government's handling of the economy that we found ourselves in phenomenally high interest rate circumstances with a crushing burden on the home owners of Canada. Those have been the circumstances that have really precipitated this legislation.
Of course, I do not want to be partisan, but I remember the pronouncement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) when he was in the opposition. Interest rates were at 13 per cent. I was a member of the Government of Canada at the time and a member of the Cabinet. I must admit that I had difficulty shaving in the morning when I contemplated interest rates of 13 per cent. I thought to myself that these were usurous levels of interest rates and that we must do what we can to bring them down. Of course, there was an election and the results are known. The new Government came in.
But when the President of the Treasury Board was in opposition and speaking with respect to financial matters, he made a statement that any person in political life with integrity who allowed interest rates to exceed 14 per cent had only one honourable course. That was to resign from any Cabinet which allowed that level of interest to rise above 14 per cent. I was impressed with the sincerity of the President of the Treasury Board when he said that, because I felt very strongly that as a Government we had to do what we could to keep interest rates low for the average home owner and businessman.
History is there for us to see. Interest rates skyrocketed to 22 per cent, a level that was described as being the level of interest rates which at one time would be charged to customers of organized crime who were rather untrustworthy. That was the prime rate for a long period during the time that the Government has been in power.
We need some form of protection for home owners when they are faced with having to renew mortgages, as we all are. I have a mortgage coming due on July 1. It is at 13 per cent. I was considering what to do, whether to have a mortgage of one or two years at 15 per cent, or perhaps of three years in excess
June 22, 1984

of 15 per cent. It is a lot of money for a humble working man like myself.
I say to the Minister that this particular response falls short of what we had hoped and expected in this country with respect to the problems we face with present high interest rates.
There are reasons why we have tried to deal with this Bill and put it through at this point in time. I will admit candidly that there is a political element to it. Our position is simply that this is the Government's best shot. This is the best it can do. This is as good as it will give us. As the Loyal Opposition, we are prepared to put the Bill through and tell the people of Canada that we in this Party are thinking about the horrendous problems that are created by high interest rates. We are thinking in terms of the policies and initiatives that can be taken by the Government of Canada which we hope to form after the next election. When we become the Government, I can assure the Minister and members on the government side that we will devote our attention and energies toward protecting home owners in a more significant way against the very ugly prospect that comes with high interest rates than has this Government.
We intend to do everything possible to make sure that home mortgage interest rates go down. I can tell the Minister that our Party is committed to protecting the average person in this country, the average home owner as well as the person who lives in rented accommodation. That is the basis upon which we in the Opposition allow this legislation to go forward. That is the basis upon which we say to the Minister that we have tried to do a responsible job in our consideration of this legislation. We find very significant shortcomings. While we wish the Minister all the best with this legislation and hope that it has some good effects, we say that it is far short of what the people of Canada should be able to expect. Accordingly, we will see the Bill passed by the House of Commons today so that it can be sent to the other place for consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Any other questions? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Whelan, moved that Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
Tax Convention Act


CANADA-UNITED STATES TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1984 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Mr. Whelan for Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, moved that Bill S-14, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and capital be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) has been in the Chamber in effect I believe, since question period. I understood that he would be coming forward to make some introductory remarks with respect to this legislation. I do not know whether he is just behind the curtains at the present time, but he spoke to me not more than five minutes ago, in fact just before I addressed the previous legislation.
Is it my understanding now that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ferguson) will be making the remarks on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance?


Mr. Ferguson:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. We will listen with great interest to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. I swear I saw the identical likeness of the Minister of State for Finance a minute ago.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member's point of order is a point of order.


Ian Deans: My point of order, I think, may well be a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was my understanding from discussions I had previously that this matter, rather than it being referred to the standing committee, was to be referred to the Committee of the Whole with consent. I note that the motion read: "to the standing committee". Has that been either overlooked, or has there perhaps been some change? I just want to be clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair had no choice but to put to the House the motion as it stands. The House may well wish to seek unanimous consent to do otherwise and the Chair will be pleased to entertain the wishes of the House.
Is someone seeking unanimous consent to amend the motion somehow?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and it was the intent that the Bill would go to Committee of the Whole and be given third reading today as

June 22, 1984
Tax Convention Act
well. Perhaps we might amend that motion to send it to the Committee of the Whole after the completion of second reading, and then be given third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the understanding was that the matter would go to Committee of the Whole. We will consent to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed and so ordered.
It is now moved by Mr. Whelan for Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. Pinard, that Bill S-14, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and on capital be now read a second time, and by unanimous consent referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just a second, Mr. Speaker, we want to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on second reading.
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): In view of the very heavy work load, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
The purpose of Bill S-14, passed by the Senate on June 6, is to implement the double taxation convention between Canada and the United States of America. The implementing legislation is found on pages 1 and 2 and the text of the convention together with its two amending protocols are found in schedules I, II and III, pages 3 to 64.
Canada-United States fiscal relations are governed by a tax treaty which was signed in 1942. It would be clear to everyone that a tax treaty that has not basically changed in 40 years needs to be modernized, even though it has been a useful instrument. The new convention, when in force, will replace the 1942 tax treaty.
The convention is a balanced instrument which addresses a broad range of issues and problems affecting a significant number of individuals and corporations on both sides of the border. It took some ten years to negotiate. Its ratification is eagerly awaited by those affected. The text of the proposed convention was made public on the date of its signature, September 26, 1980. Following its publication, a number of professional associations in the two countries commented extensively on its terms and pointed to a number of deficiencies. That, plus important changes in the U.S. legislation concerning the taxation of capital gains made it necessary to introduce some amendments to the original text. The first protocol was signed and published on June 14, 1983.
Finally, a change introduced in the U.S. concerning the taxation of social security benefits lead to the signature of a second protocol on March 28, 1984.
I shall now refer briefly to some of the provisions of the convention. It provides that the maximum rates of withholding taxes on non-residents may not exceed 10 per cent on direct dividends, patent royalties and technical know-how payments and 15 per cent on portfolio dividends, interest and periodic pension payments. Under the existing treaty, the withholding tax rates on non-residents are generally 15 per cent. Copyrights royalties and certain interest payments are exempt from the withholding tax.
Income or profits from immovable property, including natural resource royalties, may be fully taxed in the country where the property is situated. Gains arising on the disposition of certain property may also be fully taxed in the country where it is situated. In view of the fact that the treatment of capital gains represents a significant change from the existing convention, special rules are also included to avoid the disruptive effect of this change on investment existing at the time of signature of the convention.
The convention contains a number of other important provisions such as: the scope of the exemption for international transport profits is extended; social security benefits will be exempt in the country in which they arise and only half of their amount will be subject to tax in the country of residence of the recipient; the deduction for contributions by a resident of one country to a university or a charitable organization in the other country will be liberalized; special problems affecting border workers will be addressed; the two-year exemption for visiting teachers will be removed.
This listing is not intended to be comprehensive, but it gives an indication of a number of the issues dealt with in the convention.
The convention will enter into force only after it has been ratified. It will generally be applicable, for the withholding tax, on the first day of the second month following the date of ratification and, for other taxes, on the first day of January following the date of ratification. I have been informed that the United States is likely to be in a position to ratify the convention in the near future. It is important that Canada also be in that position soon, therefore I commend this bill to the favourable consideration of this house today.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Official Opposition to Bill S-14 which relates to the tax convention between Canada and the United States of America, I think it is important and highly desirable that we place on the record some general comments with respect to the processing of this legislation, and indeed this kind of legislation.
We have seen in the House of Commons in the last few days a demonstration of what we earnestly believe is parliamentary democracy, a duty of the Loyal Opposition to oppose the Government in that official way. Our responsibility under the British tradition in force in Canada since Confederation in
June 22, 1984

1867 is to examine with great care and diligence all the measures put before the House of Commons by the Government. In those cases where we think those measures may not be to the advantage of Canada and the citizens of Canada it is our bounden duty to raise the objections we can and bring to public attention those provisions which may have an adverse effect on Canada and Canadians.
That is what indeed the Opposition did with respect to Bill C-9 which was before this House and dealt with the Canadian Intelligence Security Service. The Opposition brought to the attention of Parliament, and through that parliamentary vehicle to the public, the faults of that Bill, the philosophy behind the Bill with which we have real disagreement. In that parliamentary exercise, I am sure we have cast a great deal of attention on that legislative measure, Bill C-9. If it appeared to be extreme in terms of parliamentary action, then we accept whatever responsibility we must assume for that action, because we thought and earnestly believed it was in the interests of all Canadians to focus attention on the legislation contained in Bill C-9 relating to the Canadian intelligence service.
We see quite the opposite attitude evidenced today in what I will say with respect to Bill S-14. We regard this Bill as the legitimate action of the Government of Canada in following the process which led to the adoption of a convention after agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States. We will co-operate, as we are now doing, to see that this Act of government receives proper attention and concurrence from the Parliament of Canada in such a way that it will benefit the taxpayers of Canada and indeed, incidentally and at the same time, the taxpayers of the United States of America.
My point is that we see our duty very clearly. Sometimes our duty is to oppose the Government to the bitter end. On other occasions our duty as opposition Members is to co-operate with the Government in order to achieve a benefit for the citizens of Canada, the people whom we represent in the Parliament of Canada. It is with that preface that I want to make some remarks about Bill S-14. It is with that thought in mind that what we are doing here in our function is co-operating in the way that we must in order to bring about what we are told is action beneficial to the people of Canada.
As has already been indicated, Bill S-14 simply is the authority from the Parliament of Canada to the Government of Canada to concur in and implement a convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to taxation and the collection of taxes. In legislative terms, the Act itself is very simple. It contains only the necessary technical provisions. What is of wider importance is the convention itself which contains the operative provisions. As I have indicated already, we in the Opposition in these circumstance must rely upon the advice we receive from government, through its representatives in the House of Commons, in this case the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren).
Tax Convention Act
As I understand it, the provisions were negotiated in good faith between representatives of the Government of Canada and representatives of the Government of the United States of America. For us to examine with a fine-tooth comb, or put under a parliamentary microscope, the provisions which have been agreed to between the representatives of those contracting parties would not be an appropriate response to the request to give concurrence to this legislative measure. In other words, it is not the function of Parliament to review what the officers of Canada and what the officers of the United States have in good faith consummated. However, at the same time we cannot simply absolve our duty or our responsibility to the people of Canada by saying that we are placing total reliance upon the officers whose responsibility and duty it was to construct this convention. We certainly have to give it some kind of review, and that is my purpose in speaking to Bill S-14 today.
The purpose of the convention, as we know in all such conventions in relation to taxation, is to avoid unfair treatment of taxpayers in the contracting states, in particular the unfairness of double taxation. In that respect of course we concur in the principle of avoiding double taxation, because it simply is unfair. It is unfair by definition. To the extent that the convention is approved by Bill S-14, of course we concur, but we are not certain that that is the only way the matter can be resolved. However, as I have already indicated, we are entitled to rely upon the advice given to us by the Government of Canada through the Minister of State for Finance.
Notwithstanding that we concur in the principle of avoiding double taxation between taxpayers of Canada and taxpayers of the United States, there are matters which should be recorded, as they will have a real effect upon Canadian and American taxpayers. Our concern is for the taxpayers of Canada we represent in the House of Commons and in the Parliament of Canada.
There are a number of matters to which I want to direct some specific remarks, but first I want to deal with the whole system of conventions between Canada and the United States. We have different systems. We both employ democratic systems of government in respect of which we are both proud. However, they are different systems. The United States of America has a presidential republican system of government. The power in that country is divided between the legislative body in the United States Congress and the executive represented by the duly-elected President of the United States.
The executive in the U.S. has negotiated a convention with Canada, but it requires the approval of Congress. As the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, approval of this specific convention relating to taxation has not yet been granted. That is a matter we have to take into account. Why do we have to take it into account? When we approve the legislation which enables the adoption of the convention by the Government of Canada we in Parliament have abrogated the power to do anything about this particular measure. We have left it up to the Government of Canada. We in Parliament have left other things up to the Government of Canada relying on the good

June 22, 1984
Tax Convention Act
faith and good judgment of the Government, and we have been very sorry that we allowed them that authority. But we recognize that with a majority in the House of Commons and with control of Parliament, the Government would do it in any event. However, that does not excuse us from raising a protest about legislation when danger signals occur.
I want to raise a danger signal with this process because we have been through it in other ways. I am quite serious in my statements in this regard. I have before me material with respect to what is of grave concern to myself, and particularly to people in Nova Scotia living in that part of the province called South Western Nova. It relates to Georges Bank. We are experiencing a certain amount of deja vu with this convention because the Government of Canada negotiated with the Government of the United States a convention with respect of fisheries rights in relation to Georges Bank, the most fertile fishing grounds in the world, upon which many Nova Scotian fishermen are totally dependent for their livelihood. The negotiations were conducted in good faith, as I am sure the negotiations with respect to the taxation treaty were conducted in good faith. The end result was that the Congress of the United States would not approve the convention. The matter was deliberated over a long period of time. The articles were formulated. The "i's" were dotted and the "t's" were crossed. It was negotiated and renegotiated, considered and reconsidered, viewed and reviewed. Finally the convention was formulated, but it was not approved by the Congress of the United States because a Senator from Rhode Island took a look at it and said that he did not agree with it, and that he did not think it was fair to U.S. fishermen on the East Coast. He decided that that convention ought not to be approved. There was not enough interest in the Congress of the United States to override the view and opinion of that particular Senator, and one or two others, one of whom was unfortunately that great guardian of civil rights in the United States, Senator Kennedy. A few of them got together and blocked consent and concurrence of the United States Senate to that treaty.
It is not a light matter when we in the Parliament of Canada just automatically give approval to a convention which has been negotiated by the Government of Canada with the Government of the United States, because we do not always get reciprocity on the other side; we do not always enjoy have the same response by the appropriate House in the United States Congress, as evidenced in the Georges Bank situation.
Because I think it is of vital importance, in that it involves the very livelihood of thousands of people in the Province of Nova Scotia, let me review briefly what happened as a result of the refusal of the United States Congress to approve the treaty and convention relating to fisheries rights on the Georges Bank. They are now before the International Court in the Hague. They are arguing like fishmongers literally before an international court of dubious jurisdiction over who will be allowed to harvest Georges Bank.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They have jurisdiction.


Howard Edward Crosby: There is the difference between a young lawyer and an old lawyer. I said dubious jurisdiction. The young lawyer apparently does not know that an international court has no inherent jurisdiction. Nobody gave it jurisdiction. There is no super power that formulates an international court and gives it jurisdiction.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have my Master's in international law.


Howard Edward Crosby: An international court only gains jurisdiction from the parties that come before the court. They can confer jurisdiction generally by a treaty, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) knows, or they can confer jurisdiction with respect to a particular case. In the case of the Georges Bank matter, jurisdiction was conferred by consent and concurrence for that specific case. The international court in the Hague has no right to intervene in disputes over Georges Bank and fishermen. That is why I used the term dubious jurisdiction. There is no basic inherent reason why the International Court in The Hague should be deciding a problem between fishermen from the eastern United States, the New England States, and from Southwestern Nova.
The only reason they are deciding that is because the Government of Canada, sitting in the national capital of Ottawa, and the Government of the United States, sitting in the national capital of Washington, have decided that that is the way to get rid of the problem, that that is the way to treat the fishermen of Nova Scotia and New England.
There is a group of lawyers like my friend from the New Democratic Party arguing over what are the essential, vital and important rights. They are talking about ancient history, legal documents and so on. They are not talking about people or about lives. They really do not care if the multimillion dollar scallop industry is lost to Nova Scotia. It is just a matter of charging fees. No doubt many lawyers are charging immense fees to handle this case. That does not bother the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party. He is a lawyer. Like he says, he has a Master's degree in international law. He thinks that is the way these things should happen. I do not think that is the way things should happen. I think the future of the parties is largely dependent upon the determination of this dispute. They should be involved in it, not a bunch of lawyers in The Hague.
That is the problem with international conventions. When we cannot agree. All sorts of terrible and horrible things can happen. That is why we consider with a great deal of responsibility a measure like S-14. We do not want to end up in international courts over this kind of dispute. We do not want people in the State of Texas or the Province of Quebec to be burdened with excessive taxation because we cannot come to some kind of sensible agreement on how to treat the matter. That is why we are prepared to contribute our consent to the passage of this Bill in the Parliament of Canada, so that the measures can be implemented.
In the course of deciding what action to take, we have to point out those things of real importance to the taxpayers who will be affected by this convention. First, there is the matter of
June 22, 1984

freedom of information. Every taxpayer in Canada, including the House Leader for the Liberal Party if he gets involved in any cross border events, will be subjected to the application of this convention and the provisions of the convention. As a Canadian dealing with matters in the United States, information concerning his fears will be a public record. Under the provisions of the convention, the United States authorities will have full access to that information. They can require any information that they normally require in the enforcement of their tax measures. That will be on file in the United States of America. That may not bother the House Leader for the Liberal Party, but there are some Canadians who do not particularly want all their files in Washington, the capital of the United States, or any other place.
We have seen the other side of that. Canadian Pacific, that great Canadian company, files documents and other materials with the Government of Canada under legislation of the Parliament of Canada under which the corporation is constituted. However, they do not tell us anything about their inside activities, trading in shares and that sort of thing which they are required to disclose in the United States. If you want to find out anything about Canadian Pacific, the salaries of its directors and officers and other inside information, do not come to Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Go to Washington. You will get it there. They have all kinds of information.
There is an exchange of information. The provisions of the convention provide for free flow of information. I could look up the specific provision. It is Article XXVII headed "Exchange of Information". I could read it, but why should I? Let the member from the New Democratic Party read it on his own. I will just note for the record of the House of Commons that there is a provision in the convention relating to the exchange of information.
This means that information concerning Canadian taxpayers who find themselves subject to this convention can flow freely to the United States of America to be held in their information banks. Under their freedom of information laws, which we do not have in Canada, anybody in Canada can probably gain access to much of that information. That is an important point to consider. It is not all one way. We are giving up some things here. That may be acceptable in the broad concern of avoiding double taxation.
There are very specific things that we do not have time to look into. As I indicated, it may not even be the function of Members of the House of Commons to look into them. It has been pointed out to me that these provisions may pass to United States companies and small business enterprises the benefits intended to be granted to Canadian small business and enterprises with respect to the special tax concessions recently granted. As I understand it, corporations and persons subject to these convention measures are entitled to the lowest form of taxation. Consequently, if a United States business concern becomes subject to the provisions of this convention, I understand it will be entitled to the benefits that would flow through to a small business enterprise in Canada.
Tax Convention Act
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) recently introduced a budget in the House of Commons that had special specific measures designed to encourage Canadian small business. As a result of this convention, those same benefits would flow through to a U.S. enterprise to which the convention was subject. In other words, we have agreed in this Bill and convention to pass on to the United States concerns and enterprises to which the convention applies the same benefits that we give to Canadians. Of course, in exchange we will be getting in the United States, as I understand it, similar benefits. We must be aware of that reciprocity.
The Government of Canada as one of its stated policies has tried to encourage Canadian ownership, Canadian control of our own economy. Here is a measure that is going the other way. We are saying "Look, let's share this continent, this part of North America in economic terms." I would say that is a contradiction in Government policy, but not one with which I have any special agreement. I believe there has to be free commerce, free exchange, with protective provisions, of course. We should be moving in that direction. That is the effect of the convention. The effect of approving Bill S-14 will be to give consent and concurrence to a legislative directive.
I think I have indicated what I have set out to do; first and foremost that we want to participate and co-operate in the process by which conventions negotiated between officers of the Government of Canada and officers of the Government of the United States are ratified and implemented. We do not want to block the measures. We do not take it as our parliamentary duty to examine the provisions with a fine toothcomb. We do not take it as our function to undo what has already been done and agreed to, but we do take it as our responsibility to review in a general way the situation to make sure there is nothing blatant, improper or unfair in the provisions, to the extent that we have that capacity, and then give it approval in that spirit of co-operation.
It is quite different from our attitude toward Bill C-9 where we thought that the liberty of the subject in Canada was at stake and that there were other vital matters relating to personal freedoms at stake. This is simply an administrative measure. We recognize that. We want to co-operate, but we want to give a warning that we should watch this sort of thing carefully. We should watch the provisions. There may be effects of which we are not aware. We could have repeats of situations like Georges Bank.
Why do we give things away when we should be bargaining? How did this process with respect to the convention on Georges Bank come about? Did anyone speak to the Senator from Rhode Island beforehand to find out what he thought? Did anyone go to Kennedy to find out that this opposition existed before we gave our interests away? That situation will probably not arise at all with respect to this tax convention, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, no approval has been given through Congress. How do we know that that approval will be given? How do we know they will not hold up that

June 22, 1984
Tax Convention Act
approval for some other concession that is part of the international bargaining arrangements and so on?
In a sense, we approve this Bill with a blind eye. I make no apology for that because that is the way our system works. As I said, it is the spirit of co-operation that is important. It is important to get the business that is in the interests of the public and the Canadian taxpayers done. That is why we reviewed the Bill and that is why we are prepared to give it consent. Once again, we are placing faith in the Government of Canada. People may say that it is a mistake to do so, that we should not even think of doing so. However, under our system we must place faith in the Government of Canada.
I for one, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, can only say that we are going to do it once, we are going to place faith in the Government of Canada. We have been told that this measure benefits the people of Canada in relation to taxation and we accept the word of the Government. We consent to the processing of this Bill as quickly as possible so that it can be approved by the appropriate authorities and given effect, in the hope and expectation that it will benefit taxpayers in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke said: "I think I have indicated what I have set out to do." He has not done that at all. I cannot understand members of the Conservative Party. Here they are filibustering the Bill through a long-winded and convoluted speech which ends up by saying that they are trying to support expeditious passage of the Bill. What are they filibustering? They are trying to take up time this afternoon so that we cannot get to Bill C-36, an Act to amend interest rates, an Act which will give my constituents a break on their mortgages, which is exactly what the people need.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the basic traditions of Parliament is that one does not impute motives to another Member of Parliament. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has risen and said that I am trying to filibuster the Bill. I am simply stating the position of the Progressive Conservative caucus with respect to Bill S-14. I am not filibustering anything. It is certainly not my intention to do so, but I do object to the imputation of that motive by anyone, and particularly by that Member of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The point is well taken. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has been recognized for the purpose of expressing his opinion on Bill S-14.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to debate the words of the Hon. Member. He said that the International Court of Justice has dubious jurisdiction. He said that there is no basic inherent reason for the Court to decide this case, except that it is a legal problem. It is a problem which is international in its scope. It is a question of two jurisdictions giving consent to the International Court, and that is precisely why that Court is set up. It is exactly the kind of problem with
which an International Court should deal. The Hon. Member has said that the International Court is not talking about people. What does he think the courts in the country are doing every day? It's absurd.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is invited to speak to the subject which is before the House.


Howard Edward Crosby: He is not speaking, he is filibustering.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am replying to the long-winded and ridiculous speech made by the Member who spoke previously.
I want to say something about this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary said that its ratification is eagerly awaited by all those affected. I do not know that, but I will take his word for it. I gather those taxpayers will benefit because I have never heard of taxpayers eagerly awaiting tax legislation that would take more money from their pockets. Presumably the taxpayers will receive some benefit. I understand it is fair in the sense that they are paying double taxation in two different countries. Therefore, we in the NDP are prepared to support the Bill and support it expeditiously. The Parliamentary Secretary has a point when he says that the double-taxation convention goes back to 1942. It is about time that it is updated, and this treaty will update it.
I would like to make one further point. Notice how quickly we can pass a change in tax law or implement a treaty or change a tax policy in the House. If we can do it that quickly, I would say to the Government and the Canadian people that we could pass a Bill allowing for a fair system of taxation in Canada just as quickly. We could deal with the tremendous problems of growing high interest rates, housing problems and taxation problems in Canada just as quickly as we can deal with this Bill. The Government would have our support in that. If we were the Government we would do it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is on the following motion: Mr. Whelan, for the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. MacLaren), seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved that Bill S-14, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and capital, be read the second time and, with the unanimous consent of the House, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Guilbault in the chair.
June 22, 1984
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-14, an Act to implement the convention between Canada and the United States with respect to taxes on income and on capital.
On Clause 2-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I did not wish to say anything with respect to this provision. However, now that the Minister is in the House I wonder whether he might want to respond to some of the questions or concerns expressed regarding that aspect of the Bill relating to access to information, and the implications with respect to dividends to small businesses raised during the course of the debate. Is the Minister satisfied with the observations made by my colleague with respect to the implications to Canadians of having information through our Access to Information Act made available to the Americans?
We currently gain access to information with regard to corporate salaries in the United States under the American freedom of information legislation. Does the Minister think it would be possible for Americans to obtain information with respect to salaries in Canada, including those paid to heads of Crown corporations or civil servants? Will that be involved in this legislation?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, in view of the time I shall be very quick, as I am sure it is the intent of the Hon. Member opposite to see this Bill go through the proceedings before four o'clock.
In fact, under the American practice, the salary levels are made available, not so much through any freedom of information legislation but rather through the practices of the Security Exchange Commission under an Article called 10K. Under that Article, United States corporations are required to provide information about senior employees' salaries. That is not a practice that we have used here in Canada. Our practice will continue to conform entirely with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the spirit of commercial confidentiality.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
*******
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been attempts made to proceed with Private Members' Business, but we have not been successful for various reasons. Notwithstanding the Order which was passed with regard to the sittings of the House, I would suggest that you now call it five o'clock.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I agree.
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. First, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: If there is not unanimous consent, I will hear the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Speaking on behalf of the NDP-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, if Members do not want to consult me about these matters, I will not give my unanimous consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No one has been consulted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Bill C-36, to amend the Interest Act, is before the House. That Bill would give people a break on the interest rates of their mortgages. I thought we would deal with that this afternoon. Through you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House Leader could tell us what is about to happen with that Bill. Could it be dealt with this afternoon, or will it be dealt with expeditiously next week? I have not been informed about that, and I see no reason to give unanimous consent until I am informed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we had scheduled Bill C-37 to be debated today, and I wanted to see that Bill passed. However, we succeeded in passing three Bills today which are most important-the GIS Bill, the Mortgage Protection Plan and Bill S-14, the Tax Convention Act between Canada and the United States.
I thank the Hon. Member for his comments and his generous offer to allow the Bill to amend the Interest Act to be adopted. Unfortunately it is past four o'clock and it is time for Private Members' Business. That would require the unanimous consent of the House. If we had unanimous consent to pass the Bill which amends the Interest Act before five o'clock we would agree to that. However, it has not been discussed among the House Leaders that the House should sit beyond four o'clock to deal with Government business. There were meetings yesterday and the day before with the House Leaders. The House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party is here, however the House Leader for the NDP had to leave, and I understand he had a very good reason for doing so. I would not like to force something on the Official Opposition without having consulted with them. However, if they are willing to sit spontaneously and deal with the Interest Act, fine. If not, I am not in a position to blame anyone because the time provided to deal with Government business has expired.
5104

June 22, 1984
Business of the House
I thank the Hon. Member for his generosity. If we do not receive consent today, then maybe next week we will be successful in including this piece of legislation because of the trend which seems to be developing now. That trend will show the people of the country that Parliament can work and that it will adjourn on June 29 with a number of very important Bills passed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) sits in oblivion of what is happening in this House. This is another demonstration of the Member again speaking without having the slightest idea of what he is talking about. Of course, he proposes to speak on behalf of the NDP. That is easy for him to say. Where is his House Leader? Can he assure me that he has spoken with his House Leader about the order of business for today, and the matters which have been discussed in confidence with the Government House Leader regarding the way in which this legislation will be proceeded with? I suggest not, Sir.
We have tried to pass a lot of legislation. We have been successful in passing several pieces of legislation here today. For the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway to attempt to grandstand himself before the 20 or 30 people in the galleries here today is typical of the level of his participation in this House. I would say to him that if he wants to find out what is going on he should consult with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
We have discussed the order of business and the sequence on the floor of the House of Commons. I know who is standing in his place and wants to speak on the interest Bill. He only began his remarks. It was not a Member of my Party, it was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) who had the floor of the House. I suppose, miraculously, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway will stand in his place and tell us that he has had a transcendental discussion with the Member from Winnipeg-St. James and finds that he does not want to say anything further. The last time this Bill was up, he just cleared his throat. He had the floor when the House adjourned. When the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway stands up and tries to suggest that we are holding up legislation which is helpful to the people of Canada, I would remind him that these allegations are contrary to the truth-to put it in parliamentary terms. I think that he should allow the House
Leaders to carry on with these negotiations and that he should not grandstand during the last days of a dying session. We are all nervous about the election. We are all trembling in our places and wondering about our own seats-particularly the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Yvon Pinard: We are not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course the Government House Leader would not be worried. He comes from what is known as a rotten borough. That is what he told me. He told me, "No problem. I don't care. People will re-elect me because I am so wonderful". I take my re-election seriously. I would simply say to the Member that I do not appreciate being accused of doing things which are detrimental to the people of Canada. If it comes down to it, I will put my record against his any time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to be lectured by the Opposition House Leader as to my record or position. I would be prepared to listen to the Government House Leader, who properly put the matter into perspective. He suggested that they were prepared to go ahead. I was prepared to agree with him, but after hearing the arguments and the insults of the Opposition House Leader, and after seeing that this Bill in fact changes interest rates and helps the real people of the world who badly need this legislation because they are paying 17 per cent and 18 per cent interest rates on their mortgages- and they are locked into those mortgages-I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House, and I have spoken with my House Leader and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), to proceed with this Bill now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent for the proposal of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, there is not. I am sad to say that the Hon. Member did not consult with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, contrary to what he has said. Under the circumstances, I refuse to give unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. There being no item for consideration during Private Members' Hour, the House will now adjourn.
Pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 21, 1984, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, June 26, 1984 at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 26, 1984