1986-05-30

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, an article in La Presse indicates that the Conservative Government has decided to hire 250 inspectors to look into unemployment insurance abuses. We have also learned that the provincial Government is about to axe social welfare benefits.
Mr. Speaker, both approaches clearly show that Governments should get together and implement a guaranteed minimum income, or a minimum monthly income.
Mr. Speaker, instead of taking this piecemeal approach and trying to look for abusers, the federal Government should forthwith convene all provinces and interested parties-and I think Canadians are ready for this-to launch a major reform of all social programs to help the needy, not to reduce the deficit.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker:
We must recognize that apartheid is the primary violence in South Africa. It's the violence of the migratory labour system, the violence of detention without trial, the violence that forces children to starve, the violence that stunts intellectual and spiritual growth-apartheid is an evil and immoral system which must be destroyed.
Those are the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner who will be in Toronto this weekend to join citizens of Metropolian Toronto and Canada to add their voices in support against apartheid.
The Toronto Arts Against Apartheid Festival Foundation has sponsored eight stimulating days of theatre, music, art, poetry, and discussions, designed to offer insights into the
issues surrounding apartheid and to celebrate international equality and social justice.
The Toronto Arts Against Apartheid Festival is a celebration of freedom. Organizers are to be congratulated for this outstanding effort. They are sending a message to South Africa. Let us join them-South Africa will hear us.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since we are Members of Parliament, any Canadian wishing to express an opinion or concern may simply pick up a telephone to call us, or put their views down on paper and simply mail them to us postage free. I have in my hand an envelope which was properly addressed to me from Pointe aux Trembles in the Province of Quebec, but the Post Office deemed fit to affix a label to it and return it to the sender due to insufficient postage.
It seems to me that the Post Office is revoking our parliamentary privileges by acting in such an arbitrary manner. I realize that this may happen occasionally due to the volume of letters received at a post office, but when this happens three times to the same sender, there is no excuse. There are just too many examples of what is wrong with the Post Office these days.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance in Canada is supposed to be just that, insurance. It is insurance in that it provides needed assistance to those Canadians who find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. Unemployment insurance is not welfare and it is not a handout. Therefore it only makes sense for the Government to introduce a program that helps people on unemployment insurance to find work. The interviews that are slated to begin this summer do just that.

May 30, 1986
Let the abusers of unemployment insurance beware. The interviews will also crack down on those who choose to abuse unemployment insurance at the expense of all Canadians. The unemployment insurance interviews will not be a witch hunt but a job hunt.


SHIPYARDS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, before 2,000 people who came here to seek the Government's views on a shipbuilding policy, the Minister of State (Small Businesses)(Mr. Bissonnette) promised to initiate a dialogue with the unions. Silence still prevails today. The federal Government took court action against shipyard workers whose only sin was to ask the Government to respect their rights.

The Government refused a conciliation board report and now has taken the unprecedented step of taking the shipyard workers to court for trying to exercise their rights to parity in pay scales and acceptance of a conciliation board report.
We urge the Government not to take the workers to court and in fact to agree to the conciliation board report which simply asks that East Coast maritime workers be paid the same as their West Coast counterparts. It is only fair and just. Let us stop the blustering heard in the House of Commons by the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) and start talking with the unions across the country so that they can rest assured that at least-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail announced yesterday that it will be consolidating its accounting department in Montreal within 90 days. This will mean the transfer of some 27 positions from Winnipeg to Montreal and the abolition of another 11 positions in Winnipeg. This is the kind of thing that for years Conservatives told Winnipegers would never happen if the Tories were in power to protect them.
Since the election of the Conservative Government in 1984, on railway matters alone there have been, among other things, a deferral of the VIA Rail maintenance shop, the attempted abolition by CN of the Prairie Region with Winnipeg as its headquarters and lately, instead of politically volatile moves, Winnipeg is being nickeled and dimed to death by moves like the one made yesterday by VIA, and by systematic downgrading of senior CN positions in Winnipeg and upgrading of those in Edmonton to which they increasingly report in a subordinate way. Manitoba Conservatives should all have bags over their heads.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carieton):: Mr. Speaker, 1985 was an important year for the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Council. It received strategic investments by two major U.S. companies. As well, 24 firms involving over 300 permanent jobs were assisted by the council in expansion or new investments.
The Government has always recognized the importance of small business as a key source of dynamism and innovation in the Canadian economy and the most important source of jobs in Canada today. The Government has brought in a wide-ranging series of co-ordinated actions to encourage private initiative and competitiveness in the Canadian economy. These initiatives of small business are aimed at inspiring growth and confidence in our economy.
The success of the Ottawa-Carleton Development Council in 1985 is one of the many successes our country is experiencing as a result of these initiatives.
A total of $7.6 billion in purchase orders went to the private sector in Ottawa-Carleton last year. This is what small business can do for a community and for our country. It represents diversification, new jobs, and new wealth.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the implications of possibly the most costly mistake made in Canadian Government history. The Deputy Minister of Finance says that when the Liberal Finance Minister introduced SRTCs in 1983 there was a conscious choice to allow the "quick flips" that cost taxpayers
May 30, 1986

a billion dollars and are now costing another half billion to investigate and prosecute.
The SRTC program was ill-conceived and politically irresponsible, compounded by the total lack of corrective action by Finance Department officials. They knew in advance about the costly flaws in this disastrous program, but it was the new Tory Government which stopped it a year and a half and hundreds of millions of dollars later.
We in the Government must make responsible decisions. However, the highly qualified professionals in the Public Service must be fully accountable in carrying them out, in monitoring them, and in advising immediately on corrective action if necessary. Taxpayers should expect no less, and I demand action on this vital issue.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a press conference which was organized by Project Ploughshare, dealing with the serious plight of Dr. Vladmir Brodsky who is a Soviet citizen. The doctor's only crime was that he was a member of the Moscow Trust Group, a peace activist group in that country.
Unfortunately that conference was not attended by a large delegation of media members, and I am afraid that the message has not got out that it is very incumbent upon Canadians and the Canadian Government to make every effort to urge the Soviet Government to free Dr. Brodsky, who has provided a major, important, and significant effort in the Soviet Union to bring the message of peace to that Government.
Mr. Gorbachev has been very active in proposing a number of peace proposals. Those proposals cannot be taken seriously as long as that Government is repressing the right of Soviet citizens who are also interested in peace.
I hope all Members of the House will join with us in urging the Canadian Government to take up the case of Dr. Brodsky.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, residents of British Columbia have serious concerns about certain actions and subsequent lack of follow-up in recent months by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie).
As provided under federal law, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council has enacted four fishing by-laws for the Skeena River system. The Council has specific studies related to the salmon stocks and mechanisms to promote conservation and enhancement, as well as selective harvesting. These principles are supported by all user groups on the Skeena.
The tempest arose as a result of the two Ministers producing a policy on co-management without any consultation whatsoever. The policy has been withdrawn, but the Ministers have hidden away from the real concerns of all residents-commercial, native, and sport. They have hidden from allocation and thus harmed the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en aspirations and alarmed other users.
I have offered to chair a public meeting anywhere in the B.C. northwest prior to the laws becoming effective on June 15, 1986. Neither Minister has yet agreed to attend. This will lead to a dangerous and unnecessary confrontation-a result we must assume they intended.
[DOT] * [DOT]


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, farmers are becoming increasingly nervous about the policies of the Farm Credit Corporation. Even though the Bank of Canada interest rate is 8.58 per cent today, many farmers are still caught in a mid-teen mortgage. The FCC still insists upon full penalties when farmers sell off land to pay mortgages. To cut down interest rates most banks forgive penalties, but the FCC refuses to do so.
Most farmers will not qualify for the 6 per cent commodity mortgage plan, and the way it is set up I am not sure they should apply. Farm credit needs to be overhauled, and there is a need for a pool of 6 per cent money which will be of some use to our farmers, if we are to carry on our cheap food policy.


LOW OIL PRICES-EFFECT ON CALGARY
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada should know that more and more Calgarians are suffering the consequences of continuing low oil prices. For the four weeks ending May 16, 24 per cent more unemployment insurance claims were filed than in the same period last year. A large number of these claimants were engineers, geologists, managers, and clerical staff.
These are the people who helped build this dynamic industry. As it loses these professionals, the oil industry is losing the vital strength it will need to rebuild. Low world oil

May 30, 1986
Oral Questions
prices have come at a time when producers are burdened with over $22 billion of debt. The recent decline in interest rates of 2.75 per cent since February has thus been most welcome. I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to continue his efforts to reduce interest rates further.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
tariffs and for a standstill on any future harrassment on the trade import issue as requested just yesterday by the Government's staunch Tory ally, Premier Getty of Alberta?
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I caution the Hon. Member on the question of standstill. The question of standstill works both ways. Yes, there is a problem, as the Hon. Member and I both agree, a very important problem given rise to by the decision of the Americans last week on the shakes and shingles industry. But we may well, as a country, have some irritants, some concern going the other way, on which we might want to take action. Standstill would rob us of that possibility. That is a very important consideration we have to take in mind as we approach the whole question of standstill.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Now that the ill-conceived, confusing request by the Canadian Government for compensation has been refused by the United States Government, something that everyone except the Canadian Government knew would happen, what is the Government going to do? Instead of engaging in reckless retaliatory policies, why will the Prime Minister not deal directly with the President of the United States and ask for a rollback of the tariff and a standstill on harassment actions? Why is the Prime Minister afraid to talk to the President of the United States on this issue?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not afraid to talk to anyone on any issue. I hear from the Hon. Member one thing, from the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount another thing, and Leader of the Official Opposition on something else. The confusion about this matter is over there.
We have had meetings with officials in Washington. We have had meetings with the industry here in Canada to understand its point of view on the issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is having an important meeting this afternoon with the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz. This is a process which has a number of sides to it, as the Hon. Member I think should know. It is for that reason we are approaching this in a very responsible and measured way in order to understand clearly the implications before taking decisions.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance not understand that this issue is of such significance that having a meeting in Washington with a group of officials is not the appropriate way to deal with it? It must be done on the level of heads of Government, one to another. Will the Government undertake serious action to get a rollback, and in the meetings today being held with Secretary of State Shultz will our Secretary of State for External Affairs be asking explicitly for a rollback of those


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT-PROVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, so far the whole question of standstill has been a oneway street, not a two-way street, and we are on the receiving end of it. If the Government has failed in all its other initiatives, does the Minister intend to invoke the provisions of the Employment Support Act which was passed by this Parliament in 1971, which will provide direct financial assistance to the workers and to the industry that will enable them to stay in business until we can properly work our way out of this very difficult problem we have been put into by the Americans and by this Government?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be very careful in saying that this Government put us into this problem. This decision, this action, was taken by the United States Government. It was not taken by the Government of Canada. That sort of distortion does not help anyone.
We met with the industry, as the Hon. Member knows, on Wednesday. We are having continuing discussions on the implications of the tariff as it relates to the domestic industry, and decisions will be taken in due course.


PRIME MINISTER'S CONTACTS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has been thrown into this situation as a penalty killer. I would like to give him the opportunity of being a bit more forthcoming.
The Minister of Justice has raised the issue of retaliation in the United States and the Minister of Finance alluded to that with respect to a standstill agreement. That would probably invoke a non-productive and costly trade war. We would like to hear from him on that.
Apparently the issue of compensation is no longer available. The one thing we do not know is why the Prime Minister has
May 30, 1986

not simply spoken to the President directly. If he has, as we presume he has, will the Minister confirm it to the House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the Hon. Member was raising the question of things we should do in retaliation and saying that we should call off these talks altogether. That was the flourish of rhetoric which came out of the Hon. Member's mouth. Three days later the Leader of the Opposition pulled his leash very toughly around his neck and said: "No, no, we are not going to have retaliation. We do not want to raise the stakes. We should go quietly and do what the Americans want us to do". Now he is again saying that we must have retaliation. The Hon. Member does not know where they are coming from. We have set out quite clearly the measured process that we are taking to come to a proper conclusion on this matter. The Hon. Member is well aware of those steps.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, they really know what amateur hour is in management of the public sector.


REQUEST FOR TARIFF ROLLBACK
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that completely gratuitous comment, the suggestion was that these talks be suspended until this matter is dealt with. The Premiers have effectively put forward the same position. The Leader of our Party has backed that position from the outset. The only thing left that makes sense is to ask for a rollback of the tariff since all of the other elements are not there. Instead of recommending retaliation, as the Minister of Justice has done-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Member ask a question please?


Donald James Johnston: Why is the President not being asked to roll back the tariff?


Geoff Wilson: I think the President of the United States is very, very aware of the position taken by the Prime Minister in his letter to the President himself-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Brian got a busy signal.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: -in the discussions which have been held with officials, and in the discussions that will be held this afternoon between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Clark. The position of the Government of Canada is very, very clear.
The management of this issue must be handled very carefully because of the complexity of the issue and the possible repercussions if things are not handled in the appropriate fashion. That is what we are working on in a measured way with the various contacts which we have had with the administration this week.
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


SUSPENSION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday a matter of fundamental human rights was brought to the attention of the office of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and myself. I refer to the case of Toni Corrado, a 13-year employee of Air Canada who had been, to use the phrase of Air Canada, "taken out of service" for a week because she had the audacity to act under the provisions of freedom of expression in the Charter, in replying to questions.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister or the Government looked into the proceedings which took place yesterday which can only be described as a kangaroo court, a violation of both the process and substance of freedom? Will they take action immediately to restore the right to work to Toni Corrado, a 13-year good employee of Air Canada?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can simply reassure the hon. gentleman that it is not the intention of the Government to intervene in what we consider to be a purely internal matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when, in government, a Party which voted for the Charter of Human Rights refers a case as important as this to a Crown corporation as being an internal matter. We see it as a fundamental question of justice in which the Prime Minister's office and the Minister of Justice should be involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDUCT OF HEARING
John Edward Broadbent: I will direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The hearing given by Air Canada to this employee yesterday allowed only 15 minutes of testimony by her. It did not include any supporting witnesses, such as other flight attendants who were on the flight, and referred to no specific rule being broken by this employee. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see this, apart from the substance, as a violation of due process, and will he intervene directly to see justice is restored to this woman?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman fails to take into account the fact that due process is now taking place. The appeal procedure has started, and I simply assure him that the lady in question returns to work this weekend and will remain at work until such time as the appeal process has been exhausted.

May 30, 1986
13800_____________________________________
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since it is clearly open to the Government, after consultation with Air Canada, to involve itself in this process, and since it is clear to anyone who has looked with care at the facts that an injustice has been done, instead of having this unfairness spin out for many days, possibly months, will the Government do the correct thing for a good employee and let her return to work with dignity?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is, I suppose, better equipped than most of us when he stands in his place and asks us to believe that what he asserts is fact. I did not attend that hearing. I dare say he did not either. The Parliamentary Secretary informed the House that there is an appeal process and that is now being pursued. The hon. gentleman and his supporters would be the first to scream blue murder if the Government interfered with that due process. Surely he should have the decency to allow that appeal process, which is in place pursuant to a collective agreement, to come to a conclusion.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- COMPENSATION ISSUE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He said that the Government has been carefully managing the very serious issue of the 35 per cent duty on cedar shakes and shingles. How can he say that when the Government has wasted almost a whole week seeking compensation from the Americans when he, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have known from the beginning that the U.S. had no legal authority to grant such compensation in the first place? Why did the Government waste precious time in this way? Is this not another example of the way the Government is handling this matter as being nothing more than amateur hour on the Rideau?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that stopped on September 4, 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We had discussions with U.S. officials and it was not at all clear what their position was going to be on the question of compensation. Following discussions in Washington it did become clear and they indicated their decision to us. However, it was not until then that we could give up that possibility. I am sure the Hon. Member would have been the first on his feet flapping away,
telling us we had let go one option we could have taken had we done that at an early stage, as he now suggests we should have done.


TERMS OF U.S. TARIFF ANNOUNCEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the official announcement of the duty from Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael B. Smith which says: "Because this tariff is not bound under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade we will not have to compensate our trading partners for any damage to their exports resulting from the tariff increase."
Did the Minister and his Government not have this release? Did they not know this from the beginning? Whatever the Minister says, this is obviously another example of the incompetence of this Government when it comes to handling our trade relations with the U.S.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a point that Mr. Smith said they did not have to provide compensation. Surely it is a responsibility of a Government to press the other side to make sure there are not other reasons which might allow them to give compensation. When we raised this matter with them earlier this week they said it was a matter to be considered. They spent some time considering that and came back with their answer to us at the meeting subsequent to that. It was not a closed door by any means when the matter was first raised by our Government.


REQUEST THAT INDUSTRY AND UNIONS BE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since compensation from the United States on shakes and shingles never was an option and was never supported by the Canadian industry, I would like to ask the Minister if his Government will guarantee that from this moment forward representatives of the shake and shingle industry and the workers will be directly involved in the negotiations regarding the removal of the 35 per cent duty and the definition of market share processes that are going on right now?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was not at the meeting on Wednesday which took place at lunch time, but I believe it was indicated to the industry at that time that we intended to keep in close touch with them regarding any responses that might be taken in this particular matter.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has refused to call the President of the United States over this unfair duty against Canada's shake and shingle industry, would the Minister of Finance advise this House whether he has been or will be making direct representations
May 30, 1986

to the United States before Monday, opposing the countervail action against Canadian softwood, because as of Monday it will become a legal process, whereas right now there is still a political opening to allow for those kinds of representations?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not refused to speak to the President of the United States. I think the Hon. Member knows full well that the dialogue between this Prime Minister and this President has been as open as any dialogue between any two leaders in the history of the two countries.
In response to the Hon. Member's question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be meeting with Mr. Shultz later on today, and a number of matters in relation to trade problems with the United States will be raised at that time.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Recently, a CBC reporter was taken to court because he made our airport security systems look ridiculous.
Yesterday, we heard that a stewardess was suspended because she said in public what thousands of Canadians are thinking, namely that the Government is incompetent and corrupt.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what inspired the Department of Transport to indulge in this kind of intimidation?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think that question hardly befits the spokesman. However, I will take notice of it and bring it to the Minister's attention. He might reply when he returns.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
André Ouellet: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realize that under our legislation, the Minister of Transport can give instructions to Air Canada? And will the Minister intervene within the next few days to exonerate the stewardess who was erroneously suspended, and will he do so as soon as possible, so as not to perpetuate this injustice?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member
Oral Questions
draws some inferences which are quite unfair and unjust. I do not think that, as with his colleague in the New Democratic Party, that that distinguished Member, a former Cabinet Minister, would sit still for one minute if we were seen to be interfering with what is due process. There is a point in time when the representation of the Member can be considered, but not until such time as due process has been allowed to run its course.


SUSPENSION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government appears to wish to wash its hands of the disgraceful injustice which occurred in Air Canada yesterday when a flight attendant was suspended for 30 days without pay. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that since the complaint was sent to the Government, not to Air Canada, that the Government has a duty and a responsibility to have this injustice reversed, just as his Party demanded when they were in opposition, of a previous administration, in the firing of Neil Fraser for discussing metrication?


Erik Nielsen: The two cases bear no resemblance whatsoever, in my view. I am very surprised that the Hon. Member for Regina West would be standing in his place advocating that the Government should interfere with a process that is enshrined in a collective bargaining agreement between labour and management, a process set in place to deal with matters of this nature. Surely the hon. gentleman should be answering the question of why he should be suggesting that this collective bargaining provision in their own agreement should be breached in these circumstances.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it should never have happened in the first place if Air Canada and the cabinet Minister concerned agreed that this was not worthy of this kind of treatment.
The executive correspondence unit of the Ministry of Transport sent three documents to Air Canada numbered one of three, two of three, and three of three. At the hearing yesterday only two of three and three of three were provided to the flight attendant and her union representatives. I would like to know if this House, the flight attendant, and the union can have page one of three? What is on it, and can we have it?


Erik Nielsen: I am unaware of the documents to which the hon. gentleman refers. They are recorded now on the "blues". I will look at the details and the Minister of Transport will undoubtedly, if the documents are under his jurisdiction, see to it that consideration is given to the request made by the hon. gentleman.

May 30, 1986
13802______________________________
Oral Questions CHALLENGE '86


YOUTH SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PRIVATE AND NON-PRIVATE SECTORS
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House are interested in the summer youth employment programs. Now that most of the grants have been assigned under the SEED Program in Challenge '86, could the Minister tell the House how those funds have been allocated to the private sector in relation to the non-private sector, and what is the variation of those funds from province to province?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that Challenge '86 has been a great success this year. We are going to have many young people employed this summer so they may earn their tuition and go back to school in the fall.
As for the allocation of money to the private and the public sector, it changes according to the different provinces. The average is 35 per cent in the private sector and 65 per cent for the non-private sector. The difference varies from, let's say, 85 per cent public in Newfoundland to 51 per cent public in Alberta.


AIR CANADA
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope he does not hide behind the umbrella or the mask of a collective agreement. My question concerns the fundamental right of free speech for every Canadian. I would like to ask him why the Government does not exercise its power under the Financial Administration Act to issue a written directive to Air Canada demanding that it reinstate this hotesse de I'air without any penalty?


Erik Nielsen: There is a process in place that is being followed. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would be suggesting that we interfere with a proper and appropriate process that is in place, and not allow the appeal process to be exhausted. Surely that is within the rights of those individuals who are involved.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: It was his political Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, that set this issue in motion. Why does the Minister choose to ignore his Government's responsibility under the Financial Administration Act, which empowers his Government to issue a written directive
demanding that Air Canada restore the right of free speech so that every person who works for Air Canada, every federal government employee, and indeed every Canadian, can feel free to speak out without the kind of harassment that has been evident in this particular case?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, being an expert in harassment, knows of course of what she speaks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: That is disgraceful for a Deputy Prime Minister.


Erik Nielsen: It is not truthful to say that the Progressive Conservative Party was responsible for originating this matter. The correspondence that was forwarded to the Minister was immediately forwarded to the management of Air Canada which has dealt with it as a management problem, and there is now an appeal process in place which all Members should have the decency to allow to come to completion.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. In view of everyone's grave concern about the decision of the United States to breach the limits of the SALT II Agreement, will the Minister tell the House, and indeed the Canadian public, what are the alleged violations on the part of the Soviet Union? The Prime Minister said that they were too numerous to mention. Apart from the question of the SS-25, upon which there is a difference of opinion within NATO, what are the violations by the Soviet Union?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is inaccurate for the Hon. Member to say that the United States has made a decision to breach SALT II. My understanding of the President's statement does not accord with that at all. The Prime Minister stated in Halifax that he did not believe that any breach of the SALT II provisions would find support in NATO and certainly would not find support in Canada. With respect to the alleged violations, I do not believe I have the time to go into detail on the floor of the House of Commons, unless the Hon. Member wishes to devote her supplementary question to that subject again and I will outline some of them.


NATURE OF VIOLATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said: "I could mention quite a few but they are obvious to everyone." Everyone I have asked at
May 30, 1986

the Arms Control Centre and elsewhere cannot give me examples apart from the question of the SS-25. It is incumbent upon the Department and the Government to tell us what these violations are. I ask the Minister to do so now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the arms limitation arrangements which now exist between the Soviet Union and the United States, it is not the United States, for instance, that has the world's only existing anti-ballistic missile defence system-


Pauline Jewett: That is the ABM treaty. I am talking about SALT II.


Erik Nielsen: That system is in the Soviet Union.


Pauline Jewett: You don't even know that it is the ABM.


Erik Nielsen: It is not the United States that has the only ASATS system in the world. That is the Soviet Union. It is not the United States, or indeed any of the NATO allies, that continually breaches the production and use of chemical weapons. That is the Soviet Union, and just to mention a few.


Pauline Jewett: I am talking about SALT II.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Veterans Independence Program provides elderly and aging veterans with the opportunity to remain healthy and independent in their own homes at a fraction of the cost of institutional care. Will the Minister give consideration to enlarging the eligibility criteria in order that more veterans may qualify for this program?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to advise the Hon. Member, who has always been very active on behalf of veterans generally, that we are now helping over 10,000 veterans remain in their own homes or communities where, as he and I know, they are far happier than in an institution. Since September, 1984, eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program has been expanded twice and a further expansion is planned for next January. I agree with the Hon. Member that a faster expansion is desirable. I assure him that I will take his question as a representation and give it very serious consideration. I thank him for this most constructive question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN JOBS-MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last Friday, the Prime Minister, our expert on belabouring the obvious, took a strong stand against the U.S. President. He said he would retaliate. On Monday, he retreated and said: No, we are going to ask for compensation. Yesterday, we heard that the U.S. President gave his Canadian lackey the following answer: No compensation. Could the Minister of Finance tell the House today what the Conservative Government is going to do to save the jobs of Canadian men and women? What concrete measures are going to be taken? I mean real action, not bluff.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's rhetoric suggests that we should have jumped right out of our seats last Friday and taken immediate retaliatory action. Shortly after that he heard his Leader say that maybe we should not use retaliation. We have said quite consistently that there will be a response from the Government that will be made in a measured way, that will be made after having an opportunity to respond to the concerns of the union and of management. It will be made after discussions with the United States, because if there is one thing that I believe is quite clear and on which many people have agreed it is that this should not be the start of a trade war with the United States. The long term objective is to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States and we must not lose sight of that.


RECOMMENDATION THAT GOVERNMENT ASSERT ITSELF IN TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Last week, it was the Prime Minister who said here in the House that he would make use of reprisals against the U.S. Government. He is the one who is belabouring the obvious! Could the Minister ask the Prime Minister to act responsibly and call the U.S. President, and ask him to intervene and withdraw these measures to protect Canadian jobs? Could he ask the Prime Minister to take concrete measures and take a firm stand on free trade, instead of caving in before the negotiations have hardly started?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been paying attention to Question Period this week he would have understood that we have met with the representatives of the industry, both management and labour, and have met with representatives of the U.S. administration. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be meeting with Mr. Shultz this afternoon. These discussions are

May 30, 1986
Oral Questions
very important in developing the appropriate response. That response will be made in due course.


INQUIRY IF GROUPS SUBSIDIZED LAST YEAR WILL RECEIVE SAME AID THIS YEAR
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and concerns women's groups who have yet to receive their subsidies this year. Can the Minister give the House the assurance that those groups that were subsidized last year and which still meet program requirements will at least receive the same measure of financial support they did last year?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Department of the Secretary of State analyzes requests from women's groups, as it is supposed to do, and when these groups meet the criteria, as the Hon. Member pointed out, we will of course provide them with support, on the basis of the funds allocated to the Department of the Secretary of State.


SIZE OF FUNDING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister put to rest fears that there will be drastic cut-backs throughout the program? All the women's groups will be affected by this. They have received only 40 per cent of their funds this year. We have not heard answers yet about how much money is in the program for the groups that are doing such an important job in the voluntary sector.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member mentions radical cuts, this can of course be interpreted in many ways. We have nearly completed the Department's budget assessment process, and as I said before, I think that the funding these groups will receive will depend on our finances. However, if we look at women's groups in general in this country, I do not think there will be any what could be called radical cuts. There may be some adjustments, but I repeat, these will not be what you refer to as radical cuts.


HOUSING
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. A great number of RRAP delivery agencies in Nova Scotia are private sector firms. We should all be proud of the superb job they are doing. These groups are experiencing difficulties now because of delays in RRAP funding. Would the Minister consider advance payment, in order to assist these companies in providing the necessary services in which they are engaged?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for an important question. I recognize the service private sector delivery groups provide to people in Canada. I also recognize that private sector delivery agents are paid on a fee-for-service basis.
I would certainly take into consideration any application from those private sector delivery groups which are in financial difficulty to provide some advance assistance until such time as their fee-for-service provisions under RRAP catch up with their financial demands. I thank the Hon. Member for the question. If any private sector delivery agents can provide that information, we will assess it.


REQUEST FOR GREATER REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND FRANCOPHONES ON FREE TRADE NEGOTIATING TEAM
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the glaring lack of Francophones and women on the free trade negotiating team.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to its initial and unacceptable mistake, the Government is dragging its feet shamefully in this matter. This was clear yesterday from the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to my colleague from Hamilton East. He merely recycled a nine-day old answer given previously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which was not explicit and merely recognized the deficiency.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could remove any doubts as to the Government's intentions in this matter. Could he tell the House today how many Francophones and many women have been added to the negotiating team and what their responsibilities are?
May 30, 1986


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the repetition coming from the hon. gentleman who asked the question, the response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 21 in this House is still quite valid. The Prime Minister has specifically directed that Mr. Reisman look at adding the dimensions of Francophones, women, and regional interests to the group. That is being done. I believe the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has already identified one woman to be added to the group. Further progress will be made.


APPLICATION OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it's worse than I thought. If the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Reisman, he has merely established that he has no more clout with Reisman than he has with the U.S. President, because nothing has changed. The woman who was added is in a very junior position.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible for official languages programs, whether he at least has made representations to have more francophones on the free trade negotiating team. And if he has done so, I wish he would inform the House what terms and what arguments he used, since he is so proud of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques is getting things mixed up, but that is par for the course, and his preambles are so long that the questions have no substance at all.
The question of enforcing our legislation on official languages generally has no connection with the selection of francophone candidates ... Listen to the answer-
Mr. Speaker, this party has the delightful habit of asking questions and answering them at the same time. So answer the questions if you want to answer them.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns
Oral Questions
reports yesterday evening about AECL's plans to expand the marketing of mini-reactors, and also reports that it intends to store the wastes produced by these reactors at Pinawa and Chalk River. Is this not further evidence of the need for a full public inquiry into the nuclear industry in Canada?
In the absence of that type of inquiry on the part of the Government will the Minister take his responsibilities seriously as the Minister in charge of the environment and initiate a federal environment review process with respect to how these wastes will be transported from these mini-reactors to these sites, and with respect to the question of storage generally?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Members knows that AECL does not report to me, but to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. So probably the pith and substance of the question should more appropriately be directed to her.
To the extent the question relates to me and my responsibilities and those of my Department, I will take the Hon. Member's representation as one validly put and vigorously expressed.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have long since given up on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as far as the environmental aspects of energy development are concerned. I am looking to the Minister of the Environment as the advocate for the environment of the country to do something about the palpable negligence on the part of his colleague. I realize he cannot say anything too terrible in public. However, as Minister of the Environment I would ask him to consider that it is about time the environment took precedence over the technological imperatives of AECL and its misplaced missionary zeal to fill up the whole country with mini-reactors.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member's question. First, there have been no sales of the Slowpoke to which the Hon. Member refers.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: But you want to sell them!


John Horton McDermid: Prototypes of them are being worked on right now, and there are demonstrations. It is purely a hypothetical thing. No agreements have been made. The individual who gave the interview was absolutely misquoted. The facts which the Hon. Member brings forward this morning are not correct.

May 30, 1986
Business of the House FINANCE


COMMODITY TAX SYSTEM-EFFECT OF CHANGES ON MUNICIPALITIES
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There is serious concern in the form of a resolution to be submitted by the City of Saskatoon and numerous Canadian cities at the meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities next week regarding the implications for property taxes by the business transfer tax and the potential value added type taxes. Will the Minister clarify the implications of the new taxes for municipalities? Are rebates to local governments an option being considered?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that there will be a process that we will be going through in consideration of any change in the commodity tax system. It will be initiated by a discussion paper following consultation with a wide range of people who could be impacted by it, including the municipalities. We have felt it important that there be consideration given to an appropriate transition system to assist the transition to the implementation of such a tax, if it were to be levied. That, in addition, is something upon which the municipalities could comment.


PRICE OF AVIATION FUEL
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House and to the country why the price of aviation fuel in Canada has dropped so very slightly despite the decline in world oil prices? For example, the price of aviation fuel in northern Ontario has gone down by only 2 cents a litre between January and May.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, a large number of the airports and flying clubs signed bulk contracts for aviation fuel. These are being negotiated all the time. The prices fluctuate from flying club to flying club and from airport to airport. In some areas they are down further than others. That is the market system working. That is the explanation to the Hon. Member.


PRICE OF HOME HEATING OIL
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is no answer at all. The market system is not working. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House why the price of home heating oil has failed to decline appreciably? In Kapus-kasing, Ontario, for example, between January and May the price of home heating oil has gone down by only 3 cents a litre. Why is that?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, because they are still using up the old supplies.


B. Keith Penner: That is not true. That is wrong.


John Horton McDermid: In this country we demand that over the winter there be 100-day supplies of heating oil. As the Hon. Member knows, we had a mild winter and those supplies have not all been used up yet. I think the Hon. Member will find that the price for heating oil will be dropping rather significantly in the next month or two.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked for a statement on government business. At that time, the Government was not ready to give us a statement. I hope it is at the present time.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. For personal reasons, I was not in the House yesterday. I thought I had made it quite clear that I would respond on my return to Ottawa.
Today is an allotted day for a motion put by the Official Opposition. On Monday, we will take up the following items of legislation: Bill C-86, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation legislation, on third reading; Bill C-109, the Income Tax Act, the scientific research tax credit legislation, report stage and, I hope, third reading; Bill C-91, an Act with respect to the competition tribunal which is at report stage, and I hope we will make progress on that; Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Shipping Act at third reading; Bill C-112, the Energy Administration Act at second reading; Bill C-19, Bell Canada reorganization at report stage; Bill C-95, the Archives Act; and Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans at report stage. On Monday, we will see what kind of progress we will make and what we can do on Tuesday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to four petitions: Nos. 331-424, 331-432, 331-433 and 331-501.
May 30, 1986



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I would like to table in both official languages the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1984, to September 30, 1985.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the fifth report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


PETITIONS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which has been duly examined according to the Standing Orders, from two communities in the region of northern Ontario, Moonbeam and Terrace Bay. The petition concerns the continuing operation of the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto in clear violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first petition is addressed to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada. Whereas any amendment of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to remove the indexation of annuities will adversely affect former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, widows and dependents, the petitioners are calling upon the Government to make no changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act without first consulting with recipients and those contributing to the fund. That petition is from a number of residents of Victoria, British Columbia.
I have another petition signed by several hundred superannuates again from Victoria, British Columbia. The petition calls upon the Government to revoke recent changes to the
Petitions
unemployment insurance regulations which have placed Canadians who take early retirement in a difficult financial situation; whereas these changes have also adversely affected Canadian Armed Forces ex-personnel, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces, fire-fighters and other men and women who are forced in mid-life to seek new employment, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately revoke changes to the unemployment insurance regulations Sections 57 and 58 which pertain to the inclusion of pension income as earnings. That is also signed by several hundred residents of Victoria, British Columbia.
I have a third petition to present, also signed by several dozen residents of British Columbia, which calls upon the Government, considering the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act amendment removing indexation of annuities would adversely affect former members of the armed forces, widows, and dependents, and whereas the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act administers a fund in excess of $13 billion which is the deferred income of armed forces personnel, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make no changes to the superannuation Act without first consulting fully with annuity recipients.
I have another petition which is signed by-


Mr. Jourdenais:: Nobody.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nobody? No, believe me, it is signed by many prospective, former and future voters. Believe me, there are many signatures.
I have another petition, also from Victoria, British Columbia-


Mrs. Mailly:: If it's former voters, they must have died.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I understand the government Members' private joke about it, even though publicly government Members sing another tune.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I please ask the Hon. Member to summarize briefly the petitions which are on the same subject?


Claudy Mailly: Get to the point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, the point is that any amendment of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to remove the indexation of annuities would adversely affect former members, widows and dependents, and the petitioners are calling upon the Government, as is their ancient right, to make no changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act without first consulting fully with annuity recipients and those presently contributing to the fund.
I have another petition, signed by several hundred if not 1,000 consituents from New Brunswick, primarily Oromocto, Lincoln and Fredericton, which humbly sheweth, as is the
13808

May 30, 1986
Petitions
custom, whereas recent changes to the unemployment insurance regulations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member summarize? I understand that she has many petitions and, from what I can see, they are all on exactly the same subject. Could she please summarize them very shortly?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The petitioners are from different parts of the country, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you would not want their voices not to be heard given that this is a duly signed petition-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If they are on the same subject, the Hon. Member-


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, it's a different subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, then. If it is not on the same subject, it is my mistake.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that there is a slight difference between unemployment insurance and superannuation. This particular petition is from hundreds if not 1,000 residents of Oromocto, New Brunswick: whereas these people have long paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund and now they see themselves unable to claim any insurance, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately revoke changes to the unemployment insurance regulations which pertain to the inclusion of pension as income.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have another petition which hails from Kingston, Ontario, the home of the Minister involved. This petition is signed by a number of constituents who are extremely concerned about the prospective changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act; whereas the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act administers a fund in excess of $13 billion which is the deferred income of armed forces personnel, and wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make no changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act without first consulting fully with annuity recipients and those presently contributing to the fund, and as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. This is from the Kingston branch of the Federal Superannuates Association.


[Stage Direction]
To the Honourable House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, the residents of Dorion, Vaudreuil, Saint-Lazare, l'lle-Perrot, Pincourt, in the province of Quebec, respectfully state that Katimavik was a success, in that 20,000 young people received training over the last 10 years and that
major community projects were carried out by these young volunteers in Canadian municipalities during that period, and whereas this program gives young Canadians a chance to acquire a better knowledge of their country and of the language and culture of its inhabitants-
Wherefor your petititioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reconsider the decision to terminate Katimavik.
It is signed by several thousand petitioners from the Province of Quebec.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present.

In accordance with Standing Order 106, said petition was certified correct upon examination-


Sheila Maureen Copps: This petition is from the City of Kingston and contains several dozen signatures. They ask the Government to revoke recent changes to the unemployment insurance regulations which have placed Canadians who have taken early retirement-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That petition was on the same topic. Could the Hon. Member combine that petition with the other ones?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this is a duly signed and certified petition. I believe the Standing Orders allow me present petitions from across the country without separating them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: They allow you to present the petitions, but the Hon. Member may be asked to combine them if they are on the same subject.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I believe the Standing Orders allow me to present a petition from Kingston separate from another petition.


Mr. Gormley:: They are on the same subject.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The petitions are dated at different times. If the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan would like to cut off those who want to complain about the unemployment insurance changes, I would ask him to state his position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows full well that if petitions are on the same subject matter, she may be asked to combine them. I would ask her to do that, if they are on the same subject.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is a duly certified petition. Given that is so, I do not understand what is the problem. It is a separate petition, and the people of Kingston-
May 30, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows the rules about the presentation of petitions, as I presume do all Hon. Members. First they are asked to summarize very briefly what the petition is about. So far the Hon. Member has summarized the petitions, at some length in certain cases. When the petitions are on an identical subject, I ask Hon. Members to group them together. I understand her point, that she must present them to the House. That is correct. However, she may group them together and present them to the Table. Then she may tell the constituents, or whomever it is, that they were presented to the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your decision. However, I think the people from Calgary would like to have their voice heard in the same way as the people from Kingston or Oromocto. I suggest that lumping them together just so that I can send them a letter saying that 1 presented their petition is certainly not having their voices heard in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the last time, I tell the Hon. Member that if she has petitions on the same subject from Calgary or different parts of the country, of course she is able to say from where the petitions come without reading the front page of each petition. That is to what I am referring.


An Hon. Member:: She has her notes now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Given the Chair's ruling, I should like to present a petition from the City of Calgary. It is signed by several dozen constituents who call upon the Government to revoke the unfair changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are several hundred more petitions which I will save for another day.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you choose to ask, I think you might find disposition on the part of the House to give unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of committee reports.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You reverted to the presentation of reports from committees and
Motions
have now finished that. I assumed that you would be calling petitions again, since I had one to present.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is all right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will revert to the presentation of petitions.


PETITIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from a number of residents of Halifax, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick, who pray that the House will call upon the Government to reject any recommendation which will reduce Government funding to continuing housing co-operatives and, in the interest of stable community development, to continue and expand the cooperative housing program. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find disposition for me to introduce the following motion and for it to be passed unanimously without debate:
That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, tabled in the House on Wednesday, May 28, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

May 30, 1986
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move her motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Motions:
May 28, 1986-The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 82(15)(a), consideration of Employment and Immigration Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the Main Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1987, by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, be extended beyond May 31, 1986.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order
82(15)(a), this motion is deemed adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 552 will be answered today.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	(a) As of August 31, 1984, by province, which law firms handled Federal Business Development Bank work (b) which firms are currently handling this work and on what date were they contracted (c) to date, what amount have these firms received?
2.	What criteria were used for the selection of the firms and who was consulted on their appointments?
3.	Were three law firms in North Vancouver, British Columbia doing FDBD work before the last election subsequently replaced by the firm of Stein and Lakes and, if so, for what reason?
4.	To the knowledge of the Government, is Mr. John Lakes Jr. a member of the firm Stein and Lakes and has he played an active role in the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: The reply from the Federal Business Development Bank is as follows:
While the compilation of fees paid to law firms is still ongoing, the following is an interim response. It is expected that additional information could be available by mid-June.
1.	Information to be provided at a later date.
2.	Names of law firms are suggested, from time to time, to the Federal Business Development Bank and are used by the bank on the basis of the firm's expertise, competence, speed and efficiency.
3.	Law firms are contracted to reflect the requirements of the bank in the province involved.
4.	The bank does not maintain this kind of information.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 550 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question indicated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 550 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Keeper: 1.	For (a) 1985-86 (6) 1986-87 what was/is the total funds allocated for projects in (i) Manitoba (ii) Winnipeg (iii) the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, for each of the six component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy?
2.	For the same years and places, what was/is the total budget for each of the six components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, broken down by (a) staffing (ft) administration (c) funds allocated for project applications?
3.	For the same years and places, what was/is the total number and dollar value of all projects for each of the six components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy?
4.	(a) For the same years and places, what was/is the total number and dollar value of all project applications for each of the six components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy (b) what were the names of the employers (c) how many of the applications (i) were approved (ii) were rejeted (iii) are pending.
5.	For the same years and places, what was/is the breakdown of total applications and total approved projects for each of the six components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy by (a) private sector (6) municipal or public sector (c) community or non-profit applications?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
May 30, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because we seem to be having a problem. We have two kinds of questions, those that appear in the Monthly Supplement to the Order Paper, which used to appear on the Order Paper before the new rules came into effect, and those asked under Standing Order 64(3), which require an answer by the Government within 45 days.
My point of order concerns the fact that I have a question dated May 31, 1985, one year ago, which deals with public service pensions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question several times in the House. Why does the Government not answer? I do not know. I was told that I would have a comprehensive answer within a few days or a few weeks to this question on pensions and that the facts would be laid before the House.
We ask questions to obtain figures, facts and answers so that we shall know where we are going. If the Government does not want to reply to the questions which do not come under Standing Order 64(3), it should say so. We could then refuse to maintain these questions and simply transfer them to the new category which requires an answer from the Government within 45 days. I would like the Government to examine this matter seriously to avoid a waste of time, and if the Government wants us to cancel the questions asked before the new rules came into force, we shall do so because the Government has refused in the past to let questions remain unanswered. It is as simple as that!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on the record that in this Thirty-third Parliament we have answered 83.8 per cent of the questions compared to the previous administration, of which the Hon. Member was a Member, which only answered 73 per cent of the questions.
Having dealt with how many questions are being answered, the Hon. Member should know that if he wishes to receive an answer to his question within 45 days, he need only, as I understand it under the new rules, request an answer within 45 days. If the Hon. Member goes through that process I am sure he will see that, since all of the questions to which a request has been made have been answered within 45 days, he will receive his answer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, subject to that suggestion, I will then move that No. 386 be moved to the new order of answering questions and that it be answered within 45 days.


Philip Derek Lewis: You can't do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Parliamentary Secretary is saying that I cannot do that now. Make up your mind. I have been waiting
Supply
for a year and the Government is not answering. The Parliamentary Secretary just told me I could, if I wanted, transfer it for answer within 45 days. I am requesting that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Speaker will tell you how to do it.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression it had to be requested in writing. I am sure if the Hon. Member requests it in writing, he will get his answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: According to the Standing Orders.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Sheila Maureen Copps: That this House urge the Government to adopt a national housing strategy that incorporates a definition of "core need" that will include all Canadian families living below the poverty line as defined by the National Council of Welfare.
She said: Mr. Speaker, first I might say that I am pleased that we in the House have a chance today to focus on the issue of the desperate housing problem facing more than a million Canadians and, in particular, the very specific and difficult problem of what constitutes a "core need". Few other issues influence Canadians so much as the issue of housing. It is actually one of our basic needs.
If we are housed and fed, at least we have a chance to get out and look for a job, but if we have no housing, if we find ourselves among the tens of thousands of Canada's homeless, we do not even have a base of operation or starting point.
Today's debate will allow us to discuss a number of issues including the cuts in funding to federal housing and housing related programs, in particular, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, the elimination, for example, of the Canadian Insulation Program and the termination of the Registered Home Ownwership Program. There have been a number of cuts initiated by the Conservative Government.
If we look at the numbers, comparing the expenditures in the area of housing between 1984 and 1985, the picture is not bright for the more than one million Canadians defined by Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation as being Canadians who live in inadequate and insufficient housing. In 1984, public housing loans amounted to $2.4 million of the CMHC housing budget. In 1985 it was $5.7 million, a cut of almost $2 million. The federal contribution to federal-provincial housing was $128 million in 1984. In 1985 it was $77 million.

May 30, 1986
Supply
Those of us who work in our own constitutencies will know how important RRAP loans are for low income families who are struggling, those who we define as the "working poor". They may own their own homes but do not have the independent resources to upgrade them. The cut-back in that area has been devastating. Thanks in part to the initiatives of the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in 1984, we see there has been a reduction from $189 million in RRAP funding in 1984 to $127 million in 1985. We are only now starting to feel the results of that cut-back in communities and neighbourhoods across this country which are faced with further deterioration because of the Government's move to allow either the provinces or the private sector to pick up what should be a national housing strategy.
In the area of housing research there has also been a cut of $4 million. Again, in the area of residential rehabilitation grants, as opposed to loans, there has been a reduction from $202 million in 1984 to $159 million in 1985.
Earlier this week, I believe, the Minister, as well as the Liberal housing critic, had the opportunity to participate in a forum in Toronto which convened the interests of all those who are involved in the non-profit housing sector. The Canadian Association of Home Renewal Officers met in Toronto. One of the major complaints leveled against the Government is the new definition of the "core threshold" or "core need".
I am sure when the Minister has a chance to speak, he will stand up in his place and say the Government is targeting its funds to those who need it most. But in fact, in so targeting, he is eliminating the possibility of housing assistance for thousands of families who are living below the poverty line, according to the definition of the National Council of Welfare.
I ask Parliament to consider this motion which simply calls upon Hon. Members to ensure that all Canadians living below the poverty line, as defined by the National Council of Welfare, be eligible for assistance. I think it is fair to assume that the National Council of Welfare, which is in fact a body funded through the Government, would have an objective view of what poverty is. What better way of Parliament making a contribution to the housing question than by agreeing at the very least that all those people living below the poverty line should have access to assistance which may be made available through rental or purchase programs through the federal Government.
We in the Liberal Party believe that the new definition of "core need", as launched by the Government, is inflexible and insensitive and leaves hundreds of thousands of Canadians living below the poverty line but above the income threshold and, therefore, ineligible to apply for federal housing assistance. I think it is inexcusable that the Conservative Government is saying by the redefinition of "core need" that in the City of Hamilton, for example, a family earning $17,000 a year, certainly not living in the lap of luxury, is ineligible for any assitance under federal housing programs because it is above the definition of "core need".
In fact, if we use the City of Hamilton as an example, the average market rent is $412 for a two-bedroom apartment. To pay 30 per cent, which is what the Government determines the core need is, a family living in a two-bedroom apartment, and it could be a family of four or five persons, must earn below $16,500 annually to qualify for federal Government assistance.
The Minister is shaking his head. The Minister is off base. He can look at the figures for Hamilton. They were provided for me by his own Department. A single parent with three children earning $16,600 annually is above the "core need" as defined by his Ministry and would not qualify for any assistance under the rent supplement or RRAP. If the family were to take a three-bedroom apartment it would be paying 37 per cent of its income for shelter. However, if the same family was earning $16,400 it would be eligible for assistance. It could be assisted to live in a two-bedroom apartment. However, by earning $200 more the family is paying $2,040 more per year than it would if it met the Government's definition of "core need".
I think it is significant that the annual report of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Conservative administration is appropriately a blank gray color which is fading away into nothingness. It reveals that the mortgage insurance fund had a deficit of just over $500 million at the beginning of 1984 and that by 1985 the deficit had reached close to $800 million. CMHC staff has been cut from 3,659 to 3,341 and more cuts are in the works as program delivery continues to be turned over to the provinces. Sixteen of the CMHC field offices have been closed and 10 others have been reduced in size. This means longer and longer waits and trips for Canadians from smaller communities who want to seek information about the latest in housing standards and the latest in availability with regard to government programming.

Talking about this year, we know that the federal Government has yet to complete negotiations with all provinces. The negotiations are not progressing rapidly and, in many provinces, nothing at all is happening in the field of assistance for social housing.

After a lot of talk about open Government, the federal Government has washed its hands of the responsibility for social housing. I am pleased to say that it took greater initiative in the area of co-operatives. When the Minister announced his new directions for housing in the 80s he did in fact listen to the pleas of co-operatives from across the country which begged the Government to keep the co-operative movement under the federal umbrella. The Minister listened to them, although he did not listen to some of the other groups, including CAHRO. He listend to the pleas of the co-operative movement that divesting responsibility from the federal to the provincial Governments will result in disaster in some communities in Canada.
May 30, 1986

I look in particular to the situation in British Columbia. The Social Credit Government of British Columbia continues to be tenth and last with regard to spending for social housing. That Government in British Columbia has shown that it has no intention of embracing a mandate of providing social housing due to its preoccupation with turning everything over to the private sector. Yet, without a full public discussion, the Minister has washed his hands of a national housing strategy which would guarantee every Canadian the right to a decent level of housing.
In fact, the core need threshold varies throughout Newfoundland. For example, in one area of Newfoundland the core need threshold for cut-off is $16,000. In another area it is $20,000. The cut-off point on the Avalon Peninsula is much lower than that in St. John's.
In Charlottetown the cut-off point for any federal application for RRAP funding is $17,000. It is $16,000 in the areas of Prince, Queens and Kings. The same figure applies in Halifax. The cut-off point in the City of Halifax for eligibility for housing funds is $21,000. In Sydney, Nova Scotia, the cut-off point is $16,000 and in Annapolis it is $17,000. Any family of three or four persons earning more than $17,000 is no longer eligible for assistance under the RRAP program because of the Government's new definition of "core need".
In Saint John, New Brunswick, the cut-off point is $16,000. In the City of Montreal the cut-off point for a family of three or four is $17,500 and for a family of five it is $19,000. If single parents raising four children earn more than $19,000 they are no longer eligible for help under the Government's RRAP program.
The Minister laughed earlier when I used the City of Hamilton as an example. Yet, his own CMHC statistics indicate that in the City of London the core cut-off point is $17,500. In Brantford it is $16,000 for a family of three or four.
Unfortunately, the Minister chose to ignore interventions at the CAHRO meeting of one of the representatives of the City of Winnipeg who was working on the inner core program for that city. The Minister would not even talk to the Minister. He ignored him. He cannot even get a meeting with the Ministry to discuss the deterioration of the situation in the City of Winnipeg as it relates to eligibility for residential housing programs. The cut-off point in the City of Winnipeg is $19,000.
In the City of Saskatoon a family of three or four which earns more than $18,000 is no longer eligible for any assistance through the RRAP program. In Calgary the figure is $20,500. In Edmonton the figure is $19,000. In Lethbridge, it is $18,500, and in Medicine Hat it is $16,000. In the City of Vancouver the cut-off point is $23,000. In Abbotsford and Chilliwack the cut-off point is $16,000. The cut-off point for families of three or four in White Horse, Yukon, is $18,500.
The Minister shakes his head, but he will know that this new definition of "core need" is in fact inflicting untold hardship
Supply
on thousands of Canadian families who own their own homes and want a chance to fix them up but are living within the definition of what we call the "working poor" Canadians. These people are living below the poverty line by any Government definition. I did not want to use the Senate definition because I was fearful that the Government would accuse me of using a figure produced by the Liberal-dominated Senate. Therefore, I chose the National Council of Welfare figure with the intent of asking every Member of the House whether it is not only just and fair that all people living below the poverty line should be considered eligible for RRAP funding.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister laughed in the House when I mentioned the fact that a family of three or four, in Montreal for example, earning-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not laughing at the content of the Hon. Member's speech. I was laughing at the inaccuracy and the silly rhetoric. The Member has mixed up programs and does not understand the program. I am sure that if the Hon. Member had had her notes early enough to commence this debate when it was scheduled, she may have spent enough time to become cognizant of what the new social programs are.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister was not laughing at my speech but was laughing at me. As far as I am concerned both are totally unacceptable. The Minister talks about consultation. The Minister was supposed to have a private meeting today with Members of the National Cooperative Foundation. He phoned them to say that he could not meet with them because we were having a housing debate. He neglected to say that the housing debate will take place until one o'clock this afternoon and then will resume from two o'clock until five o'clock this afternoon. This is the first time that we have had an all-day debate on a housing issue. The Ministry tries to blame the Opposition's calling of this debate for the fact that he had to cancel his meeting. I wish he had the guts to tell the National Co-operative Foundation that they could meet with him in the lobby. I am sure that the Member of Parliament representing the New Democratic Party on housing issues would be equally as generous as I in allowing the Minister to carry on his meeting. Due to the Minister's broken commitment to the co-operative group, I fully expect that he will be present here today until late this afternoon.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inform the Hon. Member and the House that I will be leaving at one o'clock to meet representatives of the Cooperative Housing Foundation as their guest at lunch. In the meantime, I hope to be able to work in a meeting. The Hon. Member should be sure of facts before she puts them forward to the House.

May 30, 1986
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I am sure of my facts. The fact is that the Minister is going to be speaking to the luncheon. He was supposed to be meeting with the group privately and he called them to cancel, claiming that I was responsible because I called for this housing debate. That is a fact and he can check with representatives of the National Cooperative Foundation in Vancouver or anywhere else. He will not mislead the House in the way he misled the Foundation.
This is the first time we have had a full day's debate on housing in Canada. I am extremely concerned about some of the initiatives, or should I say retrenchments, embarked upon by the Minister and his Department. There is a new and narrow definition of "core need" as it relates to eligibility for RRAP funding. With the Minister's move to divest responsibility to the provinces, the Government of Canada will be washing its hands of the serious housing crisis facing communities across this country. If all of the Governments in Canada were as progressive as the Liberal Government in Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I might not be as concerned. The Minister is going to be quoting some statistics. I can quote statistics from the housing program of the previous Conservative Government of Ontario. These are the most recent statistics available from CMHC and they show that the record in Ontario was dismal. I am hoping that with the initiatives of the new Liberal Government that situation will be turned around.
I know from calls and meetings and direct contact with people across the country that many Canadians are very frightened about the prospect of the federal Government turning over its responsibility for the delivery of social housing programs to provincial Governments. The people most concerned are those in British Columbia. We saw the evictions which preceded Expo. The provincial Government ignored the pleas of the Provincial Housing Coalition, ignored the statements made in this House and the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). It ignored pleas from across the country that the federal Government maintain a level of involvement in social housing which would guarantee a national housing framework. We have not seen that.
What we have seen is the federal Government cutting back on housing programs and suggesting that, by turning it over to provincial Governments, we are going to see an improvement. Unfortunately, the Government has not embarked upon a discussion of the dilemma now facing City planners. For example, the City of Winnipeg is facing very serious RRAP cut-backs because of the new definition of "core need". The city has pleaded with the Minister to change that definition and he has ignored them. Representatives of CAHRO have also pleaded with the Minister and he has ignored them.
We are seeing a return to the politics of ghettoization. That, unfortunately, was a development of the 1960s where we saw
Governments building public housing en masse, and making sure those eligible for public housing were lumped in to what can only be described as a social and cultural ghetto. We gave up that policy in the 1970s when we developed a mix of housing. We looked at eligibility for RRAP funding and said that, for example, people who are earning above the threshold of $17,000 or $18,000, or $27,000 in the City of Toronto, were eligible to move into projects like the one at City Home in Toronto. That led to a good social atmosphere, a good mix of programs, and a better housing situation.
This Government, in the short space of 20 months, has developed a strategy which says that people who cannot afford to fully pay for their own housing should now be forced to move into ghettos. It has moved us back to the days when we ghettoized people who lived in social-assisted housing. I think that measure by that Government, without any debate or discussion; this redefining of the "core need" and depriving thousands of Canadians living below the poverty line of any hope of ever living in their own adequate housing, is a national disgrace. The Minister should stop laughing and start doing something about the crisis involving over one million Canadians living in inadequate housing. They have been ignored by this Government in its quest to turn its responsibilities over to provincial Governments and the private sector.

I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, and I know that many Liberal Members would like to take part in this debate to give their views on the national housing problem, something which is sorely needed in these Conservative times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: Questions or comments.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of comments to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) concerning the questions she raised during her diatribe on social housing. She did not seem to understand the difference between private and public non-profit programs where, in order to be eligible, Canadians in need must be paying more than 30 per cent of their income for accommodation. She continually referred to RRAP, and then talked about a two-bedroom apartment. She put forward the proposition that someone in her home community of Hamilton, earning around $16,000 or $16,500, would not be eligible for any-I think if the "blues" are checked the word will be "any"- assistance from the federal Government. If the rent the individual or family is paying for affordable, uncrowded, adequate accommodation is more than 30 per cent of their income, that is one eligibility criterion for assistance under the new policy.
The Hon. Member referred to several areas of Canada with different income thresholds. The reason the program was designed that way is apparent to a blind pig riding a horse. It was designed for regional concerns. It is not the policy of this Government, as it was the policy of the former Government and the Member opposite, to centralize so that everyone in
May 30, 1986

Canada must measure up to a standard conceived by a Government believing in centralist control.
This Government consulted, broadly consulted, with national and municipal groups. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member put forward the argument that I did not pay any attention to CAHRO or the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Those very municipal groups, including CAHRO, put forward in their briefs presented to the Government and CMHC the proposal that all of the dollars expended under RRAP should be designed for social policy. That is exactly what we did when we designed the new directions for housing solutions in Canada. The figures the Hon. Member gives were from 1984 and 1985. She did not put forward the figures for 1986.


Sheila Maureen Copps: March of 1986, sorry.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Or the number of units that will be built. If she will check the "blues" I am sure she will find that to be true.
I heard her mention something about the Government in Queen's Park and its enlightened policy. I recall that during the campaign there was a commitment for, I think it was 10,000 new units that would be put forward by the Government that is now in Queen's Park. There was an agreement between the federal and provincial Governments, between CMHC and the Ontario Housing Corporation, an agreement on cost sharing.
I would like to draw to the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that this year, with this enlightened policy of the Party that she supports, and I know that the people in Ontario are pleased that the fear of her becoming the Minister of Housing provincially has been removed, the Government of Canada- the taxpayers of Canada-will be providing 3,911 social housing units in Ontario. That enlightened Government in the Province of Ontario will be providing 2,159. The same applies when you consider co-op housing, rehabilitation, urban and rural, and when you look at rental, RRAP. The majority of the funding provided is provided by the taxpayers of Canada. There are increases, but I want the Hon. Member, when she replies, to be able to differentiate between RRAP, between public and private non-profit, between disabled RRAP, between rental RRAP, and also between the contributions that are made by the federal Governments and those of the provincial Governments in the new partnership we have entered into.


Sheila Maureen Copps: First of all the Minister should get his facts straight because the anticipated core need cut-offs for 1986 were provided by his own Department. If he disagrees with those figures I suggest he should stop cutting back on his staff and start getting some correct figures.
I would also suggest it is outrageous for the Minister to suggest that his new program is somehow going to assist people
Supply
ineligibile for RRAP when one of the very first actions of his Government, under the tutelage of his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) we did not hear a peep from the Minister responsible for housing who seems to be there as a buffer zone between reality and the Minister of Finance-was a 25 per cent cut-back in funding under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program inflicted upon the Canadian people.
I have here a letter which was sent to an MLA in the Province of Saskatchewan who has been put on a waiting list in the Province of Saskatchewan because the federal government cut-backs have seriously hampered the effectiveness of the Rural Rehabilitation Assistance Program. I am happy that he raised the issue of the Ontario and federal Government initiatives, because the only province that had signed an operating and capital agreement when we entered into estimates on this issue in the last couple of weeks was the Government of Ontario. The Minister advised us at that time that he was going to be providing us with copies of all the agreements. We have seen nothing yet. In the same way, he has refused to provide us with information regarding how many Canadians across Canada have been refused RRAP funding specifically because of this Government's new definition of "core need".
I quoted the statistic that in the City of Winnipeg, for example, 60 per cent of the applications that had been approved under the previous criteria are now no longer eligible for RRAP funding. Likewise he will also know that CMHC guidelines allow a family of three to four people to live in a two-bedroom apartment. So the figure that I was quoting to him of 30 per cent or less of their income was, in fact, based on his own Department's definition.
It would seem to me that what the Minister should be doing is contacting his counterparts in the provincial Government, advising them that this Government still believes that we must have a national housing strategy for housing across Canada. In the Liberal Party we believe in a national strategy. We believe that somebody living in Gander-Twillingate should have the right to the same kind of adequate and affordable housing as someone living in the City of Toronto.
The Minister seems prepared without a whimper to pass off the responsibility to provincial Governments as a cost-cutting measure, because he does not really believe in a national social housing strategy. He would just as soon pass it off to provincial Governments, like the Social Credit Government in British Columbia which has shown quite clearly that it has no intention of continuing with the social housing strategy, but would rather pour all its money into the private sector so that they can assist in rent supplement programs without any kind of guarantees.
In fact, the only area where the Minister has taken any initiative-and I can see him chatting and laughing with the Minister of Finance because, in typical fashion, they are not interested. The Minister claims he cannot come to the private meeting because he is busy discussing important issues in the House, and yet when he is here he sits and laughs and chats

May 30, 1986
Supply
with his colleague instead of listening to the first debate that we have had on a national housing strategy since this Government was brought into office.


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) are quite irrelevant. She is commenting on Members' behaviour in the House instead of answering the question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that was a point of order and, frankly, the Member can defend the Minister's conduct and behaviour, but-


Claudy Mailly: You are not the Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Since when are you the Speaker? I have the floor. Unfortunately, the Member from Gatineau will probably wait for years to get the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The time for questions and comments is over.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am certainly very happy to stick to the ten minutes of questions or comments, but I would hope that other interveners who do not have the courage to enter into the debate would not use up the Member's time with silly and inconsequential points of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: I do not think that that is a point of order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it might be appropriate to call it one o'clock now, and I would hope to be able to resume at two o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.47 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition motion put before the House today by the Liberal housing critic. The motion reads:
That this House urge the Government to adopt a national housing strategy that incorporates a definition of "core need" that will include all Canadian
families living below the poverty line as defined by the National Council of Welfare.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I support the general sense of that motion. I believe it would be an improvement to use the definition of the National Council of Welfare as a minimum floor. Any family that falls below that minimum should be considered in "core need", if we are to use a core need concept. But that is what I question. As well, I think there are inevitable problems, even with the National Council of Welfare figures as was pointed out by the Minister, although I think that they may be the lesser of the two evils.
I wish to point out first that there are some basic problems with the concept of "core need" as it is being introduced by the Government and I will describe what I believe is a much more workable concept.
The first problem with the core need concept is that there is confusion as to what is "core need". A week ago in the committee meeting on Estimates we asked the Minister for more than a three line definition of "core need" which he had given us; we asked for the formula for arriving at "core need". He promised to send that to us, and perhaps it is in the post office somewhere because it has not come. If it comes with the speed of his other promises we will be lucky to have it in 1987.
During the meeting, for example, at one point he explained that the core need cut-off for homeowners was to be decided by the rental vacancies in that neighbourhood. Later he asserted that the core need cut-off for tenants was to be decided by what homeowners are paying in the neighbourhood. In other words, there was no serious, firm basis for the core need. It seems to be a new fancy phrase for covering what is simply an arbitrary figure in round numbers, such as the $13,000 the Minister has chosen for reasons he did not give when asked in the committee.
In that case, if we are going to have this concept, I prefer that we have a publicly understandable figure such as that derived from Statistics Canada by the National Council of Welfare, even though it has its inadequacies in certain areas of high cost, such as the major cities.
There is another problem with the core need concept that is being used. It is that a family does not become considered as one of core need until the family is paying 30 per cent of its income for rent. While the Minister has not yet shown us his agreements, he has asserted that he will practise the principle that the family should not have to pay more than 25 per cent of its income. If it is just and right, as I agree, that the family should not have to pay more than 25 per cent of its income, then it should be considered in core need if it pays more than 25 per cent for accommodation. The fact that homeowners pay a portion for their present accommodation and a portion as a saving for the future, amounting to 30 per cent or more, is irrelevant. The fact is that if 25 per cent is the maximum a person should pay simply to get shelter at the present time, those people should be considered in core need if they are paying 26 per cent, 27 per cent, 28 per cent or 29 per cent. They should not have to wait until they are paying 30 per cent
May 30, 1986

to be considered for the benefits of the programs that go to core need. The Minister is not looking at actual need but simply negotiating sums with the provinces.
This brings me to the most serious confusion. The Minister has been negotiating since the fall of 1984, certainly for well over a year since his discussion paper of early 1985. After a year to a year and a half of negotiations, he still does not have programs in place, except for the co-operatives that he seems to favour and that he would like to separate from the other social housing programs. He is holding back on all the costsharing programs with the provinces, apparently until the last province signs. It is interesting to note that the second to last province to sign is his own Progressive Conservative governed Province of Saskatchewan.
I have been making inquiries, as requested, on behalf of Mona Dawson of Rouleau, Saskatchewan. She has been asking for a RRAP grant because she wants to have indoor plumbing. Currently she has no plumbing in her house, so she is not asking to upgrade her plumbing but simply asking to have indoor plumbing. She believes that she meets the criteria and has not been told otherwise. However, she has been given many other excuses.
First, she received a letter on April 8, from Lyle Howat, program manager of the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, which is the delivery agent. He stated:
We wish to advise you that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be unable to approve your application for repairs to your home as the Federal Budget for this program has been fully committed.
How did he know on April 8, 1986 that the federal budget for this program had already been fully committed? Of course he did not know. He did not know what he was talking about. Later on we find out from a different source, that is, the federal Minister, that indeed she had applied first in 1985, but by that time the budget had been fully expended. He did not mention the reason it was expended was because it had been chopped. He goes on to state:
I understand Mrs. Dawson has submitted an application for consideration this year and that initial inspection of her property was completed on April 15.
That is what he wrote on May 6 at which time there was still no indication of whether she would receive her money or when.
There was another letter from the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation written on the stationery of the Chairman of the Board and signed by Mr. Gordon Dirks, the Minister in charge. He states at greater length what the federal Minister has already stated. In fact, Mrs. Dawson is not receiving any money, not because she is ineligible, not because there is no program and not because there is no money. She is not receiving anything just because the program has not yet been put into operation. Therefore it was fascinating to receive a note from the Minister through the new inter-office E-Mail dated May 7 which states in part:
Supply
As the Minister responsible for CMHC, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that I have authorized the release of the 1986 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program budget-
He then goes on to mention some millions of dollars and the letter continues:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be in touch with local municipalities and delivery agencts shortly-
That is one of the Minister's favourite words.
-to inform them of their homeowner RRAP applications. I am indeed pleased that the delivery of this very popular federal program can proceed.
On May 7 he said that it "can proceed", which is an ambiguous phrase. A person might mistakenly understand that it can proceed now. But of course that is not what he meant. He then states that he expects certain programs will be finalized shortly.
Then came the big day, May 27, 1986. I received another piece of E-Mail from the Minister which states:
As Minister Responsible for CMHC, this is to confirm that RRAP funds will be allocated to delivery agents and municipalities today. For further information, contact your local CMHC office.
That piece of correspondence is dated 17:01 Tuesday, May 27, 1986. On Wednesday morning I phoned Mrs. Dawson and urged her to phone her local CMHC office, which she did. Of course, as the Minister will know, she received nothing. She phoned CMHC, she phoned the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, and she phoned Gordon Dirks' office, the Chairman of Saskatchewan Housing Corporation. None of them had heard of the Minister's statement or had been given any directive to release any funds.
The story continues to the point where today I was advised that the Minister's office had said, no, there are no funds yet. In other words "today" "on Tuesday" is as good as never. There are no funds yet because the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, two Progressive Conservative Governments, have not yet agreed on the program.
To put it more practically, from the point of view of Mrs. Dawson, the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan and the Conservative Government of Canada have agreed that she will not get her money yet. She has been advised by contractors that it will take three or four months because of the backlog of work they have elsewhere to complete the plumbing. If they know it cannot be completed before freeze-up then they will not undertake it. The Minister knows what freeze-up is on the Prairies, as I do. They will not try to break the ground after freeze-up. What these two Conservative Governments have agreed is that Mona Dawson will probably have to wait until 1987 to have indoor plumbing installed. That is a very discouraging situation for Mona Dawson, and a very discouraging situation for thousands of other people who are in exactly the same type of situation, perhaps not so dramatic but just as real.
There is also the difficulty encountered by the people in northern Manitoba where housing to be built must have the materials brought in over winter-frozen roads. In previous years they were able to start in February or March by bringing

May 30, 1986
Supply
in the construction materials. Now the roads have thawed and there is no way that anything can be built in those communities in 1986, or until the spring or late winter of 1987.
There is a similar problem on many Indian reserves in British Columbia because of delays occasioned by the Governments, even though the federal Government is going it alone in British Columbia because of that provincial Government's notoriously hostile attitude to social housing. I give the federal Government credit for being willing to go it alone; but the delay has been so long that many of these units on Indian reserves will not be built.
The Minister has made much of his consultation, as if it were an excuse for all the delay. Yet he bragged this morning about the agreement reached with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It is not in agreement with him at all. I have a letter from the President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Alderman Ron Cromwell of Halifax, in which he points out:
The FCM and our member municipalities expected that income ceilings for RRAP participation would be established in consultation with interested groups. FCM is concerned that CMHC's proposed eligibility formula, based on a product of income related to household size, will exclude many households warranting RRAP assistance. We are further concerned about the lack of consultation on this new formula which will dramatically reduce the scope of the program.
Of course there has been consultation which took place nearly a year ago, at the outset, and just for show. But at the crunch, when things are being decided, people have had to wait in the dark. There are more problems with the Government's venture of instituting this core program, but I want to generalize a little further. It goes beyond the core need concept.
The Government has yet to produce a corporate plan for 1986. We have yet to receive program specifications, except with respect to the co-op movement which, as I say, the Minister has decided to treat separately from the rest of social housing. We do not have the number of units; we do not have the number of dollars available to each provincial expression of the program. We do not have the criteria. In Toronto they have been promised these things all year.
One of the leaders of CAHRO, about which the Minister bragged, is the Housing Commissioner for Toronto. He was trying to provide RRAP for a Toronto resident who needed it in order to get his wheelchair out of his house. Eventually, he needed it to get to the hospital for some regular treatments. He could not get it. After months and months of promises there was no criteria, no allocation, no funding. He had to spend his own money, his own pension money, on a taxi to get to the hospital.
It is the concept of core need which is wrong. It is wrong because it belittles the needy. It blames the victim. It degrades them as being people who allegedly cannot pay for their housing as other people allegedly can. It also belittles the numbers of the needy and brings us into hair-splitting disputes at times about just whether somebody fits a certain program or not.
What is necessary is to recognize housing in Canada as a right, not as a need of certain incompetent or unfortunate individuals, but as a right of all persons in this country. In Canada, we live in a cold climate and most people live in cities which have become highly industrialized. We are dependent upon each other. One person builds a house in which another will live, and often the people who build houses cannot afford to live in them. In a country in which we are interdependent like this, housing must be treated as a right belonging to each person.
We have already established that concept in the case of public education. That is a right provided to everyone. We have established the concept fairly well in the case of health care. Health care is a right for everyone, rich and poor. Even before that, we established that concept in the case of food. We decided that no one should go without food; we call that welfare.
What is needed is not a core need program but a national housing program. As I have said before, a national housing program should embody six principles. First, housing should be decent and affordable. Publicly owned and privately owned rental housing should be subject to rent control with rent registration. There should be a national home building program to create 500,000 units needed by families and singles presently without decent, affordable housing, and there should be co-operatively or publicly produced and owned housing since the private industry has demonstrated in the last two decades that it cannot produce the housing people need. There are empty condominiums sitting in Toronto while some of those who live in that city go homeless, with a vacancy rate of .3 per cent.
Existing substandard housing should, wherever practical, be rehabilitated with government assistance and not with a halfyear rate as provided for by the Minister. This should be done so that the costs are not completely passed on to the tenants in increased rents. The Government should assist tenants to buy buildings for either co-operative or non-co-operative ownership to ensure responsible maintenance and to take the buildings out of the inflationary market. There should be public and private funds created for mortgages with interest rates at no more than 2 per cent above the rate of inflation for families or persons buying, building or repairing a principal residence.
Those are the points that must be embodied in a national housing plan. The federal Government should negotiate such a plan with the other jurisdictions, should outline the five-year plan with annual targets and reports and should bring it to Parliament so that it may be publicly debated. It should do that rather than secretly negotiate the plan as the Minister has been doing. This is what we need to meet the needs of not just a few of the people of Canada, as the Minister wishes to do, but the needs of all of the people of Canada so that we may live together as brothers and sisters.
May 30, 1986


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I would not like the Hon. Member to get away without having to answer a question, so I will ask him this.


John Henry Reimer: Ask him why he is wearing that shirt.


Dave Nickerson: I will make no comments about his shirt, Mr. Speaker.
In the perfect society the Hon. Member envisages, would it be that housing would be provided by the state or would it be that housing would be provided by the people themselves?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I only outlined this issue in my speech but I have spoken on it at greater length on more than one occasion. I am asking that housing should be primarily provided by co-operative and non-profit organizations-the people-not by government bureaucrats and a few wealthy builders, even if they are surrounded by a few would-be wealthy builders.
In the City of Toronto, most of the housing plans are determined by a very tiny number of people who control the mortgage money and the building operations. I am asking that the people who live or hope to live in those houses have a chance to have some say in what will be built, where it will be built, of what quality it will be and how it will be managed. There are a variety of ways of doing that. Some ways are called co-operative, some are called non-profit. In all cases, these methods provide for a board of directors, either chosen by the people who live in the housing units or by some publicly responsible non-profit outfit, and that


Mr. Oberle:: Where does the money come from?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Where does the money come from? Where does it come from now? Every cent of the construction costs of the 11,000 homes built by Cadillac in Toronto was paid by the people who live in those homes. No one paid for those homes but the tenants. Cadillac did not pay for those homes. Cadillac received the money from the tenants, paid for the homes and had so much left over it could not spend it in Toronto and had to go to the United States to contribute to American inflation. Every cent that built those apartments in Toronto was paid by tenants, and it would be the same for co-operative or nonprofit buildings, but there would be some public accountability that would reduce the exorbitant profits that have been made by the builders in cities like Toronto.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to recognize that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has made a commitment to directing social housing policies to those households that are in need. However, I noticed that the original motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East yesterday, the motion I received around 3 p.m., indicated that the "core need" will include all Canadian families living below the poverty line as defined by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Later on, I suppose because the Hon. Member could not make whatever point she
Supply
was attempting to make, the motion was changed to read that "core need" will include Canadian families living below the poverty line as defined by the National Council on Welfare. I do not know what great leaps over logic or furniture the Hon. Member is taking, but I can say that I am very pleased that the Hon. Member recognizes that housing policy should be directed to those households most in need.
As Hon. Members know, last December I announced to the House significant changes in the federal Government's social housing program and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The major objective of these changes was to be more responsive in targeting federal housing dollars and resources in order to provide fair, equitable and effective national housing solutions for Canadians in those households that needed assistance.
One of the key features of the new direction is the provision of a high degree of regional and local sensitivity in social housing targeting. This new direction for housing solutions results from an extensive process of policy development including the consultation mentioned by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
My Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Burin- St. George's (Mr. Price), my staff, officials and I met with such organizations as the National Anti-Poverty Organization and with both private and public associations involved in social housing. Groups representing organizations concerned with the elderly were also involved, as were groups dealing with the disabled. Native groups were consulted, and in fact those organizations representing those members of society most disadvantaged when it comes to housing were extensively consulted. Their views were represented later in the program.
This consultation was in addition to the consultation that took place between industry and financial institutions at the time. We also discussed with the Territories and Provinces of Canada what they would undertake in providing for solutions to the housing situation in Canada.
During this complex and far-ranging consultation process with the diverse groups I have mentioned, a consensus did emerge. This consensus indicated that the new direction for federal housing should have improved targeting to ensure that federal housing resources are directly focused on those in need of housing assistance.
There was also a consensus that to be effective the housing solutions should contain a mix of program options so that there would be flexibility to provide assistance appropriate to the housing problems experienced in each particular area of Canada. This was done in recognition of the fact that there are different housing and economic environments and housing market conditions across this great country of ours.
The federal Government's new package of social housing programs, with all assistance directed to households in need, reflects the concerns and recommendations raised during the

May 30, 1986
Supply
consultation process. The package is a significant improvement over the previous Liberal program under which only 40 per cent of the assistance provided by Canadian taxpayers went to Canadians in need.
With provincial and territorial cost-sharing under these new programs, and with better use of our federal dollars, we will be able to almost double the number of households in need which will receive assistance on a national basis. Households in need are defined as those which experience affordability, adequacy, or housing problems, and cannot obtain adequate and suitable accommodation without paying 30 per cent or more of their income on rent. As well, there are those with a need for special purpose housing. Estimates indicate, as other Hon. Members have mentioned, that over a million households are in such a circumstance.
The application of the core need threshold will greatly assist in ensuring that the federal objective of directing social housing resources to those who need it most will be met. Core need income thresholds are a measure of the income required by households of different sizes to meet without paying more than 30 per cent of their income average market rents for adequate and suitable accommodation available within a specific geographic area in Canada. These thresholds vary by community and geographic area and are designed to reflect the differences in housing costs which exist throughout the country.
Core need income thresholds recognize the vast differences which exist in the various housing markets across Canada. Some concerns have been expressed-and this was recently expressed by the Hon. Member for Spadina -about the use of core housing thresholds. As the Hon. Member suggested, some would argue that they are too low and some would argue that they are too high. However, there must be an understanding of the suggestion in the motion of the Official Opposition that we use the poverty line as defined by the National Council of Welfare as an indicator of Canadian household needs.
The Hon. Member for Spadina indicated that he recognized the shortcomings of that program, but he thought it would be a preference over the one being used now. However, the poverty lines of the National Council of Welfare are calculated yearly on the basis of average Canadian family expenditure at a national level. Although poverty lines vary by size of community, no detailed attention is given to geographic variations in the national economy. Those guidelines are not sensitive to different local housing market conditions and, indeed, are not good indicators of housing need since affordability, adequacy, and crowding problems are not considered in the guidelines of the National Council of Welfare. In essence, its statistics are simply indicators of income levels, not housing needs.
The principle upon which federal housing policy is founded is that all Canadians in all parts of Canada should have decent and adequate shelter at a level of payment which is affordable. Obviously this level would vary in different market areas. Application of the poverty lines of the National Council of Welfare would not ensure that Canadians with the same
housing problems in different parts of the country would be equally eligible for social housing programs.
This is particularly evident in high-cost housing markets where high rents are often a result of severe housing shortages. For example, the National Council of Welfare poverty line for a four-person household living in a community with a population in excess of 500,000 is estimated to be approximately $21,700. The 1986 core need income threshold for Toronto for a three to four-person household is $27,500. This reflects the high cost of rental housing in the city. The core need income thresholds are based upon average market rents derived from locally sensitive up-to-date surveys.
However, core need income thresholds are not the only criteria used to determine whether a household is in housing need. I should like to illustrate this by referring to a simple example. Under the approach of the National Council of Welfare, a four-person household living in Toronto, earning $21,700, and living in a crowded and substandard dwelling, would be treated the same as a four-person household earning the same amount but living in uncrowded, adequate, and affordable accommodation. It would be difficult to argue, regardless of what side of the table one is on, that both those households should receive the same level of assistance from Canadian taxpayers. The latter household would not be eligible because, although it has a low income, it is not experiencing a housing problem. In conjunction with the presence of affordability, adequacy, and crowding problems, the core need income thresholds are measures which are locally sensitive to housing needs, whereas the poverty lines of the National Council of Welfare are simply measure of relative expenditure applicable at the national level only.
However, I should like to note that over 70 per cent of those households identified as being in core housing need in fact have incomes below the National Council of Welfare poverty line. I should also like to note that the National Council of Welfare poverty lines are simply Statistics Canada low income cut-offs. The council uses low-income cut-off and poverty line synonymously; it does not differentiate. It is important to note that Statistics Canada has always stated that these cut-offs should not be used to determine program eligibility.
The new direction for housing solutions provide a mix of program options, so that there is flexibility to provide assistance which will be appropriate to the housing problems experienced by those in need, recognizing that there are differing geographic and economic environments across Canada. The new federal direction in social housing addresses the need for the supply of affordable and adequate housing.
The new non-profit housing program will be used to increase the supply of affordable units. Unlike the old Section 56(1) program, which was funded through a reduction in the mortgage interest rate to 2 per cent, assistance under the new program will be based upon the difference between project costs and revenues generated by the application of the rent to income scale. Assistance will be directed to those Canadians who are in need.
May 30, 1986

A rent supplement program will be provided to subsidize rents in regions where an adequate supply of accommodation is available but target households cannot afford it. The current program which was proven to be cost effective when used is being substantially expanded.
We are making a number of significant changes in the federal renovation assistance program, designed to bring substandard housing up to minimum health and safety standards. The present approach of designating areas under that urban program is being eliminated. Assistance will be available, again targeted to households in need, on a universal geographic basis. No longer will there be areas in urban centres of Canada where one neighbour would be eligible but the neighbour across the street, living in a house in the same state of disrepair, would not be eligible.
There are significant alterations in the rental RRAP. The Hon. Member for Spadina referred to a problem with the previous program. To prevent excessive rent increases and the displacement of people who need help, as often happened under the old program, assistance will be increased from an average of $3,500 to $12,000 per unit. Assistance levels will depend on the relationship between the rents on the property involved after renovation and local market rents. Assistance will be directed to older, lower cost housing stock occupied largely by low income Canadians. A new renovation plan to assist the disabled will raise maximum funding from $ 1,500 to $5,000. The maximum assistance provided to homeowners with adjusted incomes will be between $23,000 and $33,000.
RRAP in the rural areas will remain unchanged. In particular, this mix of programs can be used in various areas of our country. It can be used to assess the needs of Canadians and then address them, the availability of accommodation in the private market and the specific requirements of groups with special housing needs. This will ensure that the strategies followed will be cost effective.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these present policies are not carved in stone. They are not inflexible. They will be monitored very carefully over the days and years to come. After a fair trial period, if any of these programs prove to be ineffective, redundant or do not meet the needs-but I say again, after a fair trial period-we will not hesitate to make those necesary changes because the consultation process is ongoing.
I really appreciate the opportunity today to reaffirm the Government's commitment to these programs and to serve households in need in Canada. We feel confident that the core income need thresholds, which are locally derived but nationally consistent, will greatly assist in achieving our objective of assisting those Canadians who cannot, through no fault of their own, obtain affordable, suitable housing in Canada. The Hon. Member for Spadina, mentioned the new Co-op Housing Program which was designed in conjunction with the Co-op Housing Foundation. The Co-op Housing Foundation put
Supply
forward a proposal of index-linked mortgages to assist those Canadians who wished tenure because they could not afford home ownership in the market. CMHC and the Government of Canada sat down with the Co-op Housing Foundation. We explored that innovative index-linked mortgage. We had a lot of discussion. It again is not a program which I consider perfect, nor does the Co-op Housing Foundation, but it is a program which should be able to provide some 5,000 co-op housing units to Canadians across Canada at less cost to the Canadian taxpayers than the old program. At the same time, this modest housing will find accommodation for 30 per cent of the units to be rented by Canadians who are in core need.
The evolution in housing has been ongoing. It will not stop now. It will continue to go forward. I am very pleased to be able to say that we have, in conjunction with the groups across Canada, been able to put forward a program which will serve those Canadians who need it most.
In closing, let me say that the ability to establish a criteria based on the guidelines of the National Council on Welfare, or indeed the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Social Development, would not benefit Canadians who need it most. If we used the Canadian Council on Social Development's poverty line with the 1986 core income need threshold for Toronto for a three to four person household at $27,500, and the Canadian Council for Social Development's poverty line for a four person household at approximately $23,000, once again we would find that the issue of affordability of adequate and uncrowded accommodation is not found in those guidelines. They are found in the design of core need which was developed over a long period of time and which I am confident will provide assistance to those Canadians who need it most.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the Minister's selective use of the core guidelines because I think he will be aware, if he managed to speak to anyone from CAHRO at the convention he attended earlier this week, that the situation in Toronto is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, for almost every major city across Canada the core guidelines mean that people living below the poverty line are no longer eligible for, in particular, RRAP funding. Given that the Minister wants to negate the facts and figures presented here in the House by the Opposition, does he then disagree with complaints which have been made, for example, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where the Housing Minister has asked for an emergency meeting on the question of RRAP funding because the definition of "core need", as low as it is, has resulted in severe hardship for the people in Winnipeg? Does he disagree with the position taken by the Cape Breton County Council which stated: "RRAP Change Alarms Cape Breton County Council"?
I wonder if the Minister disagrees with the position taken by the Saskatoon City Council which has also expressed concern about the redefinition of "core need" with respect to RRAP funding? Does the Minister disagree with the position taken by the people of Halifax who have also suggested that the redefinition of "core need" has excluded thousands of families

May 30, 1986
Supply
living below the poverty line from RRAP assistance? Does he disagree with the position taken by the New Glasgow Town Council in the Province of Nova Scotia which has also pointed out the folly of the Government's new definition of "core need"?
If in fact the Minister does not agree with the Opposition that the definition is too limited, would he in fact agree at the very least to meet with the Minister of Housing for the Province of Manitoba to discuss face to face some of the severe shortcomings which confront the housing program in Winnipeg as a result of these new definitions?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the last question first. The Hon. Minister responsible for housing in the Province of Manitoba requested a meeting. I said I would certainly be pleased to meet with the Minister. I had thought a meeting was scheduled in Toronto last Monday when I was there. The Minister responsible for housing in the Province of Manitoba was unable to attend. I am here in Ottawa. I am available to meet with the Minister at any time.
There is something the Hon. Member did not mention, and I do not think the Minister responsible for housing in Manitoba mentioned, and that is, we signed a global agreement with the Province of Manitoba when the Hon. John Bucklaschuk was the Minister responsible. We signed an agreement on RRAP. We made it very clear at that time that the core income needs would be what we would use to establish the criteria for RRAP. I am still willing to meet with the Minister responsible for housing in Manitoba at any time.
The Hon. Member spoke of eliminating households from eligibility under RRAP. Across Canada, from the data gathered by CMHC, 80 per cent of the individuals who would have been eligible under the old criteria are still eligible.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the other 20 per cent?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East asks a good question. With respect to the 20 per cent who are going to be left out, that 20 per cent will be used to serve more Canadians who live below the poverty line. In the utopia of the mind of the Hon. Member it may be fine if we had unlimited dollars to provide for RRAP renovations, but we do not. Therefore, those who need assistance most, surely, in the views of Canadians and the Hon. Member, are the ones who should receive the assistance provided by the taxpayers of Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister made a rather standard reference to the fact that 40 per cent of assistance money in the past was the maximum which went to the people in need. In other words, he is suggesting that 60 per cent of housing assistance money went to people who were not in need. He gives the impression, perhaps, whether intentionally or not, that the 60 per cent was in the form of social housing programs such as co-ops or non-profit or other forms of social housing.
CMHC has consistently emphasized the smaller part of its program, that is, the money which went to the people in need. Over a great many years since World War II it has ignored the larger part of this program, the money that went to developers to increase their profits. In almost all cases those developers produced housing for people who were not in need. In other words, it is true that in the past governments have subsidized developers and, through them, people not in need.
When the Minister says that he is only going to help those in need because they only got 40 cents on the dollar in the past, he conveniently leaves out the fact that the past programs were rankly biased in favour of the profits of the private developers. He implies that there was something wrong with the co-op programs in the past which were attacked by CMHC.
I want the Minister to explain a little further his reference to the co-ops. He says that due to the program which co-ops have developed for a different kind of mortgage system buildings will cost less. He said that there will be a saving of money. The co-ops are asking why the Minister does not recognize that saving provided by the co-ops, rather than the taxpayers, by allowing the co-ops to build a larger number of units than was provided for last year.
The co-ops wish to serve what the Minister calls the "core needy". They wish to make a large number of their units available to people on very low incomes or with very great accommodation needs, according to the Minister's formula. Why has he restricted them to 30 per cent? There are co-ops which want to provide 50 per cent. Why will the Minister not let them?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in response to the last question first, the co-ops have provided in the past, and presently wish to provide, more than 30 per cent of their units for use by Canadians in need. There are other private and public nonprofit groups which provide shelter to Canadians across the country. In order to design a program which would provide the mix that the co-ops want, and also give a new mortgage instrument a fair opportunity to succeed, the decision was made to limit the co-ops to 30 per cent. The 30 per cent of the units occupied within co-ops would be on a rent supplement basis. That means that Canadian taxpayers would be paying the difference between the rent geared to income and the market rent that would be available in those units.
I found it strange that the Hon. Member said that the saving was provided by the co-ops. What has been provided by the co-op housing foundation was the suggestion, the thought and the idea of a new mortgage instrument, an index-linked mortgage. It has been used in other parts of the world with varying degrees of success. The previous Liberal Government also had an idea along that line, called AHOP, under which the incomes of individuals would increase. That was not-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Nonsense.
May 30, 1986


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -as the Hon. Member and I agree, a very good program.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It was completely different.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member does not want me to finish answering. I recognize that it is completely different, but I also recognize that it is a new program in Canada. We must have some parameters to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not put to the same costs that they were under AHOP. I am confident that with the commitment of the co-op foundation and the corporation we will be able to make this program work. If we can make this program work it will be available to all in Canada who wish to own or build rental accommodation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in entering into this debate I beg the indulgence of the House to provide a personal note. Before entering the federal House in 1979 I served for 10 years as the director of an organizaion called the Institute of Urban Studies which was a university- based urban development centre primarily concerned with issues of inter-city housing, neighbourhood development, and the general shape and environment of the urban scene which we could create.
One very important lesson I learned during that ten-year period was that housing is not purely a function of economics. Nothing is more important in the shaping of attitudes, feelings and a sense of community than the physical environment which one inhabits. The house, community and neighbourhood has an incredible impact on child rearing, stability and neighbourhood cohesion. All the values which we respect have a lot to do with the nature of the community which we build. We should not base our public policies purely on measurements of chartered accountants or the Nielsen-type standards which affect everything according to the harshest and most severe requirements of meeting some kind of cost accountability-
The debate we are having today has the same overtones with regard to housing as had the debate we had almost a year ago on the universality of senior citizens' pensions. It is not purely and simply a question of supplying a targeted need. That is a code word used by Conservatives to say "a means test". They are saying that there is a cut-off based only upon Government assistance to those at the lowest level of income.
Another bit of wisdom I acquired working in the urban area is that one of the most effective initiatives a Government could take would be to ensure that there was a proper social mix of housing, that people were not ghettoized, that there was not, through public policy, a tendency to have one class of people earning one income living in one area.
The best thing we could do for families and children would be to ensure that the housing project, neighbourhood, or community would have a wide variety of individuals within it to ensure that people had different experiences. There should not be a concentration of one group of people. The mistakes made in the public housing projects of the 1950s and early
Supply
1960s were a clear example of that. Beginning in the late 1960s the federal housing policy moved away from the idea of strict narrow targeting concentrating one group of people in one kind of project. It was recognized in every industrial country that that form of public housing attempt had serious social overtones.
We are now repeating the mistakes of the 1950s. We are once again talking about targeting, which is a polite way of saying that we are going to destroy that social mix, that we are going to eliminate that opportunity to provide modest income Canadians the opportunity to live with some degree of neighbourhood cohesion. That is the basic objection which one must have to new housing policies. They are not social housing policies in the true sense of the word. We so often hear expressed the narrow-minded attitude that Government support should go only to those who can meet some very low means test. This country has been fighting that concept for 30 or 40 years. Once again we have a Government with that kind of mentality.
I would like to point out to the Members of the House an article written in Policy Options by Professor David Holchan-ski of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia who also acts as a consultant for CMHC. He said that the problem with the approach of the Government is that it is repeating the same mistakes that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan made with their housing policies, and that we are going to end up with the same consequences. We will now have to face the same kinds of problems as they created through their housing policies.
Having said that, I want to talk about a problem we face in the City of Winnipeg where it is perhaps most dramatically emphasized. I will talk just for a moment about the Residential Repair Assistance Program. That is one of the most important urban initiatives ever taken by the federal Government. Over the years it succeeded in helping thousands of Canadians to repair and upgrade their housing. It helped rescue those communities on the verge of destruction. The particular genius of the program is that it applied to inner city neighbourhoods and downtown areas but was not limited strictly to economic factors or income requirements. It was available to a variety of Canadians to upgrade a single family home or an apartment block. It brought incredible stability to many of those communities. In the core area project in Winnipeg, which has been one of the most successful urban development projects by far, the RRAP program was essential. The latest figures show that over 1,200 units were upgraded with the assistance of RRAP over the last four years. Yet the programs introduced by that Minister will achieve the total destruction of RRAP.
Let me give you one example from one neighbourhood in my constituency, the Lord Roberts community. It is a community of apartment blocks and working class houses. It is a good community but it has to fight against the encroachment of

May 30, 1986
Supply
urban blight. People are making an honest effort to win that fight. A couple of months ago there were 133 applications under RRAP from that one small neighbourhood. Now that this great new Tory initiative has been brought in, only 21 applications are eligible. Fully 75 per cent of the people accepted for the program previously have now been taken off the eligibility list. That story has been repeated in neighbourhood after neighbourhood in my city. You will find that of the applications in existence before the new program was brought in, fully 70 per cent no longer apply. The reason is that the threshold of $13,000 is simply not high enough to meet the various family configurations in the downtown and urban neighbourhoods, so they have been removed from the program. Of course, at the same time the landlords in the program get a substantial hike. The Government is saying to the more modest income families in the neighbourhood that they no longer count. The end result in that particular urban neighbourhood will be the elimination of the ability of individual home owners to fight against urban erosion and upgrade their communities, all for the sake of "target threshold needs". Those are the code words for the Government's decision to no longer recognize its responsibility to provide incentives towards the improvement and redevelopment of our urban neighbourhoods. It is a betrayal of those neighbourhoods and communities.
We have the same kind of program dealing with off reserve Indian housing. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), knows this full well as Indian affairs critic. The head of the Manitoba Metis Federation, Ed Swain, has said the same thing. Days after the announcement of the new program, and after analysing the figures, he said that this program no longer allows the Manitoba Metis Federation to continue its off-reserve housing program. Again, the income requirements are such that those families deepest in need cannot apply, and those who were using the program have incomes above the threshold.
What is the point in having a program that does not work? We know what the point is. The Government does not want the programs to work at all. It is more interested in saving money and cutting back the CMHC budget. It wants to reduce expenditures on social housing. This is a carefully crafted formula to ensure that social housing programs do not work. In that way, step by step, the Government can withdraw from its responsibility and commitments to the housing needs of Canadians. That is really the message behind this brave new world the Government has introduced.
We have certainly seen over the past two years the peculiar ideological hang-up the Government has about the constructive programs and initiatives it can provide to people to help themselves. But why has the Government concentrated solely on the social housing program expenditures? Have members of the Government talked about all the incentives given to developers? Have you seen them cutting back on major tax expenditure programs? Oh, no, they have concentrated exclusively on the social housing programs. They are not only cutting back on the dollars, but by introducing unworkable or
restrictive formulas they have eliminated from eligibility the very people who have been making use of these programs. That is why we have presented this resolution. We are trying to draw to the attention not only of members of the Government but of the public at large the fact that this is a phoney program. It is not designed to help those in need because need is defined at such a restricted level that it can never be met.
Going back to the conditions of the RRAP program, a very valuable and important development taking place in one of our major cities has now been brought to a virtual standstill. I wish the Government would bring to a standstill the efforts it is making on countervailing actions taken by the U.S. If it was as effective in that area of public policy as it is in bringing to an absolute halt the useful housing initiatives on the books, we would be much happier. The fact of the matter is that, whether it be the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the head of the rehabilitation program, or the provincial Minister of Housing, the conclusion is the same: The Government has killed the program. It has done an injustice to that part of Winnipeg. The end result will be that over the next several years the valiant efforts being made to fight urban blight and erosion will be lost. The social cost will therefore be much higher. Housing was contributing substantially not only to the physical renewal of the city, but to human and emotional renewal. People were beginning to take pride in their community because they could do something about it. They could get RRAP grants and fix their houses. They knew they were doing something valuable not only for themselves but for their neighbourhood. Yet this Government, which talks about private initiative, is taking the initiative away from those people.
When we sit down five years from now to calculate the end cost, it is going to be much higher than if this program had been maintained. Many of those neighbourhoods will now no longer be able to provide that resurrection which was taking place. The deterioration will set in and we will be paying much higher costs to keep the repairs going. That is the end result. Can anyone in their right mind conclude that that is an effective social program? Is that really effective policy-making when you are creating a worse problem than the one you now have? You end up not only providing an inequitable answer, but one that will be more costly. That simply does not make sense.
The point of this debate is to try to get this Government to change its approach on social housing and on the RRAP program. It will not be that much more costly. We are talking maybe of $2 million or $3 million more over the next three or four years. That is the difference that it makes. The end result would be the regeneration of thousands of housing units, as opposed to a standstill in those programs.
We are here to try to appeal to the common sense of this Government, to ask it why it would destroy something that was working well. Why erode something that was having an
May 30, 1986

important impact on our communities and our citizens in this country? Why are you taking it away? Why are you eliminating it? That is not understandable to anybody, whatever their political background.
The Mayor of the City of Winnipeg is a well known supporter of the Conservative Party. He is the one that is complaining equally loud and saying, "Why are you doing it to us?" I do not understand what is behind it all. Unless, once again, we are seeing a Government caught in its own ideological mind trap. The Government is so preoccupied and obsessed with the kind of thinking you saw in the Nielsen exercise of shaving and cutting that it is not able to see the forest for the trees. The Government is not able to judge the consequences of its acts. If a program is working well, it is not able to leave it alone and allow it to continue. That is the appeal that we make. Surely we must provide for communities that are properly mixed to fight against the kind of ghettoization that took place in the past. If that is the objective, then you have only one choice, and that is to change these housing programs before they do irreparable damage.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Member indicating that social policies should make things better rather than worse. I wonder if the Member would admit that the piece of public policy which hurt housing the most in this decade is 22 per cent mortgage rates. If he is willing to admit that, can he tell the House why he continued to support a Government with a set of policies that produced 22 per cent mortgage rates?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could only describe it as a supercilious question. It is interesting that the Hon. Member has obviously not read the budget statements of his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). After repeated questioning in debate, the Minister of Finance said that he is following a policy whereby the Bank of Canada sets its rates according to the dictates of the international market and the money markets. The rates go up and down, as we know. Every Thursday the Bank of Canada sets a new rate, depending upon the flows of capital, which is exactly what was done in the past.
There is no difference in setting interest rates on that basis other than what a Government might try to do to offset the impact of those rates, perhaps by providing alternative programs. We defended that simply by saying that because we live in a world where there are capital flows between countries at the flick of a computer button, who can control them? Does your Minister artificially set rates? Has the Minister of Finance in the Mulroney Government stood up here and said that he will artificially set a rate, whether higher or lower, whatever the case may be? Oh, no. The Minister of Finance in this Government follows the same principles as did the Minister of Finance in the previous Government.
As the Member well knows, as a distinguished former academic, interest rates were high everywhere. They were 25 per cent in Europe, they were 18 per cent and 19 per cent in
Supply
the United States. The world was going through a dramatic recession. Interest rates were being fuelled by inflationary forces spawned by oil price changes that were taking place and by other international forces, and there was no country that was immune from those forces.
It would seem to me that the Hon. Member, who should know better and who has an understanding of economics, should analyse it according to what did take place. At that time we had social housing programs and we were trying to meet a larger and broader mix of people in this community because they could not afford the kind of housing that the private market supplied, as they cannot today. They cannot afford it today unless there are forms of support. One of the realities is that the cost of land, materials and labour has reached the point that large proportions of Canadians simply cannot afford housing on their own income. Now, we hide a lot of those sudsidies through tax expenditures. That is what we are asking, why are we concentrating in this case only on the social housing program and why are we eliminating it? Why are we not looking at the total basket of housing programs and getting a much better mix of those programs?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), given his involvement in the Province of Manitoba formerly as a provincial MLA, if he might be able to shed some light on the problem which faces residents in northern parts of Canada. I have here a couple of letters from the Province of Saskatchewan. One is from a Mr. Larry Dawson, who is in need of RRAP funding because he has to install improvements to his septic system. He is certainly not spending the money in a liberal fashion, he needs basic changes to his household structure.
As well, Mrs. Mona Dawson, who applied in 1985 and who, because of this Government's 25 per cent cut-back in RRAP funding, was advised she had no possibility for 1985 funding, was put on the waiting list for 1986. The points that Mr. Dawson raised in his letter to the provincial and federal Minister responsible for housing is that, given that he lives in a northern climate by the time his approval for construction comes through, it may be some time in the late summer, early fall and he may be faced with problems of climate, given the possibility of permafrost, et cetera.
I wonder if the Member could outline whether he believes there should be some specific exemptions or accommodations made for those people who are applying for RRAP assistance, who have been pushed off because of this Government's cutbacks, and who now find themselves facing the fall and winter of 1986 waiting for funds for which they applied in 1985 because of the particular climate problems of living in northern areas.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have the same conditions in northern Manitoba that you are facing in the downtown area. Because of the cost conditions, and other reasons, large numbers of people have been eliminated from applying for

May 30, 1986
Supply
RRAP grants. As a result, the basic housing program in northern Manitoba, as in northern Saskatchewan, is coming to a standstill. People who were formerly able to take on some opportunity to help themselves are no longer being given that opportunity. Seventy per cent of the people who had previously been eligible for those programs have now been taken off the list. It is a clear example of just how topsy-turvy and selfdestructive that kind of program really is. Those were the very people who saw in the RRAP program the opportunity to help themselves. It is going to set back housing needs in those northern areas to the point where it will take years to recover the momentum again.
The Government has sliced through what was beginning to develop into a major housing initiative in the northern parts of Canada, which is now being frozen to the point where it will take years to recover and reach the same state of achievement it once had.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the expertise in urban areas of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I would like to point out that in the case of the people who made those applications, the person from northern Saskatchewan and the person from southern Saskatchewan, from Rouleau, who were mentioned by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), it did not happen in the last two years or 18 months that someone did not have a septic tank or someone in southern Saskatchewan did not have plumbing. What happened was that under the previous program, scarce Canadian tax dollars were going to individuals who had annual incomes of over $23,000. Loans were made to individuals with incomes of over $23,000 while Canadians with low incomes, who were most in need, were denied access to this program because there was not enough money to go around.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is, if anything, on the left side of centre of his Party, and surely he must recognize that if Canadian taxpayers have enough money to help Canadians who are most in need, that is where they would like to target their resources. I am familiar with the redevelopment in Winnipeg. I am also familiar with the lack of development in Cape Breton, rural areas of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
The Canadian taxpayers are not an unlimited resource. The decision has to be made to meet the needs of the two individuals from northern Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan whom the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) brought to our attention, so that they could also share. There are over 100,000 rental units in need of repair and over 100,000 ownership units in Canada in need of structural repair. There was not enough money under the Liberal program nor is there enough under this program to fix those units overnight. However, the decision has to be made to target for those Canadians who are most in need.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a quick response. If the Minister says that there is not enough money in those programs, why did he cut the funds back by 25 per cent? If there was not enough money originally, why did he reduce it even further rather than leaving it as it was?
Let me give an example. We were talking about people who simply want plumbing and sewage. The Minister talked about all those extravagant people in downtown Winnipeg receiving unnecessary loans. The cut-off rate we are dealing with is $19,000. That sum of $19,000 for a family living in the downtown area of Winnipeg is a bare minimum to get by. Therefore, they simply cannot afford to spend any extra capital to fix their houses, to fix the foundations and bring them up to standard unless they are eligible for RRAP. The Minister has taken that away from them.
That community was regenerating itself because people in that income level were prepared to put their time, effort and some of their scarce capital into improvements because they could get RRAP funds. They no longer can do so, and those neighbourhoods are being condemned to further deterioration. That is the real problem and the reason the social cost is becoming prohibitive. It will cost twice as much to fix up those neighbourhoods five years from now because the Minister did not leave the RRAP program alone. That is the problem.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is a pleasure to enter the debate on housing this afternoon and to follow the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I had asked him a question and he responded by talking about interest rates in Europe and England. The absence of any comment on the role of the federal Government in the creation of high interest rates was noticeable in his answer. The fact is that there is a correlation between the demand for loans and the cost of money.
It should come as no surprise that interest rates increase as a result of 17 years in office of a Government that has gradually increased its expenditures and increased its borrowing requirements to the point where one-third of its expenditures pays for that borrowed money. One has a sense of deja vu when one listens to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member is most eloquent when he asks for $2 million or $3 million more for Winnipeg. He had almost as many employees in his office as a Minister of the Crown as there are for 10 cabinet Ministers in our Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: No. Mazankowski has more.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The use of borrowed taxpayers' money drove up the cost of mortgages for homeowners in this country. That is the kind of Member we had from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. The Hon. Member has lowered his sights substantially by asking for $2 million or $3 million more. He was a Miniser pork-barrelling in hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money for his personal fiefdom while the rest of the country went to hell in a hand basket. That is the kind of Member we had from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. That is why the cost of
May 30, 1986

money rose and that is why we have so many housing problems in this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Just keep saying it, because the people in Winnipeg love it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He says to just keep saying it. I will say it to the day I die because I like to speak the truth. Of course, he did not do this alone. He was joined by the spendthrift gang.
One can recognize the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal by seeing what was absent from the Hon. Member's plea for $2 million or $3 million more. If the Conservative Government decided that spending $2 million or $3 million for Winnipeg should be a priority, it would determine what cuts could be made in order to provide that money. Rather than borrowing the money we would make a cut in an area of less importance. Do not make today's children pay tomorrow by borrowing more money; cut an expenditure if you want to provide an increase elsewhere. That is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.


Lloyd Axworthy: The difference is that we don't give capital gains allowance of $500,000 to rich friends like yours.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I remember the scientific research tax credit of $2.5 billion, Mr. Speaker. What a triumph of public policy, that $2,500 million was. That one simple tax program amounts to double our expenditure on housing in this country this year. What a bunch of geniuses.
The Hon. Member made one comment with which all of us should be able to agree. He said that housing for Canadians is important. I have had a peculiar set of jobs which brought to my attention the frequency of suicide and illness and the sense of alienation that occurs in Canadian society.
Soon after the Second World War, Central Mortgage and Housing decided that mortgages and insurance should relate to houses of a particular design, with the advent of the L-shaped living room and dining room in small 940 square foot houses.
That simple insurance principle destroyed the family kitchen in Canada. This is a room that was built on warmth, closeness and conversation. It is a room that provided for a closer relationship between parents and children. Children would do their homework there while the mother would knit or listen to the radio. Yet that policy on houses probably contributed more to alienation and mental illness in this country than any other policy. That realization contributed to my sense of the importance of public policy on the lives of individuals and motivated me to enter this Chamber.
It is important to note clearly the difference between the housing policy proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and that which would be proposed by either of the two opposition Parties. Canadians had a choice in September, 1984, and they must not lose sight of their options in 1988.
The motion before us today suggests that the eligibility for housing assistance should be defined on an income-based
Supply
figure alone and should apply all across the country. That is not inconsistent with the opposition Members' points of view about all kinds of things. When they talk about universality, they talk about treating the rich and the poor equally. They talk about treating all members of our society and all communities as if they were the same. That is the basic thrust of their proposition. It is not the thrust of ours.
The thrust of our approach to public policy is to recognize that this is a large country. It is a country with many unique communities and with cultural differences that relate to language and background. It is a country which has been built by immigrants. It is a country that takes pride in its sense of multiculturalism and in its sense of diversity. Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties want us all to be of the same mould and to be treated in exactly the same way. That is a point of view, but it is not my point of view. I think the country is richer and better served by public policy that recognizes provincial, regional, community and cultural differences.
What the Minister of Labour has proposed in what he is carrying forward into the community is a sense of a core need concept. His sense of that core need is close to my own. He has identified core need as being applicable to any household in which 30 per cent of the family income, or more, goes to providing decent shelter. What does that formula take into account? It takes into account the reality that wages vary, and that they vary enormously from community to community. That is the income side of the issue, the family income side. It also takes into account the fact that the price of property and the rents we pay for that property vary widely from community to community.
If one lives in a low wage area with low housing costs, then one may or may not meet the definition of core need. If one lives in a low wage area with high housing costs, then one will certainly meet the requirements. If one lives in a high wage area with low rental costs, then one will not meet the requirements. However, if one lives in a high wage area with high housing costs, then one may meet the requirements. Incomes are matched to costs. That is surely common sense. Surely it is the only formula proposed which takes into account both sides of the equation, the cost side and the income side.
Members of the Liberal Party and members of the New Democratic Party would have us take into account only the income side. If it is strictly the income side which is to be considered, then some people who are relatively rich will receive part of the money, as will some who are relatively poor. If we follow the formula devised by the Minister of Labour, none of the money will go to the rich and all of it will go to the poor.
What do Canadians want? If we were able to provide a certain amount of money to all Canadians, would they prefer that everyone receive $100, or that the poorest 10 per cent receive $1,000, or that the poorest 20 per cent receive $500? I

May 30, 1986
Supply
do not know how Canadians would vote as between the lowest 10 per cent and the lowest 20 per cent. I do know that Canadians would prefer to see the poorest in society receive more and the richest receive nothing, or less. That is the Conservative philosophy. I think it is something with which all members of our caucus feel comfortable. I think it is something with which most Canadians feel comfortable. It is not something with which the Liberal Party of Canada feels comfortable. It is not something with which the New Democratic Party feels comfortable. I think that is their basic objection to what the Minister is doing in terms of the Canadian housing policy.
What the Minister has done is to set up a formula which ensures that the money will go to those who need it the most and that it will be community-specific, based on community income for an individual, the standard in the community. It will be based on the costs in the community. When the Hon. Member stood up and told us that the previous pattern delivered 40 per cent of the money to people who needed it and 60 per cent to those who did not, then he was talking about the Liberal approach. Our philosophy is that 100 per cent of the money should go to those who need it. That is what the Minister is intending to devise. I believe the taxpayers will be better served by that type of mechanism.
In the time remaining I would like to review the process briefly. What the Minister has done is what many of our Ministers have done. It is different from the Liberal approach. A change in public policy has been proceeded with as a result of discussion and consultation in which both sides talk and both sides listen. Out of that process have come proposals that enable the federal Government to enter into a partnership with others in society, in this case with the provinces, to target assistance to those who need it the most. What that produces is more housing for more people. With respect to the program under discussion today, there will be twice as many households helped with the same expenditure of dollars as under the former program. Those who will receive the help clearly need it the most. None of the money will go to those who do not need it. It is a pleasure to stand up in the House and congratulate the Minister for his foresight and for the development of this program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first, let me say to the Hon. Member that we must appreciate one of the more unique, if not bizarre, dissertations in this House in which the social pathology of Canada has been ascribed to the L-shaped livingroom which was developed in the 1950s. That has the makings of a wonderful doctoral dissertation. However, I am not sure how relative it is to the debate.
Before I ask the Hon. Member a question, I wish to point out one thing. He made a great fuss about how Conservatives recognize that we must help those in need and not the rich. I guess it comes down to the question of how that need is
defined. I simply point out to the Hon. Member that a family of four which lives in my riding and makes $19,000 is not exactly rich. That is a very ordinary income, and only meets the very barest of essentials. Those are the people about whom I am talking. Those are the ones who have been cut out of the program. There is nothing rich about them. There is nothing upper-income about them. They are very ordinary working people, who want to try to save their houses and their neighbourhoods. The Hon. Member and his Government are stopping them from doing that.
Furthermore, I ask the Hon. Member, who was so congratulatory to his Minister for all the wonderful things he has done, and taking into account the new formula, if he can explain to me one simple thing. Why is it that there has been absolutely no allocation of any money since April for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program even though we are now close to the beginning of June? Can the Hon. Member tell me why all that time has been allowed to pass without any allocations for RRAP having been made? Not only does that cut out the rich and those with modest incomes, it cuts out everyone up to this point in time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I am not the Minister, nor am I an administrator. I suspect his information is incorrect, because it usually is. However, I have no definitive knowledge about whether or not any money has been paid out under RRAP. It is interesting that the Hon. Member did not ask that question of the Minister when he had the opportunity.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I can you tell that none has been paid out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Returning to L-shaped living and dining rooms, there is a certain amount of predictability to the Hon. Member's behaviour. If one has a rather well thought out explanation of a phenomenon, something that happens to be new to one's mind is rejected without thought. There is the notion that what went on before is best, not through any process of logic, not through any process of evidence, but simply because it went on before and they devised it. I suggest that this is one reason why those Members are sitting on that side rather than this side.


Lloyd Axworthy: Have you looked at the polls lately? It won't be long.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Canadians are common-sense people. They can differentiate between the reality of a situation and the public expression of something that does not accord with that reality. I suggest to the Hon. Member that he think a little longer about what the L-shaped living and dining room did to small Canadian houses and therefore to Canadian families and people. I think he might find some wisdom in the idea if he could just open his ears long enough to hear it and then work extra hard to think about it.
May 30, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the housing needs of more than a million Canadians who are under-housed, either homeless or living in inadequate accommodations, and the Hon. Member seems to be stuck on some architectural notion about L-shaped living and dining rooms. Given his defence of the Government's RRAP program and his unfortunately incorrect perception that those people who have been cut from RRAP are people who are somehow living in the lap of luxury, does he believe that it should be the right of Canadians like Mr. Dawson from Saskatchewan to have running water and a heating system in their homes? If he does feel that it is their right to have running water and heating systems, could he tell me why Mr. Dawson contacted the office of the Minister more than a month ago about specific funding requests and was put on a waiting list at a time when he was facing the possibility of construction during the winter in northern Saskatchewan? Are these the people the Conservative Government intends to cut out from RRAP eligibility because they are living in the lap of luxury?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, that was spoken like someone who grew up in Hamilton or Toronto. When I was growing up, I carried in the coal, I carried in the water, I carried out the slops and I used an outdoor privy. In my generation, most of the people in my region lived like that. There is nothing inherently wrong with accommodation of the kind the Hon. Member describes. There may be something very difficult about it.
The Hon. Member may be describing someone who lives in a city and has health problems or she may be describing a millionaire living in a cabin in the woods by choice. We do not know. However, one thing we do know is that any Canadian who meets the core definition of needing 30 per cent or more of income to provide decent and adequate housing in the community is eligible for this program. There must be something very strange about the isolated case which the Hon. Member has presented to us.
Quite consistently in the House and in committee, we hear partial stories designed for media interest rather than any kind of considered public policy debate. We heard not one single, decent public policy principle enunciated by the Hon. Member in her 20-minute speech. That is typical.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on his comments. I would like to offer a further comment on Saskatchewan housing. It is odd that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is speaking on behalf of Saskatchewan. As one whose constituency comprises fully one-quarter of the Province of Saskatchewan and who travels a great deal in northern Saskatchewan, I personally have a great interest in northern housing.
I would like the Hon. Member to know that last summer I took an extensive northern tour of 14 communities located above the 17th base line. There are obviously many problems,
Supply
both social and economic, endemic to far northern communities, but one concern that was articulated repeatedly was the concern for housing, first for its availability in very remote northern communities, and second for the construction and financing requirements.
At that time, I was able to approach my friend and colleague, the Minister responsible for housing, to talk to him about this, and we discussed the idea of having a northern housing forum at which all of the mayors and councillors from northern Saskatchewan communities could get together under one roof to talk about construction requirements, such as the suitability of log housing in northern communities, and about financing. I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East should be very pleased to join with me in applauding the fact that on June 7, the Minister responsible for housing in all of Canada will be in northern Saskatchewan to meet with northern representatives and to talk about northern housing. I would like to commend the Minister for that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased with that intervention. It identifies in a very clear-cut way that many people in Canada live in isolated areas, and when we talk about the North, we are usually talking about high costs. We may be talking about high wages and we may be talking about poverty, but we are always talking about high costs. Part of the genius of the Minister's program is that a person could be making a big wage but may indeed be needy if he lives in a high-cost area. We are trying to provide housing for the North, for the South, for Toronto and for Yukon. The Minister is to be congratulated for that attempt.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member was not here when I spoke today nor when I dealt with the matter earlier. In Saskatchewan, no money is available for rural RRAP. There is not one cent available to anyone, and that is the information I received from the Minister's office today. The money has been postponed and postponed. Even though the Minister said on Tuesday in an E-Mail note to all offices that the money is available today, his office had to admit that that is not true and the money is not now available. It is not a matter of some eccentric millionaire, it is a matter of anyone in Saskatchewan who might be eligible for RRAP but who cannot receive it today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being here during the Hon. Member's speech, but I was working on an immigration matter. What I should do is to ask the Hon. Member if, when the money is available, he thinks it will go to the right people and if he thinks it might be available tomorrow. I do not think the problem has existed for very long. There is always an administrative lag.
It may very well be that people in Saskatchewan are not getting the money today, but will they be getting it tomorrow? When they get it, will it be going to the people who need it the most? The primary public policy principle before us is that when the money becomes available, it goes to the right people, those who need it.

tylay 30, 1986
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ignored the case of Mr. and Mrs. Dawson, in such a cavalier fashion, a case that was raised with the office of the Minister responsible for national housing more than a month ago. Do not forget that Mr. and Mrs. Dawson are the people with no running water and no furnace. The Hon. Member thinks that that is okay. My family is from northern Ontario and I understand a little bit about the North. I think there are many northern families who would like to have running water and heating facilities and I think it is an outrage for the Hon. Member to state that he thinks it is fine and dandy for people to live without that.


John Kenneth Gormley: He didn't say that. Be fair.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You weren't here when the Hon. Member spoke. That's exactly what he said.
Why has the Hon. Member said nothing when the fact is that this family and hundreds of others across Saskatchewan were cut off because funding available from Canada Mortgage and Housing was fully committed? There was no money for any family in rural Saskatchewan as a result of the Government's policies which led to a 25 per cent cut-back in RRAP funding. Why was he not talking about critical issues like running water and heating rather than L-shaped living-dining rooms?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one suspects that physiologically there is a correlation between how wide open one's mouth is and how closed one's ears are from time to time.
People choose to live without central heating. People choose to live in certain kinds of ways. The Hon. Member is trying to lay upon the table a piece of information in partial form. Are we dealing with a millionaire? I asked that question before. Yes or no? Are we dealing with someone whose income and shelter meet the core definition? Yes or no?
The public policy issue we were supposed to debate today is: Would the definition of poverty of the National Council of Welfare produce a better situation? How much money was available in housing funds in September, 1984, on election day? Was an entire year's budget pork-barrelled out prior to election day? What responsibility does the Hon. Member have, as a member of the Liberal Party, for ignoring housing needs for six months or seven months in an attempt to win an election with borrowed money, which drove up interest rates for everyone? What obligation does she have to answer to the House for that kind of public policy?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the extremely important matter of housing and on the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for a national housing strategy. It is not quite the direction in which I think we ought to be going, but certainly the subject is an important one and I want to put a few observations on the record for my own riding. As well, I want
to raise some of my own concerns and to indicate my particular interest in housing for women.
Over the past few winters in Canada we have seen a proliferation of food banks and food depots run by churches and voluntary organizations. We have seen Canadians lining up for food for the simple reason that they do not have enough money because they are spending so much of their very limited resources on housing. Many of these people have some form of income. A lot of them are women with family benefits, women raising children without adequate support, and toward the end of the month they do not have enough money because of extremely high charges for rent.
I think of a disabled woman in my constituency who visited my riding office. Her income was slightly over $400 per month. She shares an apartment with a monthly rent of $600 with another woman, so they both pay $300 per month in rent. This means that she has $100 per month left over for all other expenses-metro, food, clothing, and everything else. She is pressed into going to food banks because of inadequate housing. Her name is on waiting lists for subsidized housing along with some other 20,000 Metro people.
Rooms are costing an enormous amount of money. People on very limited incomes or people on welfare simply do not have enough money to go around. We have people going to hostels and hostels turning people away. We have a revolving door in the hostel system. The people who go to hostels, as well as those who run them, tell us that they do not want hostels. They want adequate housing. Hostels are not a response to the critical issue of inadequate affordable houses and apartments for Canadians.
My riding of Broadview-Greenwood is no worse than other ridings. It has some poor housing, some good housing, and some in between housing. However, it has many people who are on waiting lists because they simply cannot afford accommodation, and people are sharing accommodations because of inadequacy.
Many of the people with real housing needs that are not being met are women. Women are in this difficulty for two reasons. One is the old association between women and poverty. More women are poor. Women who have jobs do not earn as much money as men. Of course, women are still responsible for most of the child care when families break up. Most of the single parents are women. They have the responsibility for children. They have lower incomes, very little support money, yet higher expenses because they have children to look after. As a result they are really pushed in paying for housing.
Only 37 per cent of women own their own homes compared with 71 per cent of men. They do not have the money to buy houses, so 63 per cent of women rent compared with 29 per cent of men. Women rent poorer and cheaper accommodation than men because they do not have enough money. The figures indicate that 61 per cent of women and 27 per cent of men pay less than $450 per month on rent. Men, far more often than
May 30, 1986

women, are able to afford much more luxurious accommodation, better and pricier apartments. A substantial majority of low-income women who are renters rate their housing as inadequate, either for the size they are able to afford or the amenities or for both.
Of course women, far more often than men, depend upon social housing; 87 per cent of single persons in public and nonprofit housing and co-ops are women. Nearly all single parents, or 96 per cent of them, in social housing and in co-ops are women because they cannot afford rents or they cannot afford to buy a house of their own.
What is wrong? Obviously housing in Canada is a basic need as it is everywhere. In Canada, with its cold climate, more elaborate and better housing is needed than in many other places. Canada recognizes, as indicated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to adequate housing for health and wellbeing. While we recognize this right for everyone, we do not have any system to ensure that the right is met. Essentially we have reliance upon the private market which is geared to profit-making, not to the meeting of needs. The private market is a primary deliverer of housing but it is oriented toward profits, and there are more profits in luxury private houses and condominiums.
In fact, much public money goes into housing by way of the back door. Tax subsidies to builders and homeowners are enormous. Although I do not have up-to-date figures, the figures for 1980 total $9 billion. At the same time, only $700 million was provided for social housing through CMHC. When Conservative Members rise to say that they want the program to be directed to those people in need, to the poor, that they do not think the subsidy should be going to the rich, and that their core need proposal will meet that objective, they are entirely missing the point. More of the subsidies go to well off people through tax concessions, not through direct grants; they go disproportionately to the better off. We do have public policy. It may be inadvertent or implicit, but it is there. It means that overwhelmingly public funds are directed to those who need them the least.
The issue of the housing needs of women is one which will be addressed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women at its annual convention this weekend. A housing subcommittee which has been preparing for the convention has come up with a number of proposals to be discussed. They are far more adequate than anything the Government has come up with in terms of meeting these needs.
Some of the proposals are directed toward the provincial and municipal levels of Government and do not concern us. One proposal recommends that the federal Government should ensure a fair distribution of tax benefits for housing. They urge that the data, which is not easy to come by because it is so obscured by going through tax concessions rather than direct grants, should be analysed regularly and made available to the public, so that people will know how tax money or tax exemption deduction money is being spent. Also they urge that
Supply
the Government abolish tax incentives to private developers in favour of a system of direct grants, so that people will clearly know how the money is being spent. Then there will be proper accountability and we can ensure that those who need it receive most of it.
They indicate as well that the right to housing without discrimination on the basis of family status should be recognized. Of course we know the difficulty faced by parents, especially single parents with young children, in finding housing. Also they suggest funding for women's emergency shelters where it is lacking. Let us be very clear that while this is support for women's emergency shelters, it is not an endorsation of shelters as any kind of adequate substitute. Priority should be given instead to establish long-term affordable and appropriately managed housing for women in hostels because we do not want to see another tragic reoccurrence of a woman turned away from a hostel and dying outside without shelter. It is recommended that the federal Government ensure through federal-provincial agreements that people be supplied with housing such that low income people are not forced to spend more than 25 per cent of their income on housing. The Government is shifting to this 30 per cent level and, certainly, we have had a very long history regarding 25 per cent of income as the ceiling beyond which people should not have to spend their money on housing but should have it available for food, clothing and other essentials. It is recommended that the Government ensure that the special needs of the elderly to remain in their own homes are met. It is recommended that CMHC reassess design features of social housing, to develop standards reflecting the needs of women as well as of men. There should be access of the disabled to social housing which is something which has been very slow in coming. Then there were some very good recommendations to other levels of Government regarding the integration of social housing in neighbourhoods, and problems of shelter allowances not to be seen as any kind of long term solution when we have an underlying problem of supply and problems of conversion of rental apartments to condominiums. In other words, a very global approach to this whole question should be taken.
I want to make it very clear that by raising the questions of women's issues, housing and shelter and poverty, I am not in any way endorsing the Government's approach that only this poor, needy group of poor should be the subject of a national housing policy. I do not endorse that approach at all. In fact, we have a national housing policy. Unfortunately, it is a very implicit and unfair one in which most of the subsidies go by way of tax concessions and are, therefore, hidden, because they do not go by way of direct grants. These huge subsidies for homeowners are of advantage to middle and upper income earners and the contribution of public money to low and middle income earners is comparatively modest. Instead, we need a national strategy which would be fair in its distribution. Certainly, we want a national strategy which will put the

May 30, 1986
Supply
meeting of needs first, will be global and will see that the needs of all Canadians are met.
I want also to say something about co-ops. Co-operative housing is good housing, by and large, certainly, if my riding of Broadview-Greenwood is any example. We have excellent co-ops, the Bain Co-op, the Riverdale Co-op, the Innstead Coops, which are among the best in Toronto if not in Canada and the world. Unfortunately, the co-op idea is not fully appreciated by the Government and is often attacked by members of the Government so that we have something of a catch-22 situation.
We are told that co-ops house a lot of people who do not need to be in co-ops because they have adequate incomes. However, co-ops have to take people with adequate incomes in order to pay the housing charges because they do not have adequate subsidies to rent to people who cannot pay market rates. There are co-ops in my riding which would happily take a larger proportion of people on subsidies and feel they could integrate them well into their co-op communities but are not allowed to do so because of inadequacies of subsidy. If only 15 per cent of the units are subsidized, it means that most of the people who would be moving in would be in the middle and better off income brackets. The Riverdale Co-op subsidizes close to 50 per cent of the units. It would happily subsidize more if it was given the money. But it had to close its waiting list a year and a half ago for subsidized housing. It had its limit. There was a long waiting list. Some people have been on the waiting list to be given a subsidized unit in a co-op for four years. When units come up, they cannot be given to the people who need them the most because they do not have any more subsidy money.
There is also a problem with co-ops in Toronto which want to renovate. Here we have, you might say, housing stock which is not totally deteriorated but needs fairly substantial renovations. Renovations cost money and the maximum unit prices which are allowed by CMHC are set too high. In order to purchase a house and do the necessary renovations, they go beyond the limits. So we have co-ops which are doing excellent work, which would like to expand, but because of the rules as they are at present, they are simply not able to do so. Certainly, those artificial limits which prevent the expansion of really well functioning co-ops should be looked at again.
The Liberal motion before us shows a certain amount of concern and goodwill. However, I do not think it is all that well thought out in terms of policy. I do not agree that the focus should be only on this core needy group. I think the Liberals themselves have a great deal to answer for in the inadequate housing stock we now have in Canada. The decline of activity in CMHC did not start as of September 4, 1984. It started under the Liberal Government. The enormous disparities in support by way of tax concessions to better off people and direct grants to lower and middle income groups through social housing began under the Liberals. It was not invented by the Conservatives, although they are happy to continue it and obscure the fact that public money is going to subsidize the wealthy. They are happy about that. They like the ability to be
able to say that we have to gear money to the needy because they have hidden away their much larger grants through a subsidy system in tax exemptions. The Conservatives are happy with this situation but they did not invent it. The Liberals invented it.
The refusal to develop a real national housing strategy which treats housing as a right, puts need first and devises a system to meet needs, is a Liberal as well as a Conservative fault. The fact that more than a million Canadians are inadequately housed did not just happen since the last election. It is not just a problem of this Government. It has been a growing problem. There has been neglect over a long period of time and the Liberals themselves must bear some of the responsibility.
Rather than the motion we have before us today, I would much prefer the approach taken by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who has argued very positively for an alternative strategy, one which would put the needs of Canadians first and which would outline how we reach the needs of the more than a million Canadians who are inadequately housed. There would be a direct building program and rehabilitation of substandard housing. We should have a plan so that, over the next five years, 500,000 units could be provided. We would, in short, take the very serious needs for housing as a problem which deserves concerted attention. We would devise a strategy and would treat it as we have other areas such as medicare and public education. These are now recognized as rights. One does not have to be poor and needy and pass a means test in order to qualify for consideration of those rights. We should really treat the housing situation as a high priority and devise strategies accordingly.
I would far prefer to support that kind of constructive, aggressive, creative and far more imaginative approach. I think that is the kind of approach the seriousness of this problem deserves. I think that is the kind of discussion we should be having in this House, not this much more narrow focus on a defined group of core needy people, totally ignoring the fact of enormous subsidies going through a completely different system which is handily shoved aside and not discussed at the same time. This kind of disproportion is unfortunate and means we do not see where the resouces might be to bring to bear on the really serious problem of people who do not have adequate housing while so much public money is going to those who can really afford to pay for it themselves.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), for introducing an opposition motion which gives us the opportunity to discuss housing policy in Canada. It is not frequent enough that we have this chance to talk about a national housing strategy. I believe it is the first opportunity we have had since the new Government took office in September of 1984.
May 30, 1986

I want to argue that in the devising of any such national housing strategy there would have to be a major section which would deal with the right of adequate housing in the Indian communities of Canada. I enter this debate because I think it would be a seriously incomplete debate without reference to housing in the Indian communities of the country. I am confused by the thesis of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that many of the sociological problems in Canada are related to the L-shaped livingroom. That may or may not be a valid thesis. However, I can tell him that the L-shaped living room is not the problem at all in the Indian communities of the country. In most cases the problem is a one-room shack occupied by more than one family. That is the problem I wish to address now.
It is well known that housing in the Indian communities across Canada is generally deplorable. In fact, it is probably a national disgrace. In the past, federal government housing programs for Indian people produced structures which did not meet national standards. In fact, if those houses had been built in non-Indian communities, many of them would have failed the local building codes and would have been rejected. It is true that at the present time new houses being built in Indian communities are supposed to meet national housing standards. I seriously doubt whether those standards are being adhered to in all cases.
Hon. Members may be aware that many Indian communities are located in isolated regions of the country where the climate tends to be extraordinarily severe. In many cases the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has permitted these communities to develop on what can only be described as marginal land. For example, I could take Members to communities which are located in swamps where to move from one residence to another one must go along a boardwalk. To fall off that boardwalk would be to put your personal safety in jeopardy.
There are other cases of communities which have been allowed to develop on flood plains. During spring break-up it is quite shocking to see massive pieces of ice weighing several tonnes forced into the very heart of the community, pushing structures aside and crumbling them in their progress. A recent example of this would be the community of Fort Albany on the west coast of James Bay which was flooded last spring. I helicoptered into, that community and saw that it had been totally demolished. The same thing happened this spring on the shore of Hudson Bay in northern Ontario where the community of Winisk was totally wiped out. Houses were pushed far out into Hudson Bay, some five or six miles from where the community had originally been established. For years the chief, with the support of his people, has been urging the federal Government and the Government of Ontario to get together and assist them in a relocation plan. The Governments will now be forced to do that.
You will recognize immediately, Mr. Speaker, that when homes are built in these marginal lands which I have described
Supply
home maintenance becomes very difficult. The environment leads to the rapid decay of these inadequately built structures. The elements of nature which I have described wreak havoc, destruction, and sometimes death. In the Nielsen task force report on Indian programs it was suggested that these people really have no business living in these kinds of places anyway. Why do they not live where the rest of Canadians live, crowded along the U.S. border in urban centres? Why do they choose to live in the outer regions of northern Ontario and beyond that?
Surely in a free society we recognize the right of choice. These people choose to live in that general region, although not always on the sites where the Department of Indian Affairs said they will live. This is where they feel at home. This is where they claim that the land is in fact theirs. I personally regard it as essential to our Confederation that these people do tend to occupy areas considered inhospitable and uninviting by other Canadian people. These areas, as well, are an important part of Canada.
That is why it is vital that as quickly as possible we incorporate these people into our Confederation. We must make them believe that they are active partners and participants in our Confederation instead of being extraneous subjects of the Crown or wards of the state. It is absolutely vital that we come to recognize the rights of the first citizens of the country, to recognize aboriginal rights and title to specified lands. We must recognize the right to self-governing institutions.
A few years ago the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs formed itself into a special committee and took one year of its time to look into all aspects of Indian policy in the country. During the course of that study the committee had to wrestle with an extraordinarily difficult concept called the trust relationship. If Members of Parliament and other Canadians do not understand that concept, it is certainly no judgment of them because it is difficult to grasp, appreciate and understand. Briefly, the special committee came to the following conclusion about the trust relationship. It said that while rejecting the view that Indian nations or peoples are wards, the committee agrees that the federal Government has an obligation to act in the best interests of First Nations and to act as those interests are perceived by the Indian people themselves.
If you live in an isolated community with a harsh climate you will recognize immediately that one of those interests must be that of housing. Rarely do I visit an Indian community in my own constituency or in any other part of Canada and meet with the chief and council when the subject of housing is not brought forward as a high priority item.
This year's Estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make the point that schools and houses are two of the most significant types of capital works projects funded through the Department. I will quote from the Estimates to give you an idea of how the Department itself sees the housing situation. I quote from the overview of the Department in the Estimates for this year as follows:

May 30, 1986
Supply
In June of 1985 an evaluation of the on-reserve housing program estimated that about three-quarters of all existing houses are inadequate in the sense that they fail to meet some basic standards of safe and decent housing.
While just over 2 per cent of the Canadian population lives in crowded conditions, 36 per cent of Indian households were found to be overcrowded.
By the way, that is a very conservative estimate of the Department. The Nielsen report places that estimate much higher, at 50 per cent. The document goes on to say that since 1977 there have been certain significant improvements in overall levels of housing. For example, the Department's program has been able to effect a reduction in the level of overcrowding of on-reserve housing with the average number of people per house dropping from 6 to 5.1. I just want to remind Hon. Members that the Canadian average is 2.9. That is a startling difference.
The particular part of the Estimates I am referring to says:
Proposed changes to meet the continued and urgent need for on-reserve housing are currently under review.
That is good, but they need to become part of an over-all national housing strategy. More than that, with reference to the speech of the previous speaker about the right to adequate housing, when you talk about housing for aboriginal people the concept of "right" is certainly driven home and becomes central to the debate.
While the Nielsen report on native programs to which I have already referred draws certain conclusions which I personally cannot share or support, the statistical description of the situation in Canada is very helpful. Perhaps it is the only helpful part of the report. Let me advise Members, who probably have not read this particular document, that on-reserve housing continues to be among the poorest in Canada. Of 46,500 units, an estimated 11,000 are in need of major renovations. One in three houses is over-crowded with more than one person per room. An estimated 10,000 new housing units are required to meet the backlog created by more than one family living in a house. In addition, 2,400 new units are needed each year to keep pace with new family formation. That does not take into account new demands resulting from reinstatement. That refers to people who, under an Act passed by Parliament, namely, Bill C-31, have had restored to them their rights previously taken away and are returning to their communities. There is an editorial note in the Nielsen report with respect to these kinds of conditions. It says that overcrowding is blamed for contributing to such social problems as marriage breakdown, alcoholism, child abuse and delinquency.
The communities themselves are such that the level of services and adequacy of infrastructure is seriously behind what is generally accepted as the norm in the rest of the country. For example, fewer than 50 per cent of Indian houses are fully serviced with sewers and water. That compares to a national average of 90 per cent. The result of this kind of poorly serviced housing leads to some very major health problems. It is also a contributing factor to the high rate of infant mortality among Indian people. That rate, by the way,
is 66 per cent higher than the national rate. It is attributed to respiratory ailments, infectious and persistent diseases, all related to poor housing and a lack of sewage disposal as well as potable water.
I indicated that the Nielsen report gives us a snapshot of conditions, but then it makes this rather amazing and gratuitous comment. It says:
The federal government is under no legal obligation either through the Constitution or through treaties to provide housing for Indians and Inuit-
That is exactly where the Special Committee on Indian SelfGovernment parts company with the so-called Nielsen report on Indian programs. I repeat again the view of the special committee. It said that the federal Government has an obligation. It has an obligation to act in the best interests of Indian First Nations as those interests are perceived by Indians themselves. That is a definition of the trust relationship that I described earlier as being very difficult to understand.
I would like to take a little time to advise the House of the basis for that obligation. This is the way it came to be perceived by members of the special committee after more than a year of careful study. We had to look at the historical reality in this country. When explorers and settlers arrived in this part of North America, they did not come to an unoccupied continent, not at all. For thousands of years prior to European exploration and colonization, North America was inhabited by many different indigenous peoples organized into political entities and groupings. When the Europeans encountered these different North American peoples, it was natural for them to apply a term common in Europe at that time. They described these different separate peoples as nations. I know that gives modern Canadians some difficulty, but it has a good and sound historical basis. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which became the modus operandi for colonial policy in dealing with indigenous peoples, referred to "the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected".
I now come back to the obligation. The obligation flows from the relationship established at that time. It was a government-to-government relationship. It is true that the Governments were somewhat unequal in their strength and power, but it was government-to-government. Governments from abroad, particularly the Government representing the Crown of Great Britain, assumed these obligations in exchange for rights, such rights as the use of land and the right to build the society we now enjoy. It is history which has imposed this obligation upon us. It is not really a decision which can be made by this Parliament or Government. It is an obligation imposed upon us by history. I have argued, argue now, and will continue to argue that no nation can wash its hands of its own history.
When we come to talk about housing policy and the inadequacy of structures in Indian communities today, what is the answer? Obviously if we want to have our feet solidly based on the historical obligation imposed upon us, then we must renovate the treaties. We may want to incorporate in
May 30, 1986

those treaties the right to adequate housing, housing that promotes family health and well-being. We will certainly want to settle the outstanding native claims in this country, be they special claims where treaties already exist, or be they comprehensive claims where there are no treaties. We would certainly want to recognize aboriginal title, especially where there has been no transfer of land. We would want to get on with the job of defining what aboriginal rights really are. We would want to say that the first citizens of this country certainly have a right to live in communities comparable to the quality of life enjoyed by Canadians elsewhere.
The Nielsen report said we had already gone too far in this direction and we were creating modern suburbs in the northern bush. I do not know whether you have ever seen those modern suburbs in the northern bush, but the ones I have seen can hardly bear that description.
In conclusion I want to say that where self-government institutions have been put in place, such as among the James Bay Cree in northern Quebec, among the Naskapis, the northern Quebec Inuit, where they have their own housing authority, there is a remarkable difference between that which has been done by the Department and that which these people are doing for themselves.
To me that demonstrates that self-government can bring about a transformation in life style, be it economic, health care, education or housing, which is markedly different from that which has gone on through the paternalistic, colonial approach which has been the pattern up to the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cadieux):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for LaPrairie (Mr. Jourdenais).


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, since I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate, especially since you are in the Chair today. And I am glad to have a chance to clarify for the House the matter of income ceilings for "core need" and explain the whys and wherefors of these ceilings.
The House is aware that our new national housing strategy is the result of serious reflection and the numerous submissions received and meetings held in the past year and a half. This has meant that we were able to consider the positions of all Canadian groups connected with the housing sector, since before giving a new direction to its housing policy, the Conservative Government first wanted to be informed of the views of a wide variety of groups and subsequently reach a consensus. It felt it was necessary to have the participation of provincial and territorial authorities, as well as the groups directly or indirectly concerned, in order to make enlightened and effective decisions.
Supply
The Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpopration and his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Price) met with a number of groups, including the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Association quebecoise de I'habitation, commonly referred to as Le Front d'action populaire en reamenagement urbain or FRAPRU, groups representing the aged, the National Advisory Council on Aging, the handicapped, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, native people, the Native Council of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations Metis organizations. Perhaps I may say, in passing, that for 20 months they have been telling us the Conservative Government does not consult.
There were also organizations representing the construction industry, the financial sector, cooperative housing and municipalities. To name a few: the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the credit unions, the Canadian Cooperative Credit Society, the Cooperative Housing Foundation, and finally, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal Officials. In all, about 35 groups were consulted, although to hear the Opposition, you would think we never consulted anyone.
The list is not exhaustive, but I think it gives an idea of the wide range of groups we consulted. The Government wanted the study to be open, balanced and thorough, and that is what it was.
To start the process, last year the Minister tabled in the House a Consultation Paper on Housing designed to stimulate debate and provide a focus for discussion. Eight thousand copies of this document were distributed, most of them on request I might add. The Minister received more than 300 replies from across the country, briefs and letters which proved to be of great help to proceed further with the review.
This intergovernmental process was launched here in Ottawa at the end of 1984 when the federal Minister played host to a conference of provincial housing Ministers. They came to the conclusion that the provinces and the central Government share some responsibilities in housing, and that co-operation between the two levels of Government is a must if we are to find practical solutions to the housing crisis.
This policy review and the previous consulations focused on some of the major objectives the Minister has in mind with respect to the federal policy. Among other things, we need to reach a national consensus on the appropriate objectives of federal housing policies and programs, and to design projects aimed at eliminating regional disparities and targeting federal assistance to those who need it most. In this respect I might point out that provincial participation is an integral part of the new strategy.
The provinces and the territories were directly involved in these consultations. Their views and concerns were taken in consideration when we drafted the policy and took steps to improve existing programs.

May 30, 1986
Supply
I would like to emphasize that the increased provincial participation represents a real change in our social housing policy. Cooperation in the field of social housing reflects a real improvement in federal-provincial relations compared with the situation in the past, especially under the Liberal Government.
To reduce administrative costs and the duplication of efforts, as well as to increase the total of provincial contributions to social housing, the Government has offered the provinces a larger role.
I would like to state categorically, Mr. Speaker, that our new initiatives do not mean that the federal Government wants to relinquish to the provinces its obligations in the field of social housing. The provinces will implement the programs, but certain clearly stated conditions will apply.
Under the new agreements, the provinces will have to increase their financial contributions. In addition, we are undertaking the joint triennial planning of social housing strategies. We shall thus guarantee that the objectives of the federal Government and the need for accountability are met.
Until now, we have signed umbrella agreements with eight provinces and I expect the other provinces and territories to follow suit in the near future.
We have not found any easy answers to the basic housing problems facing the Governments, but consultation with the provinces and various interest groups has resulted in a consensus on future strategies and action for the federal Government.
Public spending must benefit the most disadvantaged, as we all agree, especially on the side of the Government. We estimate that about one million families in Canada cannot find decent and affordable housing. The needy groups include senior citizens, single parent families, families with children, the working poor, the handicaped and the native people. In view of the extent of housing needs in this country, without forgetting the always present requirement to restrict public spending, we must obviously do more with the same resources for needy families.
The previous housing programs have surely enlarged the housing bank to which almost all classes in our society can aspire, but they had serious disadvantages, especially their high cost so that very few low income Canadians with core needs were in a position to take advantage thereof. Such a procedure is ineffective and inefficient.
Essentially, there are three ways to help low income households find a home. Housing can be built or purchased, some financial assistance can be provided to allow households to pay current rents or repair cheap and deteriorated houses so that they will meet minimum health and security standards.
Those three solutions must be implemented together, as it is clearly shown by the consideration of housing needs throughout the country and on various markets. What can tip the scales in favour of any one or the three solutions is the local market situation, the conditions of real estate bank in some
areas and the needs of certain classes requiring a special kind of housing, for example, older citizens and groups with social problems.
Consequently, to implement the most efficient solution to meet the needs of low income Canadians, much flexibility is required at the regional level. A national housing policy would allow us to use those tools or solutions throughout the country with different arrangements according to the circumstances. He must recognize that housing problems and the ways of addressing them in the Atlantic Provinces or Quebec may not be the same as those used in Ontario or British Columbia. It would be naive and simplistic to pretend otherwise.
This is why income thresholds established for "core needs" recognize the significant differences between Canadian cities where housing markets are concerned.
The costs of housing accommodations of adequate size and quality are not the same in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto. The differences have to be reflected in the requirements for program eligibility.
This Government felt it had to develop a new package of social housing programs to include a number of major changes to non-profit housing programs, rent supplement programs, RRAP, the Residential Renovation Assistance Program, and rural and native housing programs.
Those changes are all aimed at reaching the same goal; to direct available assistance to the one million Canadians who have housing core needs, thanks to the fixed income thresholds set for the core need group and the provincial contributions now being negotiated. The new social housing programs will manage to help almost twice as many low-income families as before. Of course, social housing programs will be diversely combined in different areas of the country according to the housing needs to be met, to the housing accomodations offered by the private sector, and to the social needs to be covered.
I would like to point out another aspect concerning the implementation of those programs. The new strategy is designed to avoid creating low-income ghettos. Directing social housing assistance to needy families does not mean a return to large concentrations of public housing. The definition of needy families is broad enough to cover a wide income bracket.
One way to avoid low-income ghettos is to use small, scattered housing projects and to use the renovation rent supplement to encourage income integration.
It is important, and we are fully conscious of the fact that people living in social housing should not be isolated. And we are targetting our programs with that requirement in mind. Finally, some provinces, especially Ontario and Quebec, will earmark funds to add to housing projects for people not subjected to means tests.
Mr. Speaker, I would add in concluding that those programs take into consideration the concerns and suggestions made by the Provinces and various groups in the housing sector in the course of our consultations. They are not the result of an
May 30, 1986

unilateral action taken by the Government, but they convey the new national consensus. Finally, the ceilings on fixed income for core needs allow the Government to make sure that its assistance will be beneficial in the first place to Canadians who are really needy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The debate resumes with the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak this afternoon to the motion moved by my hon. friend from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), which in fact condemns the Conservative Government for its poor housing policies.
The Minister responsible for housing in Canada (Mr. McKnight) tabled a Consultation Paper on Housing in January 1985, and in a speech he made today, before the Cooperative Housing Foundation here in Ottawa, he recalled the Government's three main objectives with respect to housing. This afternoon the Minister said: "I have identified a number of fundamental principles, as follows. First, programs must take into account the need for reducing the deficit. Second, assistance must be aimed at those who need it most. Third, outside the public sector, others must help solve these problems'."
I say that the Minister's three principles are absolutely out of place and irresponsible, because the truth of the matter is that the Minister, who is also the Minister of Labour, should be defending the rights of our workers, of people on low incomes and the neediest in this country. He should not let his department participate in the Conservative Government's brutal efforts to reduce the Canadian deficit. In fact, he should be demanding additional funding for his department, for the housing sector.
How can we take these objectives seriously, when the Minister who is supposed to be the Government's main spokesperson for housing and who should be the first person to demand additional funding for subsidized housing in Canada, how can we take him seriously when he tells us that his guiding principle is to reduce the Canadian deficit? It does not make sense. It does not make any sense, coming as it does from one of the few Conservative Ministers who should have a social conscience.
Second, he tells us that assistance must be directed towards those most in need. Of course! However I have here a newspaper clipping expounding the Minister's thoughts when he tabled his policy in Parliament: "The Minister indicated that the Government will offer a series of new social housing programs exlusively for needy households, meaning people who cannot find housing at reasonable prices on the private sector market. Statistics reveal that about one million Canadian households cannot find decent housing at reasonables prices."
Supply
The direct result of the new definition found by the Government will be the development of the ghettos mentioned by the previous speaker. The worst thing that was done to help social housing was to pile all the low-income families one on top of the other and force them to live together. Eventually, this brought about a whole series of unforeseen social problems.
These mistakes made in the fifties were corrected, first during the sixties, but mostly during the seventies. However, it seems that the Minister is trying to reinvent the wheel in 1986 by bringing back social assistance exclusively for the neediest, who will then be regrouped in ghettos of low-rental housing where health conditions are often deplorable.
I maintain that the previous Government had attempted to come up with a healthy mix of families with various levels of income. Co-operative housing in particular allowed people with somewhat higher incomes to form co-operative groups which would offer housing to low-income families, but also to middle and even higher income families.
In my opinion, this healthy mix is absolutely essential if we want to solve the problems of the neediest in our society and allow them to live decently without other people pointing them out as "the poor who live in subsidized housing".
Now, the policy of this Conservative Government, and its second goal which is to have help provided exclusively to those people most in need, will lead us back to the worst arrangements of the 50s, and I do not want us to relive the sad experiences with the Dozois Plan, for instance, in Montreal East in the early 50s. This is something that must be avoided at all costs in our future housing policies.
The last principle laid out by the Minister is that other people outside the federal Government must work at solving those problems. A tall order! This means that in fact, in this area, in the area of housing as in so many others, this Tory Government, obsessed by its desire to reduce the deficit, is passing the buck, especially to provincial and municipal Governments who will be expected to solve the housing problem in Canada. This in my view is an unfortunate abdication of his responsibilities by the Minister in charge of housing in Canada. I submit he is remiss, he fails to meet the expectations a great number of Canadians had in this Tory Government during the last elections. And again I say the Conservative Party has betrayed Canadian voters by not honouring their commitments because, in fact they promised they would increase housing funds. But the figures are quite clear, Mr. Speaker. I have here the English text of a document issued by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from which I quote:
The Canadian Housing Statistics recently released by CMHC reveal the direction in which this government is going; funds authorized under the National Housing Act by the Liberals and by the Conservatives are as follows:

May 30, 1986
Supply
This is not a document submitted by the Liberal Party. It is a document submitted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For 1984, public housing loans amounted to $2.4 million. In 1985, the figure was $.7 million-more than $1.5 million was cut.
In the area of federal-provincial housing the amount of money spent in 1984 was $128.1 million. In 1985, it was only $77.4	million.	Again,	another	cut by the	Conservative
Government.
In relation to residential rehabilitation loans, the amount spent in 1984 was $189.4 million, while in 1985 the figure was $127.5 million. Another cut by the Conservative Government.
In relation to housing research in 1984 some $26.9 million was spent by the then Government. In 1985, the figure was $22.8	million.	Again,	another	cut by the	Conservative
Government.
With respect to residential rehabilitation grants, some $202.3 million was spent in 1984 and only $159 million was spent in 1985. Again, a substantial cut by the Conservative Government.

When you think, Mr. Speaker, that only in the province of Quebec some 200,000 households presently live in inadequate dwellings, when you think that just in the province of Quebec only 50,000 dwellings are supposed to meet the needs of elderly people and needy families, and when you drive through Quebec and in particular when you visit the various Montreal districts, you realize how pressing, how urgent the need is for adequate housing for low income families and mostly for elderly and lonely people. However, the Minister is telling us that his first goal is to help reduce the federal deficit, his second one to help just a few, and his third one to ask others to assume the responsibilities that he should be assuming himself. I therefore submit that elderly Canadians have been betrayed by the Conservative Government and that the program of housing starts for elderly people, particularly in such a community as Montreal, is absolutely essential and should be extended and increased. And if on the one hand I am pleased that the Canadian Government and the Quebec Government reached an agreement on social housing, I am on the other hand concerned by the new standards applied to people with incomes below the poverty line, incomes that you can hardly live on, on which you cannot afford to live decently, but merely to survive. We are now realizing that the policy of the
Conservative Government consists unfortunately in denying those people the help that they used to get from the former Liberal Government. Countless Canadian families which would have qualified for residential rehabilitation assistance will be denied those subsidies that they used to be entitled to because the Conservative Government decided to involve them in reducing the Canadian deficit in spite of the dire housing needs of Canada.
We have the views of a Canadian personality who is neutral, who is not involved in politics. They will help us all reflect on this. I am referring to the comments made by the Bishop of Gatineau-Hull, Mgr. Adolphe Proulx, who recently had very harsh words against the intention of the Canadian Government, the Tory Government to reduce social housing programs. He is wholeheartedly supporting the Front commun sur le logement social, which includes 85 community groups from all Quebec areas.
The Hon. Member for LaPrairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who was faithfully reading from a text prepared by an assistant to the Minister, has mentioned that there had been consultation. I wonder if the consultation referred to by the Hon. Member for La Prairie was really fruitful, because 85 community groups from all Quebec areas have condemned the housing policies of the Conservative Government. It was necessary for Mgr. Proulx to denounce publicly the cut-backs in the housing program to show how badly the housing policy of the Conservative Government had failed.
I therefore congratulate my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for having allowed us to discuss this issue today and show once more to the Canadian public that the Conservatives are heartless, that they have money only for the big oil multinationals and that the poorest among us have to pay the cost because this Government cares only for the most powerful members of our society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

This House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 35 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre. Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa. Canada KlA 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 21, 1986