1988-05-18

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in 1986, on a complaint by Canadian cattle producers, the Canadian Import Tribunal ruled on the importation of subsidized beef from the European Economic Community and imposed a countervailing duty on these imports.
Now a panel from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has ruled that Canadian cattle producers cannot bring a complaint against the EEC because they produce cattle, not beef. Where I come from beef is not manufactured by supermarkets, it comes, believe it or not, from beef. I do not know what the EEC GATT panel members were smoking, but it certainly was not Canadian tobacco.
Canadian cattlemen, together with their counterparts in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, have now asked the Governments of their respective countries to intervene. I urge the Canadian Government to amend the procedures at the GATT at the next round in order to ensure that ridiculous decisions like this are not rendered in the future.


INTERNATIONAL MUSEUMS DAY
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, there are over 2,000 museums in Canada serving Canadians in all parts of the country. They include small community museums which preserve the memories of our forefathers, and internationally renowned institutions, the collections of which vividly remind us that Canada's heritage is part of the world's heritage.
Today the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) released a discussion paper to stimulate public consideration of federal policy and program proposals for Canadian museums.
Next Saturday, Canada's new world-class National Art Gallery opens its doors to the public. Next month will feature a major international exhibition of the works of Degas.
In June the National Aviation Museum opens its new building to showcase Canada's national aviation collection.
I invite all Canadians to join in the celebration of our museums and the contribution they make to the lives of all of us on this, International Museums Day.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has continually stonewalled Lubicon Lake Indian attempts to settle their land claims in northern Alberta. Now the Minister has thrown the question to the courts where it can drag on for years.
This comes at the very time when the Alberta Government and the Lubicon band had agreed on the need for a mediation tribunal.
The action of the Minister indicates a failure both of leadership and of good faith. Instead of acting in the interests of Lubicon people, the Minister has worked against them. He has been their adversary instead of their advocate.
He refused to act on an all-Party committee recommendation that the Honourable E. Davie Fulton, a former Conservative Justice Minister, be asked to mediate the dispute. By placing this issue in the courts at this time, the Minister has guaranteed that there will not be a just and mutually acceptable settlement.
The Lubicon will not accept the imposition of any settlement that does violence to their idea of themselves as a people and that divides families in the way that the Minister has proposed.
I call on the Government to withdraw this case from the courts and work toward a mediated solution, providing justice for the Lubicon people.

May 18, 1988


CANADIAN NEWS HALL OF FAME
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the admission of Doug Creighton to the Canadian News Hall of Fame recognized not only an outstanding journalist, but, through him, all members of the working press.
Long before Douglas was head of a corporate empire, he was a newsman himself, as a police reporter, sports reporter, and managing editor.
His initiative as a founder of the Toronto Sun was an example of that entrepreneurial confidence which in recent years has renewed the Canadian economy and the Canadian spirit. Canada will always grow when it has citizens with this courage and creativity.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the drought situation in western Canada continues to worsen daily and still the Government refuses to act. It is the driest spring in western Canada in 99 years. Sloughs, which no one can remember ever being without water, are dry.
Last weekend I visited the Milk River Ridge area of southern Alberta. Pasture lands are dry and bare with no grass for grazing. Dug-outs are dry with no water for livestock. Hay and feed supplies are dangerously low for cattle herds. Farmers are delaying planting because there is not enough moisture to germinate seeds. Still the Government refuses to act in the face of the prospect of the worst drought since the 1930's-a total disaster for thousands of farmers.
I call on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to stop stalling and announce an action plan to provide emergency assistance to farmers for emergency water and feed supplies for livestock, a long-term drought mechanism, and an expanded long-term water storage program.


MEMORIAL CUP-CONGRATULATIONS TO MEDICINE HAT TIGERS
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my annual congratulations to the Medicine Hat Tigers, winners of the 1988 Memorial Cup.
The Tigers defeated the Windsor Spitfires 7 to 6 in the final game on Saturday, May 14.
As well as winning two Memorial Cup Championships in the past 12 months, five members of the Tigers played for the Canadian team that won the gold medal at the World Junior Championships in Moscow.
Best wishes to the team, George Maser, Russ Farwell, coach Barry Melrose, and team announcer Bob Ridley. While there may be a drought in western Canada, the Canadian junior champions are still reigning in Medicine Hat!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Canada has ordered the CBC to reinstate Rosann Cashin and give her back-pay. I am pleased to see that decision.
What was Ms. Cashin's offence? Was it poor work? No. Failure to have objectivity? No. Having a high profile spouse? That is true, but not the whole story. Her real crime was that she uses the same name as her husband.
It is very important for Canadian women not to suffer this discrimination, that they be able to pursue their careers and not be barred from jobs because they have the same name as their husband. Many Canadian women do. Many couples share the same double-barrelled name. That is life at the present time.
I urge the CBC to respect this decision and not pursue its foolish appeal to another stage, and that it reinstate Rosann Cashin and let her get on with her job.


BY-ELECTIONS CONSTITUENCY OF LAC-SAINT-JEAN-FORMER UTTERANCES OF LIBERAL CANDIDATE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal candidate for the June 20 election in Lac-Saint-Jean, Mr. Gimai'el, said in this House on January 29, 1982, as reported on page 14479 of the Official Report of the Debates: "If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through socialization, the Liberal Party can be socialist. If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through a turn to the right, by more private enterprise, the Liberal Party can move to the right. If, to promote our development, the Liberal Party thinks we have to be communist, we will be
May 18, 1988

communist. This is what being a Liberal means. Liberals are open to all ideas." That is what Mr. Gimaiel said.
On the weekend, his leader, Mr. Turner, promised him a Cabinet position. To date, he has promised 72 Cabinet posts and the election campaign has not yet begun. However, for sure 22 Liberal Members sitting here today, Mr. Speaker, who betray and challenge their leader will never become ministers, according to Mr. Turner. There is growing discontent in the federal Liberal caucus.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, to be more serious, unlike the Conservative Member .. . The Federation nationale des Associations des consommateurs du Quebec, which in May 1987 supported the Government's free trade proposal because it then believed that consumers would save money, announced yesterday that it was withdrawing its support and it called this Free Trade Agreement a "lemon."
First, it is a "lemon" because studies that it has conducted show that consumers will pay more with this Free Trade Agreement. Second, Quebecers and all Canadians are not assured of lower electricity and telephone rates as they have now. Third, the Quebec Consumers Association wonders who will pay for the $2 billion of income they will lose? The Consumers Association asks people to oppose the Free Trade Agreement signed by the Prime Minister of Canada.
However, now that you know the political risk involved, you have a duty to demand the withdrawal of Mr. Gimai'ePs candidacy, otherwise Canadians will conclude that this candidate is indeed cast in the same mold as the Liberal Party of Canada.


EDUCATION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend most of College Mathieu at Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, was destroyed by fire. College Mathieu is the only French language boarding school in western Canada. The college is important to the well-being of the entire community of Gravelbourg and to Francophones throughout western Canada. Its importance is in part recognized by the fact that the college has been designated as a heritage site in Saskatchewan.
The directors of College Mathieu have already received assurances that special provincial assistance will be available for the rebuilding of the school. However, more funds are urgently required.
In recent weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), and other federal Ministers have promised to provide the Francophone community in Saskatchewan with meaningful federal support. I suggest that an offer of immediate assistance to rebuild College Mathieu would be a clear sign that the Prime Minister and his colleagues meant what they said.


BY-ELECTIONS
[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUENCY OF LAC-SAINT-JEAN-LIBERAL CANDIDATE	[DOT] <l415)
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gimaiel is a man in the mold of the federal Liberal Party, a man without critical ideas or philosophy or direction, an irresponsible man who seeks power for power's sake and who doesn't care how he achieves that goal.
Mr. Gimaiel has already been promised a ministerial appointment, and like his Party, if he is given a chance, will let himself be influenced by polls, pressures from right or left, from the East or the West, from inside and outside this country.
The Leader of the Opposition and his Quebec lieutenant probably overlooked this when they forced him to run to defend what is left of a party that is so divided.


HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUT RATE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am personally concerned about the need for a concerted approach to deal with the employment issues facing Canada's youth.
Our Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) has spoken recently of a pending national youth strategy. He should be supported in his efforts to bring this plan to national prominence.
While youth unemployment has dropped from 18 per cent to 12 per cent, the Canadian high school drop-out rate is still

May 18, 1988
Oral Questions
approximately 30 per cent, the second highest rate in the industrialized world.
At present our country spends over $3 billion on unemployment insurance, welfare, and training programs for the young.
I believe it is time to establish and promote a unified approach which links classroom courses, on-the-job training, life skills education, and federal-provincial co-operation. We need a national will to keep kids in school, and show our young the value of education and meaningful work.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has announced that from now on, the people of southeast New Brunswick, in the districts of Kent, Westmorland and Albert, will need sixteen weeks of insurable employment to qualify for unemployment insurance instead of the usual ten weeks. This will make life very difficult for people in the southeast, many of whom already have trouble finding ten weeks' employment.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in my region is still very high. According to Statistics Canada, it was 16.2 per cent in March and still over 12 per cent in April. Furthermore, the bankruptcy of Pecheurs unis des Maritimes has added to the problem. Jobs will become even scarcer, and people will have even more trouble qualifying for unemployment insurance. I therefore ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to consider these factors and to maintain the ten week qualifying period.


NATIONAL MUSEUMS
Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, a view from the Peace Tower of the urban landscape around our Parliament Buildings cannot but fill us with pride when we see the magnificent buildings housing the impressive new museums that will further enrich our Canadian cultural life. Mr. Speaker, I invite Hon. Members to pay tribute to these outstanding achievements of our architects, engineers and technicians and the Department of Public Works which so ably directed the construction of these buildings.
These impressive monuments which are also an investment in our national heritage are so many feathers in the cap of a department that tends to shun the limelight but plays such an
important role in a Government that builds for the future of this country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who, in defending his trade deal, is acting as though giving away provincial jurisdiction to the American Government is a perfectly reasonable course of action. Never before has the Canadian Government in a trade negotiation caved in to foreign Governments by deliberately stripping provinces of their jurisdiction.
I want to ask the Minister to admit, as is the fact, that the Americans want him to override Canadian provincial jurisdiction in areas that go far beyond alcoholic beverages. Will he confirm that the trade deal as he proposes to achieve it steps on provincial jurisdiction over minimum prices of energy, national treatment of services, automobile insurance, agriculture, forestry, mining, construction, regional and industrial development incentives, real estate marketing, and engineering? Will he admit that?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman was correct, I would certainly be worse than Rasputin.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the question, which is not a question really but just a list of misapprehensions, the position is this. We cannot strip the provinces of their jurisdiction. The United States cannot strip the provinces of their jurisdiction. No one can strip the provinces of their jurisdiction over anything.
The Hon. Member is the justice critic for the Official Opposition. He knows that ultimately all those questions would be in the hands of the courts of the country, as they have been since 1867.
It is a ridiculous suggestion that the U.S. Congress is trying to urge us, or is attempting itself, to strip the provinces of jurisdiction. Under our system no one can strip them of one shred of jurisdiction that they now have. We are certainly not attempting it.
We have been most solicitous of the provincial jurisdiction, far more of course than in the period from 1980 to 1984 when, for four years, the hon. gentleman's Government spent their time trying to strip the provinces not only of their jurisdiction but of their resources and everything else they could think of.
May 18, 1988


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION WHY WATER RESOURCES ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM AGREEMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Canadians want to know what will be the real impact of this trade agreement.
Could the Minister explain why water is not excluded? Why should the Government give the United States unlimited access to our water resources? Will the Minister confirm that Canadian negotiators tried to exclude the sale of water resources from the trade agreement and that at the last minute, because of U.S. pressure, water resources were included?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is so silly and so jejune that one hardly knows how to attempt to answer. How can one answer such a silly question as that?
Water is not even the subject of a provision of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The hon. gentleman can rest easy; no one is attempting to cut off his water, or anyone's water in Canada.


FORTUNE MAGAZINE ARTICLE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly raised in the House an interview that the Prime Minister gave to Fortune magazine in March, 1985. That article states: "Mulroney is so ready for the leap that he is prepared to sell some of his country's abundant fresh water-a shocking thought in Canada ...


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: That is not a quote.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is a quote from the article. This is what Fortune stated: "... If a proposition makes economic sense and would help relations between the countries, he says", and Fortune quotes, "Why not?"
Are we then supposed to believe what the Minister is telling us today, or what the Prime Minister said in 1985?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about Leaders being ready to take the leap, but certainly the hon. gentleman's Leader is not ready to take the jump that he and his colleagues attempted to urge him to take.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Answer the question.


Mr. Broadbent:: Pretty funny.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, they do not like to hear that. The hon. gentleman is becoming uneasy. They might get the habit in the NDP.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the hon. gentleman's question, yesterday the hon. gentleman referred to The Wall Street Journal. That was somewhat more relevant than a magazine article of three years ago. He should bring his reading more up to date in order that he can get more fanciful questions for the House.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and they relate to his decision to refer the Lubicon Lake Indian Band claim to the courts. The Minister has decided to launch legal proceedings against both the Government of Alberta and the Lubicon Indian Band.
Why is the Minister relinquishing the leadership role that he ought to play in pursuing a negotiated settlement of this outstanding claim? Has he forgotten altogether that he has a constitutional trust obligation to Indian people? Why has he abandoned the other avenues of action that are open to him?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member recognizes a constitutional responsibility. It is for that very reason that the decision was made to ask the court for assistance in settling this entitlement which, as the Hon. Member knows, has gone on since 1940.
When the Government came to office in 1984 it actively became involved in attempting to bring about a negotiated settlement.
The Government of Canada has asked Alberta to provide land quantum, to provide a reserve for the Lubicon people, and the quantum was assessed with the knowledge that we had at that time as to the numbers of people involved.
I met with the chief of the Lubicon Lake Band and his advisers, and asked to have negotiated settlements. Preconditions were put on negotiations with the Lubicon, and Alberta did not respond to the request of Canada to fulfil its constitutional obligations under the 1930 Act. Therefore, to fulfil our responsibility we had to seek the court's assistance in this matter.


PROPOSED MEDIATION PROCESS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, this certainly must be regarded as a slap in the face to Premier Getty of Alberta. I give Premier Getty full marks and a good

May 18, 1988
Oral Questions
deal of credit because he met with Chief Ominayak and they agreed to a mediation tribunal process. Less than two weeks ago the Premier said this in the Alberta Legislature:
I hope we can convince the federal Government to allow a tribunal like this
to proceed. We are trying to convince the federal Government that this
tribunal system will work.
I want to ask the Minister again why he is ducking his political responsibility and letting this matter go to confrontation in the courts?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it would seem strange that Alberta would need a tribunal to assign land which is already the property of Alberta to the Lubicon Lake people.


B. Keith Penner: Tell it to Premier Getty.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It would seem strange that Chief Ominayak would not agree to a binding decision of the tribunal if he wished the tribunal to work. It also seems strange that I have not had any contact with the Government of Alberta in any pro forma way that would allow me to understand the tribunal put forward.
I find the actions we have taken are consistent with Canada's commitment and obligations to fulfil entitlement to the Lubicon Lake Band to the best of our ability. The only avenue left to Canada, after attempting to negotiate since 1984 on a claim which has been outstanding since 1940, was to ask the court for assistance in this matter.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everybody knows there is a lot of opposition in the Conservative Caucus to Bill C-72. In February, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government would accept some minor changes, but yesterday, Conservative Members produced twenty-five amendments. Obviously, they are out to destroy this Bill, not improve it. Does the Prime Minister of Canada agree, yes or no?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that Bill C-72 should be adopted and the principles contained in this Bill approved by the House. That amendments are suggested to improve the Bill is not out of the ordinary. That is why we have parliamentary instruments, including committees, to improve bills as much as possible. In fact, I can say that we are the first government since 1969 that has made improvements to the Official Languages Act. I think this is to the credit of the Government and this Parliament.


PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said outside the House in March that his priority was to get this Bill passed. Everyone in the House of Commons, no matter where he or she sits, whether in the Conservative caucus, the Liberal caucus, or the NDP caucus, knows that if you have 25 amendments to a Bill, whatever their substantive content, the purpose is to destroy legislation, not simply to improve it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister knows that the Government plans legislation on Meech Lake, a comprehensive trade bill, conflict of interest legislation, and many other important matters. How can he possibly live up to his commitment to pass this important language legislation on a priority basis and deal with 25 amendments at the same time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting dichotomy. Every time the Conservatives present amendments to a Bill it is to destroy it; any time the NDP bring in amendments it is to improve the legislation!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have important pieces of legislation. Bill C-72 is one of them. I have not seen the proposed amendments.


An Hon. Member:: You should take a look at them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will take a look at them if they are in the nature of improving the Bill.
Bilingualism is a very noble concept. Its promotion is very important and it requires all the persuasive talents of which we are capable to persuade Canadians of its value.
We ought to avoid partisanship and we ought to avoid brutality with regard to this important and sensitive issue. What we are trying to do is bring forward a piece of legislation that I hope my hon. friend will be able to stand up, support, and applaud.
With regard to other pieces of legislation, indeed Bill C-72 is a priority, free trade legislation is a priority, and Meech Lake is a priority. We hope to be able to consider the matter of abortion. We have an important series of items to be dealt with, including tax reform. In light of that, I hope we can get complete co-operation from the Leader of the NDP and his colleagues.


NUMBER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on related matters, the Prime Minister well knows we gave our support
May 18, 1988

for co-operative action of Meech Lake. That is why we had only three amendments. We have agreed to the Bill in question, Bill C-72, on this side of the House. It is the other side of the House that is holding up the Bill.
Could the Prime Minister cite one example in parliamentary history when a Party that was seriously committed to passing a Bill has brought in 25 amendments yet not setting out to destroy it? Can he give me one example?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor of the NDP brought in over 70 amendments to the Investment Canada Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We opposed it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You are making our argument.


BILL C-72-NATURE OF GOVERNMENT'S AMENDEMENTS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to Bill C-72, on Official Languages. It seems that the number of amendments that will be proposed by the Government is quite substantial. Apparently, there will be more than twenty.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to inform the House about the nature of these amendments. We want to ensure that they will not take the Bill back to prehistoric times .. .
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could call the House to order so that I can ask the Prime Minister to inform us about the nature of the amendments ...


An Hon. Member:: . . . out of order!


Jacques Guilbault: ... it is not! Since the Government is going to present these amendments, Canadians have a right to know what they involve.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the amendments here and I haven't seen them. The Bill is before the parliamentary committee. If I am not mistaken, amendments will be presented by a number of Members on this side of the House and also by the Official Opposition, by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Am I right? Well, We'll see!


An Hon. Member:: We'll see!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says we'll see. I suppose we can assume the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is exercising his rights as a Member here in the House, just like the other Members.
Oral Questions
What I find surprising is that his colleague, right next to him, didn't know he had any amendments.


CONSEQUENCES OF AMENDMENTS TO BE INTRODUCED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to stop playing stupid and tell us outright what the nature of these amendments are, not what Joe Blow wants but what his Government wants to change in the Official Languages Bill.
Could he at least give the House the assurance, and that is my question, that the multitude of amendments his Government intends to propose will in no way change the fundamentals of Bill C-72?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member doesn't like Joe Blow, but I kind of like the fellow. The Hon. Member is talking about amendments but I haven't seen them. They will be presented at the appropriate time, like the amendments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
I have said on several occasions, and I say it again today, that the Bill is important, that the principles it contains will be protected, and that the integrity of the legislation is being strengthened. I hope that with the help of the Hon. Member from Montreal, we will be able to advance further the vital cause of bilingualism in Canada, and do so in a climate devoid of any partisanship and on a higher plane than the one suggested by the Hon. Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL LABOUR LAWS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. He received bouquets from Ken Harrigan, President of Ford Canada, who complimented the Government on the free trade proposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Shields:: Bob White must be on the phone.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Wait for it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The reason is quite obvious because Mr. Harrigan went on to say that he had concerns about provincial laws, overtime, pensions, workers' compensation, and workplace safety. Will the Minister not agree the reason Mr. Harrigan supports the trade initiative is that he is now able to avoid those provincial laws which protect Canadian workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that the U.S.-

May 18, 1988
Oral Questions
Canada Free Trade Agreement has no connection whatever with provincial laws that might or might not apply in the field of workers' compensation or any of these other programs. Nor does it affect in any way social security programs and regional development. The hon. gentleman and the other members of the Official Opposition who go around giving out these outrageous falsehoods are lucky that they were not made of wood like Pinocchio, or the same result would occur.


PROTECTION OF WORKERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade may want to tell jokes, but the people in Oakville are concerned about the replacement of their plant in 1992. Mr. Harrigan said it may not be profitable as long as there are provincial laws protecting workers, and such things as overtime and workers' compensation.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell Bob Rae to ask Peterson that question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: People are concerned about the tariff protection being removed by free trade. Will the Minister rise in this House and explain how those people will be protected when that tariff protection is taken away?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have visited Oakville. I do not know when the hon. gentleman last visited there, but I visited the Ford Truck Plant in Oakville on Monday and I found a surprising receptivity among the members of the CAW who have not all been brainwashed by Bob White or the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would you like to have a vote there?


John Carnell Crosbie: I might say that all across Canada I find people wondering why the Leader of the New Democratic Party wants $8 billion in investment in Oshawa from General Motors but does not want to see that kind of investment anywhere else in Canada, and fights against it for the rest of Canada.


AIDS-RISKS TO HEALTH
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and once again concerns AIDS.
As I said yesterday, two years ago a committee of this House recommended launching a major campaign against AIDS to promote research, education and health care. The resources subsequently allocated by the Government were
clearly inadequate and did not reflect the advice our committee received from eminent experts and physicians.
I find it hard to understand why the Government bothers to call in these experts if it subsequently rejects their recommendations. My question to the Minister is this: Why is the Government taking such risks with the health of Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not ignoring the advice of experts with respect to AIDS. That is why the Government has the National Advisory Committee on AIDS.
I think it is my responsibility when public statements are made, either by members of that committee or for that matter by Members in this House, for example, that money was not available and that the committee could not meet so I could get further advice. My officials have checked that out both with the Chairman, Dr. Norbert Gilmore from Montreal, as well as with the secretariat. That is not the case. Despite that we have been analysing the recommendations made by the Royal Society on testing, for example. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that because he is a responsible Member. He knows that there are very serious implications with any recommendations, pro or con, with respect to testing. We are following the advice and are looking at it very closely.
I think what is at issue, and the Hon. Member did not ask about this, is the matter of funding for the recommendations that have been made. That goes back to the statements I made both in the House and outside it, and reconfirmed yesterday by the Prime Minister in the House, that is, that the Government is looking at funding for those recommendations. As I said yesterday, those announcements will be made in due course.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the new study that has been produced by the Royal Society, but I remind him again of a study by a committee of this House which was done over two years ago. The sum total of the Government's actions did not meet the thrust of the recommendations and the sense of urgency that the committee of this House tried to convey two years ago.
I have little confidence, and I wonder why Canadians should have confidence today, that the Government will deal with a problem which could be perhaps the most pressing national health problem of the 1980s.
When dealing with a problem which has been described-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will want to put his question.
May 18, 1988


David Berger: When dealing with the problem which this committee describes as having the potential of becoming a national catastrophe, how can the Minister justify several years of little or no action? How can he justify committing such meagre resources when we are talking about the most pressing public health problem of the 1980s?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again this has to be put in context. The Royal Society's report is one that I commissioned. We spent $250,000 on the report, so to characterize the report as showing that in some way the Government did not care about AIDS nor did not want information about AIDS is not the case.
I am obviously aware of the committee report. It was at that time that the Government came forward with a five-year plan, and $39 million which has been mentioned as well.
Yes, we have to spend more money and I have said that publicly. There has been public education through the Canadian Public Health Association and the Emergency Drug Protocol. We have sent out over 2,500 copies of this, and anyone can look at what has been done here. Comparing what emergency drugs are available in the United States, for example, with those available in Canada, we rate well there.
I do not think that those are the issues. Yes, the Government must move further, but I think the issue we must deal with is that of education. Canadians must take personal responsibility about AIDS. They must accept the message of the Government and of health care workers, which is that they can protect themselves against AIDS if they take certain personal actions. I think that message as well should be put into this mix, and the Government has done that.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for forestry and mines. The decommissioning of the Madawaska Mine mill site near Bancroft may end as early as November of 1988. Can the Minister tell the House which level or agency of government will be responsible for any subsequent remedial work and monitoring of this site?
The decommissioning of the Madawaska Mine mill site does not include all of the tailing ponds, nor does it seem to include the Greyhawk properties east of Highway 28. Local residents ask why these properties are excluded, what will happen to them in the future, and which levels of government will be responsible.
Hon. Gerald. S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hastings-
Oral Questions
Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is absolutely correct. There has been a request of AECB to decommission that particular site by November 30. I might mention that our regulatory agency handling issues of this nature does set conditions. We have negotiated with the province concerned and in fact with all provinces on this matter, and there is a proposal before the Ontario Government with a proposed MOU regarding that particular site and others around it.
Discussions are taking place now. The Hon. Member can be assured that we have inspected those sites personally and that we will actively pursue this particular issue.


AIDS DISEASE-PUBLIC EDUCATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, also concerns the question of AIDS. We agree with the Minister that the major issue is education.
The advice of the Royal Society was: "In the absence of an effective vaccine or treatment, educating the public about the nature of the disease must be the mainstay of efforts to retard the spread of the AIDS epidemic". Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that this is a most important societal problem, one deserving urgent action and the urgent devotion of national resources.
Since the Canadian Government spends only $750,000 on public education as compared to Australia which spends $50 million, and since the Royal Society recommends a total of $80 million to be spent, will the Prime Minister approve a major and immediate increase in AIDS education funding?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the core of the Hon. Member's question is that more education is needed, especially in the absence of a vaccine or a cure for AIDS. That is absolutely correct and I think we all agree on that. In respect to increased financing, I think I have been quite clear on the record on that as well.
I do not want to quibble, but if the Hon. Member were to look at those figures she used, she would find that they are not accurate relative to the other countries. I have those figures. I will not take the time of the House now, but suffice it to say-


Mr. Riis:: Go ahead.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Australia spends more. Of the total program, this year Australia is spending $20 million. Canada is spending eight, plus what the provinces are spending and the MRC and public health. There is no question that we have to spend more, but I think that the comparisons were not quite accurate.

May 18, 1988
Oral Questions


FUNDING OF FEDERAL CENTRE FOR AIDS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the point is that this is an appalling epidemic, and the Minister talks about quibbling about statistics. What we want is a commitment of action.
The appalling fact is that the total federal expenditures, as I understand it, for 1989 amount to less than $2 million, and that is to cover research, treatment, education, and funding for community groups. Even the operating funds for the national Centre for AIDS have been held up.
Will the Minister make sure that the $139 million which I understand was requested by the federal Centre for AIDS is made available immediately? Will he also ask for a major increase in AIDS funds to deal with this terrible disease?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that statistics are not the central issue, but she used them in her preamble, and I think it was only right that I responded by giving the correct figures.
Again, the Government's commitment is quite clear, and I cannot add any more to it than I already have.


RADIO-CANADA PROVISION OF SERVICES OF EQUAL QUALITY IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Coalition pour la defense des services frangais de la Societe Radio-Canada has asked that annual public funding of the French network be significantly increased, to guarantee Canada's Francophones the same quality of programming and services received by Anglophones through the CBC. My question is this: Does the Minister agree that offering all Canadians the same quality of public services is a principle that should be rigourously applied?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, decisions concerning the programming budget of the French network are the sole responsability of the Corporation. I share the Hon. Member's concern about this important issue, and that is why I announced new funding for the production and distribution of Francophone films by Telefilm Canada and more than $15 million for dubbing. Mr. Speaker, I also informed the Standing Committee last September that the new broadcasting Bill will recognize the distinct identity of Francophones in broadcasting.


FRENCH NETWORK-PRODUCTION OF QUALITY PROGRAMS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the moneys she has allotted to improve the dubbing. That will certainly not, however, account for the $49.7 million she has lost through not putting ephemeral rights into her copyright Bill.

Although funding for public radio and television programming in Canada is inadequate to meet all needs, will the Minister admit that the French network does not have sufficient funds to produce the same quality of programming produced by the CBC? If so-and I am not asking the board of directors but the Minister-what concrete measures does she intend to take to deal with this situation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I just said I announced last year that the new broadcasting Bill would recognize the distinct identity of Francophone broadcasting. Mr. Speaker, every day, 1 await the report from the Standing Committee.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CULTURAL MATTERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is technically for the Minister for International Trade, but the Prime Minister may want to answer it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Is it about Meech Lake?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Don't try to sidetrack me, please. It pertains to the free trade deal at the time of the negotiations.
Are we to understand that cultural matters like films, television, videos, and so on, were not on the table in terms of the free trade negotiations? I believe the Government has said that before. Are we to understand that it is true that cultural matters were not on the negotiating table?
Was there any other deal at the side of the table, or off the table, between the Canadian negotiators or the Canadian Government and the United States negotiators?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, is it the expression that the result of the cooking is in the pudding? It is something like that. If the hon. gentleman will examine the free trade agreement he will see that the cultural industries are excluded from its provisions.
May 18, 1988

While I am on my feet I would like the hon. gentleman to pass on to his Leader the results of a recent poll which show that 46 per cent of union members favoured the free trade agreement with the United States versus 38 per cent who did not. Of Conservative supporters, 66 per cent were in favour; of Liberals, 48 per cent were in favour; and of New Democrats, 41 per cent were in favour. However, union members are more intelligent than New Democrats and 46 per cent of them favoured the free trade agreement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, union members, like other Canadians, are interested in honest and open government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here another memo from Jack Valenti's group which says:
-Canada pledged to the U.S. negotiators it would try to "accommodate"
the U.S. film industry outside the Agreement.
It then mentions the licensing provisions for films, exactly what Canada has done.
Why is the Prime Minister not being honest and straightforward with Canadian people, including the workers, as to why in fact cultural industries were not excluded from the free trade deal and why the Government has made a secret agreement with the American film industry?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, every day I am amazed that members of the NDP have to rely on people in the American film industry for their quotes.


John Edward Broadbent: Because you don't give us the truth.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Now they are busy quoting Jack Valenti. I would much sooner quote Canadians who are involved in this industry.
For instance, Connie Tadros, the editor of Cinema Canada, said that the impact of the legislation will be the creation of a separate domestic market. She says that the new policy puts Canadian distributors on an equal footing for the first time.
Barry Young, the President of the Spectra film distribution company in Toronto, said that "it strengthens our hand". Garth Drabinsky said that this means "improved days for Canadian distribution".
We are talking about Canadian spokespersons.
Oral Questions


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Cape Breton has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and its homes are among the oldest in the country. Yet, the Government, in its 1988 budget for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, has cut the RRAP for Cape Breton by over 50 per cent.
A lot of homes will not be able to pass inspection in a few years and people are going to be forced to leave their own homes. Why is the Government forcing people out of their homes? Why does it not reconsider this reduction and at least reinstate the amount of RRAP funding which existed in 1987?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that in its 1987 budget CMHC added $100 million of additional funding for social housing for people who are very much in need. All of the Government's housing budget is directed to those most in need.
In co-operation with the provinces we have been able to help 30 per cent more of those most in need than did the previous Government, and that includes the RRAP program.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, have the Hon. Minister tell that to the people who are sleeping in alley-ways and on park benches, and who are living in substandard conditions in this country.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, when is the Government going to wake up and realize that to give assistance to homeowners to maintain the standard of their homes is a lot cheaper than building new homes? It is not only good economic sense but good social sense and common decency. Will the Government reinstate this RRAP funding for 1988 or not?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the facts will answer my hon. friend. Last year, 1987, there were a record 245,000 housing starts in Canada. That was an increase over the previous year, in which there was also an increase over its previous year.
Last year 50,000 units of social housing were added to the complement of more than 100,000 the year before. The present Government has done more to help people in need of housing than has any previous Government.

May 18, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Parry HOUSING


SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO-SALE OF CROWN OWNED PROPERTY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. As the Minister knows, there is a crisis in Metropolitan Toronto with regard to the availability of affordable housing.
Can the Minister explain to this House and to Canadians why his Department is selling Crown owned property in Metropolitan Toronto on the auction block to the highest bidder when that land should be made available to groups which are prepared to build affordable housing on these lots?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is referring to the sale of the Malvern Land Assembly in Toronto. That program involves both the federal and provincial Governments. It commenced in 1972. Ten thousand units have been sold during that period of time. Fifty per cent of those have a subsidy assisted component. More people have been assisted in this land assembly than in any other part of Canada.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable. The Minister knows full well that that land was set aside to build affordable housing on if the housing market reached the point at which it is today.


SALE OF LAND TO HIGHEST BIDDER
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister come clean with Canadians and explain exactly why he is selling off land, that was put aside for construction of affordable housing, to the highest bidder? Can he explain that to Canadians because I cannot understand it?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond. There are now 100,000 units of social housing in Toronto. That compels an annual subsidy from the federal Government of approximately $200 million. We have a policy in co-operation with the Ontario Government, which has been in place since 1972, to sell land at market conditions. In co-operation with the other governments we are returning plans under various government programs to help those most in need. Perhaps a particular section of Toronto is not the only place in Canada that needs help.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. People in Kent, Westmorland and Albert, in New Brunswick, now have to work sixteen weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance, instead of the previous ten weeks. According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in the Southeast was 12.1 per cent in April and 16.2 per cent in March, which contradicts the 11.5 per cent given by her own Department. Could the Minister explain to the House what her Department is doing and why?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like a chance to review that situation. I am not aware of the situation raised by the Hon. Member and would be very happy to look into it.


OPPORTUNITY TO RETAIN 10-WEEK QUALIFYING PERIOD
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister looks into this problem, would she consider the fact that in our part of the country, it is very difficult to find a job for ten weeks? Some jobs only last ten weeks, and I am thinking of workers in lobster plants and assistant-fishermen, because the lobster season is only ten weeks long. So considering this situation, could the Minister maintain the eligible period at ten weeks because otherwise, a number of families will be facing a pretty bleak winter.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation. Certainly I will look into it and take all the relevant information into account.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege arising from the response given to me in Question Period on May 12. I believe we have established that notwithstanding the lapse of time since May 12, this is the first practical opportunity I have had to raise this question of privilege which arises from the answer given to me on a supplementary question concerning the exportation of gun powder by Expro.
After the rather delightful Alfonse and Gaston routine, the two Ministers went through, finally the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jelinek) replied to my question.
May 18, 1988

I want to make it abundantly clear that I impute no motive. Whether from misunderstanding or misapprehension, inadvertence or inadequate briefing, the Minister gave a response which was totally at variance with the facts of the matter on which I raised the question. I believe that a breach of my privilege occurs when a reply or, more accurately, a response contains information which is palpably false. Surely as a Member of the Elouse and an elected representative of my constituents, I have a right to hear the truth, whether it be partial, slanted or skewered, the truth nevertheless.
If you find that a prima facie case of privilege has arisen from the response given, then I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. Of course, the point is that the Minister said that negotiations are ongoing in terms of the lock-out, whereas I have information from the local representative and the representative of the Comite des Syndicats Nationaux that no negotiations had occurred for over a month.
If you are not prepared to recognize that there is is a prima facie case of privilege involved in this matter, I would ask you to consider a reference to the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the matter of what measures could be taken or regulations instituted to ensure a modicum of veracity in replies given in this House.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the misunderstanding is on the part of the Hon. Member. If he reads my answer very carefully as reported on page 15392 of Hansard on May 12, 1988, he will note that at no time did I refer to any negotiations taking place by the union. There are negotiations between Expro and my officials taking place on a regular basis. There are negotiations between Expro and the consultants we have hired, Peat Marwick, which are taking place on a regular basis.
The Hon. Member will know that the loan was made to try to protect some 600 jobs and was well before the lock-out took place. I am surprised at the audacity of members of the NDP, who speak out of one side of their mouth about protecting jobs and out of the other side of their mouth about opposing a loan that was made, in effect, to protect the 600 jobs. My answer as stated on May 12 stands.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised as a question of privilege an exchange that took place several days ago. I agree with the Hon. Member that this is the first time, for practical purposes, it could be brought before the Chair.
I appreciate the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) having made it very clear at the beginning that he is not imputing any dishonourable motives to the Minister in whatever answer he gave. The difficulty facing the Chair is that it is very difficult for the Chair to know whether an answer is absolutely accurate or to know whether the Hon. Member who is asking the question has interpreted the answer in exactly the way the Minister wished it to be interpreted.
In this case we seem to have an answer given which appears to be at variance with certain facts about which I have no
Tabling of Documents
doubt the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River is absolutely correct, that there had not been any negotiation with the union for a month.
However, of course we accept the word of the Minister who has advised the House, when he refers back to Hansard, that he did not intend to refer to negotiations with the union but to other negotiations that were peripheral to the matter.
I think the Minister's comment today may clarify the misunderstanding. Having been on both sides of the House for some years, I understand how difficult it can be sometimes when an answer, often quite unintentionally, does not seem to be in accord with facts that the Member asking the question has at his disposal. However, we have had comments from Speakers in the past that it is extremely difficult for the Speaker to settle matters which amount to a dispute over facts.
I believe the exchange today has indicated that perhaps the Hon. Member who asked the question was quite understandably confused, not intentionally misled but certainly could not understand why the Minister gave the answer he did.
The Minister has made it clear that he was not referring to the union, in any event. The Chair does not like to get into the position of having to settle a question of the accuracy or otherwise of a comment, either in a question or in a reply. Under the circumstances, I think the matter is resolved, at least a little better than it was, and I cannot find a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1989 was presented by the Hon. Pat Carney (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, in order that we can do this all at once, I would move, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


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

May 18, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the tabling of the Ways and Means motion by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). As I understand it, this Ways and Means motion is being proposed by the Minister as a necessary preliminary step in advance of the enabling legislation for the trade deal. I would like to argue quite the opposite.
This Ways and Means motion is not only unnecessary today, but it also imposes unnecessary restrictions on our ability as Members to amend the trade legislation that will follow the adoption of this resolution. I would like to cite Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 516, at page 174; which reads as follows:
A Ways and Means motion is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers.
Let me refer to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, Twentieth Edition, at page 822. It reads:
The following are examples of matters which require to be initiated in the form of a Ways and Means resolution by a Minister of the Crown.
The subheadings include new taxes, continuation of an expiring tax, reimposition of a repealed tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, the extension of incidence of a tax, the repeal or reduction of alleviations of taxation, the delegation of taxing powers, granting of borrowing authority, and payments into the Consolidated Fund from a source other than taxation.
Both Beauchesne and Erskine May are clear. Nowhere is it indicated that a reduction in charges on the taxpayer, either through, for example, a reduction in direct taxes or reductions
in tariffs, need be preceded by a Ways and Means motion. It is only when a Government seeks to increase charges on the taxpayer that a Ways and Means motion is required to precede the legislation.
Erskine May, at page 825, gives some guidance on this important question. It is stated:
Provisions for the alleviation of taxation are not subject to the rules of financial procedure.
I think this makes it quite clear. A Ways and Means motion such as the one introduced today by the Hon. Minister, according to the traditions of parliamentary practice, is not required to precede the free trade legislation because, as is outlined in this specific motion itself, the changes being sought are reductions in duties which impose no additional burden on the taxpayer.
This is not to suggest, however, that although it is not required, it is not be permitted. Clearly, in the last few years, it has often been the case that reductions in taxes have been preceded by Ways and Means motions. But it should be recognized that when a Ways and Means motion is passed by the House prior to the introduction of a Bill, there are certain restrictions and limitations on the scope of amendments to that Bill which are not present when a Bill is simply introduced for debate. That is my concern.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 518, at page 175, outlines the relation of Bills to Ways and Means resolutions. Subsection (2) states:
The most desirable practice is for the Bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the resolution, and departures if any, ought to be subject to the strictest interpretation.
In other words, the Bill must strictly accord with the provisions of the Ways and Means motion. As I indicated, this has severe implications for the ability of Members on all sides of this House to alter or amend the Bill in question because the Bill must, in the end, conform to the Ways and Means motion. Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, at page 825, recognizes the undue restriction placed upon the ability to amend a Bill to alleviate charges on the taxpayer when it is preceded by a Ways and Means resolution. It reads:
This resolution-
That is, the Ways and Means motion presently before the House.
-is occasionally omitted when it is desired to restrict the scope of a financial Bill to a minimum, as, for example, before the general election in 1974.
Here we have an explicit recognition that Ways and Means motions or resolutions are not necessary to precede Bills that do not increase charges on the taxpayers and that if such Ways and Means resolutions are in fact introduced, they can unnecessarily limit the scope of the Bill and the ability of Members to amend it as it goes through the normal committee stage clause by clause.
May 18, 1988

If we take a hypothetical case where, for example, after the trade legislation is introduced, a member in the legislative committee wanted to amend the legislation to restore a duty on some specific goods-let us take the U.S. wine industry, for example-entering the country, it is not at all clear that, if the Ways and Means motion passed by the House had indicated that this levy was to be eliminated, the amendment to restore this levy would be possible. I refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 532, which reads:
A motion for the imposition of an import duty has been ruled out of order
because such a proposition should emanate from the Government.
Clearly, the ability of Members of this House to amend such legislation would be unnecessarily restricted.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would just simply restate the two main arguments I think should cause you to rule this Ways and Means motion completely and totally out of order. First, I think I have shown clearly that such a resolution is, according to past practice, clearly not necessary in this instance where the Government seeks to simply reduce and not increase charges on the taxpayer. In this instance, where the House will be faced shortly with a major piece of legislation that will have monumental consequences for the political and economic sovereignty of our country, Members of Parliament should have the maximum degree of freedom to amend and alter this legislation as they, as representatives of the Canadian people, see fit. This is not possible when the legislation is preceded by this totally unnecessary Ways and Means motion. It will handicap Members of Parliament. It will restrict the ability of Members of Parliament to improve the legislation as we see fit as it moves through the committee process.
I hope that Your Honour will reflect upon the arguments that I have offered today and rule this Ways and Means motion out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is raising a highly technical point. I am having some difficulty fully appreciating the point that is being made.
However, it is obvious to Hon. Members that a certain amount of work has gone into the intervention that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has made. I would of course be very careful about being too hasty in dismissing the argument. I will consider it very carefully and return to the House as soon as it is appropriate.
However, my difficulty is, and I put this to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, who may want to address the matter for another moment or two, that the Chair has not seen the Bill, nor of course has the Hon. Member. No one in the House has seen it. It may well be that the argument, even if sustainable, is premature. I am concerned about that.
The second matter of course is that without seeing the Bill I am not completely sure that I would be able to accept some of the propositions which the Hon. Member has cited, which may
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
of themselves be good authority. However, I cannot tell until I see the Bill whether in fact the Bill conforms with the five paragraphs that are now in front of the House and the notice of Ways and Means motion. I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap the fact that paragraph i) of the notice of Ways and Means motion states:
i) to impose customs duties in accordance with the Tariff Schedules of Canada referred to in Annex 401.2 of the Agreement;
I cannot tell from that whether that will increase customs duties or decrease them. It seems to me it puts us in some difficulty.
However, I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member. It was a closely reasoned argument that obviously had been prepared with some care. I will consider it carefully and return to the House.
The Hon. Member indicates that he may have something to add. I will hear him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. I think they are more than appropriate. What I was hoping at this point was simply that Your Honour would at least reflect on the arguments that I have made prior to accepting and approving the tabling of this Ways and Means motion.
The point I want to make is that I am not anticipating what is in the trade legislation at all. I am making one assumption, that is, that the Ways and Means motion would not be increasing taxes and tariffs on Canadians. I am making the assumption that one of the reasons we are going through this from the Government's perspective is that we would see a reduction in charges. I am making that assumption. I want to make that perfectly clear. I am not suggesting what the Bill may or may not be.
I would ask Your Honour to at least reflect on the ability of Members of Parliament to move appropriate amendments to the legislation when it is introduced. The point I am attempting to make today is that the Ways and Means motion, if accepted, would place limitations, would provide a certain number of parameters on the nature of amendments that Members of Parliament from all sides of the House could put forward.
I am simply asking Your Honour to reflect on whether or not it is necessary at this point for the Minister to table this Ways and Means motion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he has the right to table it at any time up until the legislation goes to committee. That would give us ample time to consider whether a Ways and Means motion could not be tabled at that time as opposed to the beginning of the process, which would have the effect of perhaps limiting our ability as Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. What I propose to do is to consider the matter, as I said I would. It may well be that, upon further reflection, it is premature for even the Chair to make any further comment.

May 18, 1988
Petitions
In the meantime, the Ways and Means motion of course is not dependent on the Chair accepting it. Under the orders, clearly, the Minister has the right to table it. The question that the Hon. Member is raising goes to its substantive effect subject to the arguments that the Hon. Member has raised. Of course, if I accepted completely the Hon. Member's arguments, then I would have to return and we would have to deal with the matter.
In any event, I hope that the Hon. Member will accept my assurances that I will look very carefully at the argument made. I will report back to the House as soon as convenient.
I point out that I have some concern that it may be, even if I was fully in agreement with the Hon. Member, premature to make a ruling. However, I will do the best I can.




Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and 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 12 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4336, 3324379, 332-4449, 332-4476, 332-4516, 332-4524 and 332-4530 to 332-4535 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



ORDER-IN-COUNCIL P.C. 1988-424 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

['Agreed.\nMay 18, 1988']
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the Parties and
there is unanimous consent, at least among the House Leaders, with respect to the following motion, which states:
That, Order-in-Council P.C. 1988-424 tabled in the House on April 27,
1988 and referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate
Affairs be withdrawn from the said committee and referred to the Standing
Committee on Government Operations, and that the provisions of Standing
Orders 103 and 104 shall apply upon the adoption of this order.
Is my understanding correct?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that. There has not been a clear understanding yet with respect to it, however. I wonder if we can hold this matter for a few moments to allow some consultation to take place. I do not anticipate any difficulty but I would like to have a few more opportunities to discuss this matter with some of my colleagues.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It was handed to me by a member of my staff and it does have the signatures of the two House Leaders. I was not part of the discussion but it was my obligation to bring it forward.
Is it all right?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If we could just cast our minds back for a moment or two, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has made a proposition. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) wanted some further clarification. I think that the Hon. Member has that further clarification.
I take it, then, that the House is in accord with the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions, both of which have been approved by the Clerk of Petitions as to form and content.
The two petitions come generally from the areas of Nanton, High River, Carmangay, Stavely, Lethbridge, Calgary and Edmonton. Both state that your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that the unilingual speaking people have a chance for positions in Government.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have two
May 18, 1988

petitions signed by residents of Burnaby, Vancouver, Surrey, Ottawa, and Toronto.
The petition states as follows: The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right as to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Hon. House will therefore provide a remedy humbly sheweth: Whereas the distinguished Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code have left Canadians without any law restricting abortions; whereas nothing in the Supreme Court decision has established abortion as a right; whereas human life is a continuum from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and there is no point in time between conception and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this is not a human life.
Wherefore, the undersigned petitioners ever pray and call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of an unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.
As duty bound the petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first petition is the last in a series of petitions I received from members of the Hamilton Jewish Federation who continue to take issue with remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding charges that he has made with respect to the State of Israel's handling of matters on the riotous Gaza strip.


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions have been signed by residents of my constituency in the City of Hamilton and the surrounding area. They wish to point out to the House the seriousness of schizophrenia in Canada. The petitioners point out that a number of people have this illness, and its cost to Governments in terms of social costs. The petitioners would like to petition the Government to have it increase the research funds available to combat this dreaded disease.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the requirements of Standing Order 106, I have two petitions to present. The petitions are signed by residents of Kelliher, Leross, Lestock; Saskatchewan who call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on tax reform, stage one.
Petitions


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present two petitions from residents of the City of Toronto, which have been certified by the Clerk as to form and content.
The first petition points out that in 1987 the then Minister of Immigration promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as members of the family class of immigrants, and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points when assessed for immigration to Canada.
In 1986, the then Minister of Justice promised that the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated in order that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age.
The petitioners point out that none of these promises has yet been fulfilled by those Ministers, their successors, or the Government.
Therefore, the petitioners ask that the House of Commons ensure that the Government now fulfil these promises.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the other petition concerns the trade deal negotiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, for which the petitioners state that the Prime Minister had no mandate. The petitioners point out that it will reduce Canada's ability to plan economic, social, and cultural programs that Canadians need, and would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that there will be a national debate on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that this debate will result in a national general election before the agreement is finalized.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to file with the Table two petitions, both of which have been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
The first petition is signed by some 1,300 residents of Prince George. The second petition is signed by 42 residents of Vanderhoof, both communities in the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Both petitions humbly pray and call upon Parliament to grant protection to unborn human beings from the moment of conception, and I proudly support this concept.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106,1 have the privilege to present

May 18, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper
a petition received in my office on May 17 and certified on the same date.
This petition is signed by some 45 residents of the community of Ignace, which is arguably the most isolated community on the TransCanada Highway. The petitioners call upon Parliament to declare that all communities in Tier 3 ridings should be eligible for the northern residents' tax allowance.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present to the House a petition from residents from the region of York on a matter of concern. The petitioners have requested that I bring to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and all Members of Parliament the fact that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will be given priority in the future.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 307 will be answered today.


Mr. Brisco: To the knowledge of the Government, under the Columbia River Treaty (a) what was the total construction cost of the (i) Duncan Dam (ii) Hugh Keenleyside Dam (iii) Mica Dam (/V) each of the other treaty dams (b) for each project, were there costs for the (/) purchase (ii) acquisition (iii) expropriation (iv) mitigation of real and personal property depreciation (v) site preparation prior to construction and, if so, what were they (c) are any mitigation funds that were committed as a result of the Columbia River Treaty still to be paid out and, if so, in each case (/) to what project (i7) in what amount (iii) for what purpose were they committed (iv) for what reason has payment been delayed?


Jack Wendele Shields: (a) (i) - (iv)
Costs of Columbia River Treaty Projects<I)
Construction Costs Incurred in Canada ($ Cdn. Millions):
Duncan Dam	$	32.4
Keenleyside Dam	195.3
Mica Project
Storage	339.4
At-Site Generation	405.6
Transmission	228.2
Substation and Microwave	36.7
Other Costs	33.2
(Includes Libby reservoir clearing S2.6M) Total Construction Costs	$1 270.8
Construction Costs Incurred in the U.S. ($ U.S. Millions):
Libby Dam
Construction Costs	$453.2
01 Source: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(b)	(i) - (v) Such costs were incurred and have been incorporated in the cost figures listed in Part (a). However, the Government has no knowledge of the amount of these costs independently.
(c)	(i) - (iv) The terms of mitigation and compensation related to the Columbia River Treaty projects are outlined in the respective water licences issued by the Province of British Columbia to the operating entity, the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.
Information regarding the terms of these licences can be obtained from the Water Licensing Section, Water Management Branch, Ministry of Environment and Parks, Government of British Columbia, 765 Broughton Street, Victoria, B.C., V8W 1X5.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Danis):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government is prepared to call Motion No. P-9, but the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is not in the Chamber. Therefore, I would ask that all the Notices of Motions for Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Danis):: Shall all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 18, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-THE HOMELESS Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic) moved:
That this House condemn the government for its total lack of leadership in the area of housing, as a result of which
a)	the present number of 100,000 homeless people, including women and children, increases every day despite the economic recovery;
b)	there is an ever-growing number of Canadians with unsuitable housing who risk becoming homeless and those people are not provided with preventive programs;
c)	the number of new social or cooperative housing units cannot satisfy the increasing demand;
d)	the majority of our aboriginal peoples are badly housed, in conditions that the majority of Canadians would not accept;
e)	it is becoming more and more difficult for average Canadians to buy a house;
0 since the government has turned over powers to the provinces, it has given up its responsibilities and has lost control over national housing issues;
g)	the housing policy of the government is restricted to reducing the deficit; and
h)	the lack of a national policy deprives Canadians of the right to have a roof over their heads.
-She said: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party decided to dedicate today's Opposition Day to housing to prove there is a lack of leadership on the part of the Conservative Government in this respect. Since the Government delegated its powers to the provinces, there has been no national housing policy, no priorities have been set. There has been no direction and, especially, no co-ordination among the various policies and programs, and no co-ordination among the various levels of government. The ship is off course, Mr. Speaker. And even worse-although by now we should be used to this sort of thing on the part of the Government-I was appalled when I heard the Government will very shortly start construction of a prestige building for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation here in Ottawa.
The plans and specifications have been submitted and approved. Public tenders have been examined. The contract will be awarded to the private sector, and the new headquarters will cost Canadians about $40 million.
All of this is occurring under the very eyes of Canadians who are either homeless or living in substandard housing. It is scandalous! It is shameful! It is shocking! And it is appalling!
Morever, Bill C- 111	is another example of this
Government's lack of interest in housing. It includes many positive steps and incorporates the findings of a study sponsored by Mr. Andre Ouellet, the former Minister of Urban Affairs in the previous Liberal Government. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the Government had announced this Bill in the summer of 1987. It waited until February before introducing it in the House of Commons. Bill C-l 11 remained for at least 15 days on the House's Order Paper and Notices and since the
Supply
Government controls the agenda, why is it procrastinating with this Bill?
Having realized the positive potential of Bill C-l 11, the Liberal Party has informed the Government that it is prepared to get on immediately with Second Reading, with only one Member taking part in this debate, with a view of refering this Bill to a legislative committee as expeditiously as possible. This does not mean that we will let the Bill pass blindly, but that it deserves a quick study. We are already in the middle of May, and there is still nothing. If the Bill were so perfect and if housing were a Government priority, we would have had Second Reading a long time ago. This delay reflects the Government's lack of concern for housing. Meanwhile, several concerned Canadians, including the members of the Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute, are still waiting for the Government to make up its mind.
Bill C-l 11 would make it possible for purchasers of mobile homes and floating homes to obtain mortgages from Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Second, it would raise the ceilings for the expenditures and loans authorized by Parliament to the Corporation. Third, it would facilitate the administration of mortgage titles and mortgage insurance. Fourth, it would improve working relations between the provincial and federal Governments.
In a little while, the Government will brag about all the money it has spent on the homeless. What it will fail to say is that this money was used on studies and conferences. As far as we know, the Government has established no policy which might help the homeless get back into the mainstream of our Canadian society.
The Government has not yet recognized the permanent nature of the homeless problem and the fact that is much more difficult for the homeless to get back into the mainstream of the Canadian society once they have left it. The Government has really missed the boat during the International Year of the Homeless. In view of all the studies it has sponsored, the information it has obtained at the Canadian Confederation held to mark that year, the Government should have been in a position to come up with adequate policies. Mr. Speaker, those who attended this conference agreed that what was lacking to solve the homeless problem was the political will to act. The Government has shown that this question is of no interest and set a limit on all operating and other grants. This may be acceptable in the short run, but no effort has been made to find a lasting solution to the problem. The homeless and the army of volunteers who look after them are running out of breath and will soon be back asking for more money.
The Government deals with homeless people as if they were beggars. This attitude is totally unacceptable to the Liberal Party, just as it is unacceptable to all Canadians.
Who are the homeless? In Montreal, for instance, there are
10,000	transients. The average age for men is 34 and for women 33. I did say women, because what causes much
[Stage Direction]
May 18, 1988
Supply
concern these days is that the Government seems to forget about the ever increasing number of youths, women and even entire families without a roof over their heads.
Liberal Members have never missed an opportunity to rise in the House and urge the Conservative government to intervene. Unfortunately this Government worries more about the deficit than it does about human beings. You see, Mr. Speaker, homeless people do not vote, they have no address, they have no political clout. During the conference held for the international year people wanted to sit down and settle various problems. This is how people responsible for social housing, social agencies, industry and construction were prepared to set their own interests aside in an attempt to solve this problem. The federal Government did not get involved in the September 1987 homeless conference, and it still does not want to get involved. This is tragic because the federal Government is the only level which has the moral power and mandate to get people to work together to find short-, medium-, and long-term solutions.
I have newspaper headlines here which prove the Government does not take housing problems seriously. From The Toronto Star. "No one should have to live like this. Desperate mother of two lives in rundown house and says she doesn't know where to turn." Again, The Toronto Star: "Housing crisis taking toll on kids." From the St. John's Evening Telegram: "All women facing common housing difficulties. Housing too scarce and too expensive."
[Stage Direction]
The Conservative Government also missed the boat when it comes to people living in substandard housing units. These people are Canadians sitting on the fence, as it were: they do have a roof over their heads, but they may become homeless or be forced to move into dilapidated housing, with all the social, family and psychological consequences that entails. There are many reasons why a tenant might be forced to vacate the premises, including chronic unemployment, marital violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, and family problems to name a few. The Government does not deal with such problems, not to mention the fact that social programs have been weakened ever since it took office. Homeless people find it hard to understand how a Government can hand out close to $1 billion to the Commercial Bank of Canada and the National Northland Bank to save them from bankruptcy, yet the same Government cannot seem to find any money for the homeless.
Now a few words about social and co-operative housing. The number of social and co-operative housing units has also gone down. The Minister and I can argue about the figures, but the number did go down because needs are greater.
The Conservative Government has preferred to reduce its involvement by choosing to set up a rent supplement plan, leaving the way free to private enterprise. In cities like
Toronto, even private enterprise cannot supply affordable housing, for several reasons. In fact, under the new definition of essential needs, the poorest Canadians do not receive government assistance-only the very poorest of the poor do.
The limit set for essential needs is unrealistic and should be revised by the Government. This is another sign that the Government would rather reduce its deficit than help the poorly housed.
Another area where the Government is failing hopelessly is the area of Indian housing. Indians have by far the worst housing conditions in Canada. Overcrowding is a major problem, and 7.5 per cent of all family households on reserve are made up of more than one family living in it, while the average for non-Indian households is only 1.4 per cent. The proportion of dwellings on reserve requiring major repair is 23 per cent, 37 per cent of dwellings have inadequate bathrooms and 37 per cent have no bathrooms at all. Fifty per cent of all dwellings on reserve have no central heating, one of the causes for so many respiratory ailments among Indians.
Also related to poor housing standards is the death rate for Indians from infections and parasite diseases, which is higher than in the non-Indian population. Lack of adequate housing also means that the number of Indian children in care or in custody of institutions, group or foster homes is high because bands lack adequate housing space to accommodate them. Although the need for Indian housing is very important, officials from Indian Affairs testified in committee that housing funds have remained static since 1984. It is the same story for any Canadian who lacks proper housing. The consequences are reflected in poor mental, psychological, physical and moral health.
We can also see the federal Government's lack of perspective and orientation in the City of Toronto. The Toronto housing market is a difficult one, with housing prices skyrocketing. But what does the federal Government do about it, Mr. Speaker? It contributes to the problem by holding parcels of land that could be used for social or affordable housing. I made a statement in this House the other day about that under Standing Order 21.
In a press release by Public Works it was announced that a sale of federal property had yielded over $170 million. That sale was to reduce the number of surplus federal properties and to help bring down the federal deficit. Some of these properties or lands could have been used for homeless people or some of the money could have gone to help house the homeless, but the Government chose not to intervene. The question is, why did the Government not initiate such arrangements? The answer is very clear for all those who care about social housing. This Government is probably the least progressive Government in Canada when it comes to housing policies.
May 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
When the Government came to power in 1984 and following the Nielsen reform, it instituted joint programs where the federal Government would finance housing projects and a province would administer them. That could have made administrative sense if the federal Government had not tried to abandon its leadership role in housing. As I have been demonstrating for close to 15 minutes the federal Government has done just that.
This Conservative Government is bent on reducing the deficit. It has done so by holding down the number of people who could get assistance for housing. It has streamlined CMHC's operations, transferred administration of housing programs to the provinces, and the plan has worked. But it has worked to the detriment of those Canadians who are most in need of assistance to house themselves, such as those in the core need group and who do not earn enough to be able to afford proper housing in today's market. In other words, the Government has chosen the deficit over human needs. We now have homeless and people who are not in core need but are in dire need. Our Indians are still housed in substandard housing, but after all, according to the Government, the deficit has been reduced. The Conservatives, by taking the bull by the horns and tackling the deficit, have left us with a human deficit in times of economic prosperity.
The Liberal Party is a practical one which would like to see the deficit under control but not at the expense of human beings as in the present case. What is clear is that housing is not a priority for the Government and there is no political will to do anything about it. For example, Bill C- 111 has been left dragging on the Order Paper for three weeks now. We are ready for it but the Government is not.
I have a few words about affordability of housing. This is a big problem, especially for young couples. A study done by Mr. David Hulchanski, Professor of housing policy at the University of British Columbia, proved that if you make $25,000 a year you will probably never own a house. The average income for Canadians is approximately $22,000. House prices have been going up, as we all know, but salaries have not kept pace with housing costs. Some of the reasons for higher house prices are escalating land costs, higher predevelopment on "soft" costs, material and labour increases, shortage of specialized labour, extended municipal approval times, higher lot levies and increased service standards for new lots.
We do not expect this Government to do anything about it. CMHC has even financed a study by Clayton Research Associates Ltd. in which a number of things were examined. For instance, no down payment, as in Great Britain; reduced early mortgage payments; the speeding up of home building; the building of starter homes, and the possibility to deduct mortgage and property tax. But do not expect the Government to do anything. That is just a study, Mr. Speaker.
Supply
Regarding seniors, I am most concerned by the Conservative Government's inaction on the housing needs of the elderly. The Government makes a big to-do about the seniors' housing conference to be held in Halifax this fall.
It is too bad, but if one looks at the Government's record, all the studies and all the good will shown by the participants in finding solutions will be of no use with a Government so lacking in political will.
The elderly face many challenges. The "Granny Flat" program runs up against zoning problems and municipal bylaws. That is why we need coordination among the three levels of government, so that people can have the permission of cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg to build "Granny Houses" in their back yards to be able to look after their parents.
Some pressure is needed to convince municipalities that they have to change their bylaws. Solutions must also be found to finance housing for our elderly. Several possibilities are still under consideration, such as allowing seniors to draw monthly payments based on the equity that they have accumulated in their house.
Home service is another solution that should be negotiated with the provincial governments.
I have two questions: What prevents the Government from setting an integrated housing policy for seniors? And what prevents it from acting right away?
Mr. Speaker, I conclude. In the past, as housing spokesperson for the Liberal Party, I asked the Government to act on housing to help the least well-off, the homeless, the poorly housed, and also, as I said at the beginning of this speech, to help private enterprise in its efforts to provide homes for middle-income Canadians. But I am sorry to say that this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
I am not normally a negative person, but the Progressive Conservative Government's performance on housing has led me to move the motion of censure in today's debate. I must conclude that the Conservative Government has failed in its duty, that it is useless to hope for any improvement and that we must wait until a Liberal Government is elected to pick up the pieces.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I will start with a couple of comments after which I will ask my hon. colleague a question.
The problem with the Hon. Member's speech, which I listened to carefully-by the way, I must say that when I was elected in 1984, I started off by working on the Transport

May 18, 1988
Supply
Committee, and I have great respect for the Hon. Member from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic who sits on the other side of the House.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that I would never stoop to playing politics . .. But as was mentioned by the Hon. Member, when we came into office in 1984, as a government we were faced with a two billion dollar deficit. Her party's record during 22 years, from 1962 to 1984, is something to be considered by the House.

As I mentioned, I do not want to attack my hon. colleague because she is a very nice person, but I am attacking her politics. To be $200 million in the hole is something. What do we do for old age pensioners? I can say that in my constituency, we have put a priority on low-rental housing, though there is not enough. However, the money does not drop from the ceiling. It has to come from the taxpayers. When we raise taxes, the taxpayers say that we are charging them too much for old people.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has always looked after the well-being of senior citizens. That is what I do in my riding. That is what we will go on doing. But it is no easy task, however, when there is a limited amount of money available; I shall give you an example. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to make a personal remark but take the case of my wife who went out this afternoon with my credit card. However my card is "overcharged", which means she won't spend a penny. That is what we didn't want to see and that is what we said in 1984.

That is what we said in 1984, that we would put sound finances in Government. We have helped the old people. The old people at home have access to every Member of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, but especially to those of Conservative stripe.
I respect the Hon. Member and I hesitate to criticize her for her political, Liberal speech. We are going ahead with Indian housing, and more announcements will be made.
Finally, where did the $200-billion Liberal dollars go for the people the Hon. Member represents today?


Mrs. Killens:: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) is right when he says we are old friends. I like to think I have quite a few friends in this House, and I think I do. However, people who know me well call me an iron hand in a velvet glove.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, indeed!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: And that is because I am very firm when I believe in something. As far as my motives are concerned, I would have made the same speech if the Liberals had made
these mistakes, and I will tell you why. To me, it is a matter of justice. If my speech seemed like a partisan speech, that is not what I was trying to do, because I'm not like that. I'm a very poor politician. I'm a better administrator than a politician. What I had to say today, I happened to say it in this form. I know about housing issues thanks to the help I get from my office staff, because I am sure all Members realize we have to be knowledgeable on a number of subjects and have a lot of work to do. So I have learned a lot in the process.
I would now like to make a few comments about our Native people. Since Bill C-31 was passed, there has been a waiting list of 60,000, mostly applications from women and children who want to go back to the reserve. Since the situation is already very serious, they cannot be reintegrated and are always second on the list. We have to start with the people who are already on the reserve, who are not getting the services they should, and who have a very high mortality rate. That is where we must start, and once again, I wonder why Bill C-31 was passed without providing the tools to implement the legislation. That is why I condemn the present Government, and I can assure you I would have done the same if it had been my own Government.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic on her excellent speech, her thorough research and appropriate comments. If the Hon. Member on the other side wants the floor, he should go back to his seat and ask his questions in the accepted manner. If he would care to listen, I will tell him why we in the Official Opposition, why we in the Liberal Party believe that this Government should be replaced, and I will use the point made by the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeline (Mr. Gray), which was:

Money does not drop from the ceiling. I agree with the Hon. Member. However, why does the Government have to tax Canadians as it has since it has been in power? Do tell why there has been an increase in personal income taxes and why the income tax tables have been deindexed. Why talk about deindexing old age pensions? Why increase the tax burden on Canadians?
I have here an official document which indicates that since the Conservatives came to power, the excise tax on gasoline increased by five cents a litre. Since the Conservatives came to power, taxes paid by individuals increased by 68 per cent or $29.3 billion. Taxes paid by corporations increased by 28 per cent or $2 billion, and I am talking about the last Budget, yet
60,000	profitable corporations still do not pay taxes.
These Tories over there are criticizing my colleague for her point which is that the Government has indeed forgotten about affordable housing. Indeed, you people don't give a damn about housing.
When the Hon. Member gets a chance, he can answer me. Now I am asking my colleague if she does not agree with me. I
May 18, 1988

am looking for assistance from my eastern colleagues. Do they know what sweat equity means? It means that people earned a bit of money, did some repairs to their houses, and would indeed stay in their own homes. That was a program which the federal Liberal Government at the time put together in Cape Breton in 1976-77 called the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. We gave money to Canadians to restore their dwellings to a healthy state and to maintain them for at least 15 years.
Does the Member know that if the Government had continued that program people would still be in their houses? Does she know that Canadians today are leaving their homes and going to senior citizens' homes because they cannot afford to stay in their houses? Does she know that the RRAP program has not increased by one single cent since the Tory Government took over?
Not one penny has been added to the RRAP program. It took money from the RRAP program and put it in the social housing program. It did not put a new co-op program or a new RRAP program in place. It has done nothing for housing in Canada for the last three and a half years. Is the Member aware of that?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect to the comments of the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I said in my opening remarks that I agree with the Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) who said that we have to do something. The Conservative Party has been sensitive in my constituency and it will continue to be sensitive to the people. We have to find money which the Liberals spent-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not a point of order, that's argument. [Translation]


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting day. I would like to tell my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that he is completely right, it is the RRAP program. I agree with him. I know that I do not have much time to answer this question, but when he listed the $23.9 billion in extra taxes, I must tell you that were our colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) here, he could give you the information. We gave you some. It will be in Hansard for you to review it and you will see that the Government should have brought down its deficit quite a bit more if it had been properly administered, because with all the $23.9 billion in extra taxes, we should have a considerably smaller deficit than we do now.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed listening to my hon. friend who is the housing critic for the Liberal Party. However, I do take
Supply
issue with some of the facts upon which she based her motion and a good deal of her representation.
The first part of her motion indicates that there are 100,000 homeless people, including women and children, and that the number is growing. Does my friend have any statistics available to support such a figure? My information is that on January 28, 1987, the Canadian Council on Social Development did a survey across Canada and determined that the number of homeless on that particular night, one of the coldest nights of the year, was 8,000. The figure may be 10,000 or it may be 7,000. It is not precise. We must, however, put the debate in context, and I do take grave issue with the statistic cited by my friend in her motion that we are dealing with
100,000	people.
The motion before us contains a number of particulars, but the thrust of it is that the Government has failed to exercise leadership in espousing housing policies for Canadians which have been beneficial rather than detrimental.
The Canadian Home Builders Association has been in Ottawa for five days. Representatives have met with myself, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the last speaker, and members of the NDP to discuss the state of the union with respect to housing. Coincidentally, I have just received a letter from Mr. Gary Santini, the President of the Canadian Homebuilders Association, dated May 18, 1988. The letter addresses the issues involved in this debate. I will read the letter in part and am quite prepared to table it. After discussing the various meetings with all concerned, he said:
We came away with a renewed sense of the Government's dedication to the needs of the housing sector, both private and non-profit.
I do not exaggerate when I say that considerable progress has been made under your leadership in the development of a comprehensive approach to housing policy in Canada. As an industry, we are acutely aware of the commitments you have made to our industry's development, particularly in the areas of training and education, technical research, regulatory reform and market analysis. Your overall policies and directions are well balanced and frankly, we are delighted to see the way you have been able to target resources to housing the truly needy.
Overall, it's a job well done; keep it going; and we look forward to working even more closely with you in the future.
That is the latest analysis of what the Government has been able to accomplish and is intending to put on the menu with respect to housing policies for Canada in the next few months.
The issue is about leadership. My proponent suggests, with a great deal of rhetoric, and in good faith, that there is a need for more and better housing to deal with a number of problems in Canada. We agree with this. That is why the Government has made it an axiom of its policies that housing is one of the most fundamental rights and needs in Canada. That is why I am proud to cite certain information and statistics which indicate that we have indeed been very successful in bringing about dramatic improvements in housing for all Canadians in all parts of Canada.
To put the debate in its proper context, I must call the attention of this House to the fact that when we got into office

May 18, 1988
Supply
we decided that we would not unilaterally impose housing policies on Canadians and on the provinces. The hallmark of the Liberal Government was to impose, unilaterally and without consultation, housing policies. I suggest that the results were somewhat wanting. That is why we undertook the most extensive and intensive consultative process throughout Canada when we came to office. Some 8,000 people and groups were consulted representing financial institutions, mortgage companies, social housing groups, co-operative housing associations, contractors, and all people who are directly or indirectly interested and involved with housing.
We incorporated into legislation the fundamental message which we received, that is, that all the housing funds of the Government should be directed toward those most in need. One can say that we have abdicated leadership because we have consulted. I take another view, as I think Canadians do. Canadians want a government which wishes to secure their participation and receive their advice on what is appropriate for all parts of Canada. We have put in place national policies which responds to the advice we sought. This is reflected in a tremendous improvement in the number of housing starts in Canada since 1984.
For example, in 1987 there were 246,000 housing starts in this country, the largest number of housing starts in the last decade. There has been an increase in housing starts in every year since the Government took office in 1984. We have had an average of 204,000 housing starts per year since 1984 compared with 141,000 in the three years prior to 1984. Sixty-two per cent of Canadians own their own home. Indeed, it may be fair to say that Canada is a housing leader and that if it is not the best housed nation in the world it is certainly among the best. People come from all parts of the world to seek advice from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on our programs and our policies. They see that this Government is getting a better bang for its buck in housing policy.
I might note, with respect to the rental market, that the national vacancy rate rose from 1.6 per cent in 1986 to 2.5 per cent in October, 1987. That indicates that with the tremendous number of housing starts and with government programs we have relieved some of the pressure in some places in Canada where there has been that adverse experience.
Let me turn to the co-operative programs with our provinces. It was suggested that there has been an abdication of responsibility and leadership in this area. We have formed agreements with every province in Canada, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, with a view to delivering more funds to those most in need. I say to the housing critic for the Liberal Party that we are the first Government to direct all of its funds in this area to those most in need. How does that constitute an abdication of leadership and responsibility?
She spoke at great length about the homeless and our failure to respond. I can say that 550,000 social housing units have
been constructed in Canada to respond to that particular constituency. I can say that during the past 20 years more than
400,000	houses have been assisted by way of rehabilitation and renovation.
I suggest to my hon. friend that in 1988 this Government increased its Budget by $100 million, to $1.7 billion. Again, all of those funds are directed to those most in need.
As a result of entering into agreements with the provinces, we have been able to lever some $300 million more of provincial money to complement the federal program. The amount contributed by the provinces in addition to our $1.7 billion means that more than $2 billion of funds are going to house and help those most in need in Canada. Substantially more people are being helped through these programs than ever before.
Contrary to the housing programs of the previous Government, 30 per cent more Canadians who are in need are getting help by reason of the federal-provincial agreements and because of our policies.
My friend commented on the International Year of the Homeless. This Government made available funding in the amount of $1.7 million for the establishment of programs which might serve as instructive for other programs for the homeless. We invited people from all over the world to Ottawa to explain how the global problem of homelessness might be dealt with, because the problem is not peculiar to Canada. Indeed, our problem in this regard may be less than that faced by any other nation in the world.
The message we received and the brunt of the report that will be made available is that homelessness is indeed a multidimensional problem which includes such causes as socioeconomic, lack of proper economic and entrepreneurial skills with many of our young Canadians, violence, drugs and mental problems. All of these contribute toward homelessness and must be addressed by all levels of Government, not just one in isolation.
My friend spoke of the problem facing our native people. We agree with her that this has been a long-standing problem for many years. I suggest that Governments of all Parties have tried to accommodate this very difficult situation which is unacceptable to our Government, to all Parties and all Canadians.
There is much to do. Let me point out that 50 per cent of all the rural funds were directed to native people on a priority basis. There are 1,000 additional units each year to meet the needs of urban natives.
In co-operation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we have ongoing programs on reserves. Last year, 1,240 new units were put in place with an additional $9 million in RRAP funds.
My colleague commented enthusiastically on the changes we proposed to the National Housing Act for mortgage insurance.
May 18, 1988

I welcome her support. Indeed, we have been endeavouring to have a quick debate so that legislation could move through quickly. I might note that if she can persuade her colleagues to stop filibustering on so many pieces of legislation that are before the House, we could get on with the real business of the nation and deal with amendments concerning fundamental issues like this.
Mortgage insurance will give more Canadians an opportunity to own a home. The changes we propose will assist people with very low downpayments to buy a house for the first time. The amendment we propose will allow Canadian homeowners to secure second mortgages at interest rates comparable to the first.
We all recall with some terror when first mortgages may have been 12 per cent or 14 per cent and second mortgages were 18 per cent to 24 per cent. It was obviously impossible for any young Canadian couple to purchase a home at those exorbitant rates. We are undertaking to ensure that a second mortgage is comparable to the first and the rate of interest charged by the mortgage or financial institution will be very much the same. Inevitably, one can conclude that more people will be able to buy houses at an affordable rate.
We are concerned with affordability. We recognize that there are some one million people in Canada who cannot secure a home appropriate to their needs. However, in the last two years this Government has been able to assist 107,000 new units of social housing through its RRAP or non-profit program. Approximately 50 per cent of the 107,000 people in the last two years have been able to obtain new accommodation through the non-profit program and the rest have been helped through the RRAP program. We have made tremendous strides, although there is more to do. What we are talking about now is leadership. We are talking about whether we have used the dollars available to us in an expeditious and appropriate way, getting the best value for our money.
One other facet of the changes we propose to the National Housing Act is to provide insurance for chattel mortgages. We are talking about insuring mortgages for mobile or manufactured homes. This is an area of housing policy which has perhaps been allowed to lapse for too long a period of time. We know that in other countries mobile homes and manufactured homes have provided substantial, comfortable and affordable accommodation for a great number of people who would not otherwise be able to call one place their home. We are going to ensure the purchase of new trailers. Previously people who wanted to buy a mobile home could not get financing from the standard financial institutions. They had to pay consumer rates of interest because loans for mobile homes were treated as consumer loans and too often the rates of interest were exorbitant and unaffordable. Our amendments will deal appropriately with that.
Supply
There are many facets of our successful housing program. Perhaps to give evidence of the merit of the proposed mortgage housing amendments, I would indicate a number of headlines. The headline in the Toronto Star on March 25, 1987, reads: "Mortgage Rule Change Helps Renters to Buy Homes". A headline in the Ottawa Citizen on March 25, 1987 reads: "Changes to Mortgage Insurance Fund Will Aid Home Ownership". The headline in the Toronto Star of May 14, 1988 reads: "Mortgage Backed Securities a Popular Investment Choice". That has nothing to do with our new amendments to the National Housing Act. It is a new scheme which has made available some $600 million of new investment from the private sector. This will allow more funds in the mortgage market. It will provide more competition, leading to lower interest rates and longer term mortgages. Indeed, for the very first time last year we saw a return to 10 year mortgages. For too long a period of time we have only been able to have access to five year mortgages. It will provide stability, availability and more affordability for Canadians.
The headline in the Ottawa Citizen on March 25 reads: "Changes to Mortgage Insurance Fund Will Aid Home Ownership". The headline in the Montreal Gazette on April 15 read: "Housing Starts Rebound". The headline in the Toronto Sun on March 25, 1987, read: "Mortgage Rules Lauded". So, when my friend says this Government has abdicated leadership and is responsible for deterioration in the housing situation of Canadians, I can only say to her that I am prepared to rely on the objective evidence. I am prepared to rely on statistics and on the commentaries I have cited today. Unfortunately, I have consumed all of my time, but I would welcome any questions.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my first question is one that I already asked in the House some months ago about our not having a national law establishing responsibility for housing in Canada, such as exists in Australia and in England, for example.
I would like to know whether the Minister has already studied the two laws of both these countries, because I always come back to the apparent lack of coordination throughout the country for solving housing problems. I may have emphasized homelessness, but this problem has so many social consequences that I am very concerned about it. There are other problems as well that could be solved throughout the country if people talked to each other. For example, I have an article from Le Soleil of Quebec and another from La Presse of Montreal, in which Mayor Dore of Montreal deplores this lack of communication; the article says that the Dore administration is somewhat concerned. This refers to the $2.5 million from the federal and provincial governments.
According to the article, the mayor is worried because the senior governments decided without consulting the city or the community groups working with the homeless. That is, Mayor Dore of Montreal said he was not consulted. It is true that

May 18, 1988
Supply
money is available from the federal and provincial governments, but in the other article, in La Presse, entitled "$ 11 million for housing restoration in Montreal", Mr. Gardiner, the city councillor responsible for housing in Montreal, said that if Montreal had not decided to put in the same amount of money, the Canada-Quebec restoration program would not have been as successful.
So you see, cooperation leads to municipalities putting in some money. In this way, we get the most leverage from federal and provincial funds.
So my question for the Minister is: Why is there not better coordination and cooperation among all levels of government? I include school commissions in that because they often have empty buildings and it seems that people do not talk to each other. Am I mistaken, Mr. Minister?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question which is appropriate and relevant. May I respond by saying quickly, and I do not want to be repetitive, that we have come to our housing policies through massive cross Canada consultations. The agreements we have, which involve the provinces, provide for a long range planning and short range programs to respond to immediate needs. Only last week, the Deputy Ministers of all of the provinces met with officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to see if there were any particular priorities. I am advised that the provinces indicated they are very pleased with the housing programs and the amount of co-operation which has resulted from this massive consultation and ongoing discussion and dialogue.
One of the most fundamental problems in Canada which impedes housing starts and appropriate responses to the homeless is regulatory reform. Two years ago I commissioned a study by the Federation of Municipalities, the Canadian Homebuilders Association and CAHRO officials to undertake a response to this increasing problem. In Toronto, which has been cited as a centre of increasing difficulty by many people in the House over the last two weeks, the biggest singular problem for securing appropriate and affordable housing is lack of regulatory reform.
It takes more than three years to get approval on a piece of land for a particular social housing project from beginning to end. That is obviously within the jurisdiction of the municipality. It is within the jurisdiction of municipalities across Canada and it is something that must be co-ordinated and addressed. We know the requirements of a municipality in one part of Ontario is very much different from another town and city just five miles away and, of course, they differ from province to province.
We need uniformity and we are going to address that in a meeting with the Federation of Municipalities in Halifax this June. The motion the Hon. Member proposed is appropriate. I
accept it. In response I say that we are following exactly that kind of format.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that is being debated this afternoon addresses housing shortfalls in various areas. I would like to move from the larger cities of our country to northern communities, in particular northern Ontario communities where there are also very great difficulties. I think of one such community in particular. It is Aroland near Nakina in the area of Geraldton where a de facto band has been hoping for a couple of years to be able to begin reserve establishment.
The determination of the Government not to provide funding to these bands which were given de facto recognition by the previous Minister, the now resigned Hon. Member for Rosedale, has exacerbated the housing situation in that community. This is one of the communities, to bring it more particularly to the point for the Minister to consider, where Frontiers Foundation has been at work in assisting in the rehabilitation of properties. The former Secretary of State had approaches from this foundation to obtain support for its administrative activity so that it could carry on the work of ensuring that rehabilitation went ahead in a context of being able to establish a reserve and to build the new houses that were wanted.
My question for the Minister arises from a refusal of the Government in these two areas. The first area is with respect to the refusal to fund new reserves. Second, there is the refusal to provide assistance to this voluntary, non-governmental organization that was doing something to meet the housing needs of aboriginal people which the Government was neglecting to meet.
Has the Minister paid any attention at all to the problems such as the ones being experienced at Aroland and other areas? I do not expect the Minister necessarily to pay a visit to Aroland to see the difficulties of persons who perch in their crude houses on the top of a sand dune on the northern CNR line through northern Ontario. Surely in case after case these are situations which cry out for action by the Government. Words in the House of Commons will not do it.
What has the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) in dealing with housing challenges in these small communities done to make any kind of difference at all?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member brings to our attention a geographical area of Canada which indeed has housing problems. There have been problems there for many years and there will be for a long period of time.
I was in the Northwest Territories about six weeks ago to visit smaller communities which are experiencing the difficulties that the Hon. Member has cited with a view to determining appropriate solutions in consultation and in co-operation
May 18, 1988

with local Government. Indeed, we took some initiatives in that particular regard.
The Elon. Member cited one agency, Frontiers Foundation. The situation of that particular group was brought to my attention some months ago, perhaps more than a year ago. It had some difficulties, in particular administrative difficulties. We had been supportive for a very long period of time but it had accepted certain obligations to deliver the programs with which they were entrusted and, unfortunately, were not able to respond. We will give money to groups which are able to deliver rural and native programs. They are identified as those which are prepared to accept direction and responsibility. They will receive funding on that type of basis.
In response to the wind-up of the Hon. Member's question, we will be undertaking at the end of this year a review of our rural and native housing programs for the last five years to determine in consultation with territorial and northern Governments, and in consultation with native and housing groups, whether the type of programs that we have in place are working effectively, or whether there should be amendments or new proposals which might be put in place for those who are the subject of this discussion.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I am one who comes from rural Ontario, north of the great metropolitan area of Toronto. I often feel that we as rural Ontarian people living in the central part of Ontario are having difficulty getting a fair share of funding for low income and seniors' housing. I know that the federal Government gives the Province of Ontario 60 per cent plus, probably sometimes, of the money to fund these projects. However, at the same time I question that share of those funds that rural Ontario people are getting. I have had this concern for some time. I thought that possibly we could see some change down the road.
This matter has been raised through service clubs in that their needs were not met by the Ministers in the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario which in my consideration carry about 100 per cent of the decision-making in respect to localities for housing.
We probably have to take a look, Mr. Minister, at the way the designation of housing is granted in consideration for people who have lived all their lives in rural Ontario where housing is less expensive than in the metropolitan and overcrowded areas. These rural people have no desire to move there. I am very concerned that their needs have not been given due consideration. I beg of the Minister to take this matter to his provincial colleagues to ask for more input in respect to the decisions made by different service clubs and non-profit organizations which want to share in rural Ontario and keep their people in the good life of Ontario.
I know that there is a long, drawn out process in respect to people in my area, central Ontario, in getting approvals. Too many of them have been overlooked in favour of the larger metropolitan areas. It is true that I know that there are a great
Supply
many people in great need, but why can we not encourage the people in the smaller communities to have affordable housing for their senior citizens, and not put more pressure on Toronto. They are used to a slower pace of life. Yet they are forced to move out to large communities, not always Metropolitan Toronto. I certainly urge the Minister to take a hard look at this matter. I know that I am not the only one who has run into it. It is not an isolated case.
I think that we should grant some rights to these people who enjoy the slower pace of life in the rural communities, large and small. That has been their chosen home over the years.
I am giving the Minister notice right now that it would be a fair choice in the decisions made for these people who want to live in the quieter parts of Ontario to have the same opportunities as the ones in the larger areas.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, as is the Hon. Member's custom, he adds considerable merit to the proposal which he brings to this particular debate. I wish to try to give him some assurance that there is a federal-provincial committee of officials who try to determine the priorities in any particular province where funds are going to be expended in any particular year.
The needs and direction may change from year to year. When people say: "You are cutting out a particular program, a RRAP program, a non-profit program, and we are not going to get as many units this year as last year", that is not quite fair. What we are saying is: "Perhaps you will not get as many units as last year because the priorities have changed. There are a number of other people in your province who have a greater need".
There is some flexibility. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the situation is being monitored, that the rural parts of Canada are very important to CMHC. I take the Hon. Member's advice. I am prepared to take a new look at the matter.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) that whether he wants to recognize it or not, there is a crisis in Canada over the availability of affordable housing. While I believe it is true across the country, I think the problem is not only apparent but very transparent when one looks at a place like Metropolitan Toronto. The Minister told us that he was proud of the fact that there had been an increase in housing starts across Canada in recent months. I am not going to dispute that, because that is the case. But I would ask the question: Who are those houses being built for? The average price of a resale house in Metropolitan Toronto shot up approximately $11,000 in the last month to a record high of approximately $224,000 for the cost of an average home in Metro Toronto.
I want to ask the Minister whether he travels in circles of people who have the type of salaries to buy that type of

May 18, 1988
Supply
housing. Prior to this debate I went into the library and dug out the home section of a Toronto daily issued last weekend. I wish to give you some idea of the type of prices that we are talking about in Metro Toronto, Mr. Speaker.
For a luxury town home at affordable prices, they only want the simple amount of $167,900. That is for a townhouse. If one has the income, one can have a house on a ravine lot in Scarborough for $277,990. If one does not like being too close to the City of Toronto, one can move out to Bramalea and buy a nice house there for a range of prices between $239,900 and $299,900. I am not talking about luxury homes, Mr. Speaker. If one does not like Bramalea, perhaps one can move to Brampton and buy a house for $189,900. If that is not suitable, one can move into Bayview and buy a house for $438,000. If these communities are not suitable, one can move around and go to a place called Leslie Valley. There one can buy a bargain house for $199,990.
One can also go to Dixon Road on Highway 2 or Dundas Street, and find a house there for $199,990. If one really wants a deal, one can move to Pickering and buy a house for $154,990. These are not luxury homes by any means. When the Minister states that because of the increase in housing starts across the country there is no housing crisis, he is deluding himself, but he is certainly not deluding Canadians who have to live with the situation.
I have talked about houses in Metropolitan Toronto costing around $200,000. In my own neck of the woods, and I am certainly not in an affluent neighbourhood of Toronto, houses cost anywhere around $300,000. These are resale homes. The average wage in Metropolitan Toronto is approximately $484 per week or $25,464 a year.
It defies logic and common sense to say that housing that is being constructed today is affordable to the average income earner in a place like the City of Toronto. In fact, for most couples who want to buy a house in Toronto, both people have to work. They better not have any kids because they will not be able to carry the house let alone put a down payment on the house. It is totally unrealistic for the Minister to use the type of argument which he used to dismiss the intent of this motion.
I do not want us to return to the days around August 29, 1947, when the City of Toronto ran advertisements in newspapers across Canada which stated:


WARNING
[Stage Direction]
ACUTE HOUSING SHORTAGE IN TORONTO, ONTARIO Notification is hereby given to non-residents of this City that there is no available housing accommodation here. This Corporation will assume no responsibility or provide any assistance in locating living quarters for any person contemplating moving to Toronto.
For your own comfort and convenience

[Stage Direction]
That was signed by the Mayor at that time, Robert Saunders, and the City Clerk at that time, J. W. Somers. That advertisement was run in newspapers on August 29, 1947.
The situation in Toronto is very similar today. My constituency office handles more calls from people asking for assistance to find affordable accommodation, whether it is a rooming house, an apartment, co-op housing units, or social housing run by the City of Metropolitan Toronto or the Ontario Government. I cannot help those people. There are no vacancies in Toronto. The vacancy rate in the City of Toronto is zero.
Approximately one month ago I received a letter from a woman who was a resident of Beaches for many years. Two years ago she moved to Cape Breton to look after her elderly mother. In that letter she stated that she was now ready to return to Toronto and wondered whether I could make any suggestions where she could apply for reasonable cost housing. I had to write back to that woman and seriously advise her that before she contemplated moving back to Toronto she attempt to find some housing, because there is absolutely none here.
In the City of Toronto a one bedroom apartment starts off at approximately $1,200 a month. A basement apartment in a house, which is usually not even two rooms, costs approximately $800 per month. One cannot find anything less. To make the argument that the Minister does that there is no crisis in housing defies belief, because there certainly is.
When I first was married I had every reasonable expectation that at some point I would be able to buy a house, and indeed I eventually did. Like most people, it was a struggle to begin with, but we managed. I do not know of too many young couples in Toronto who are starting off who can buy a home. In fact, it is becoming quite common when a young couple in Metropolitan Toronto get married that they move in with their parents and live in the parents' house rather than trying to find an apartment on their own, if they can afford the apartment to begin with. They certainly cannot afford a house when one looks at housing prices in the City of Toronto.
The Minister argued several minutes ago that an organization in Canada had conducted a study one winter night a year or so ago on the number of homeless in Canada that they could locate and found in total about 8,000 people who could be considered homeless in this country. I believe the Minister stated that the study was conducted on January 28, 1987. 1 have study after study where if one added up the numbers of homeless people who have been identified, not only in Toronto, but in Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, the numbers way surpass 8,000 individuals who could be considered homeless in Canada.
The Toronto Star recently ran an excellent article, and I suggest that the Minister get his hands on it. It may educate him. The article said, and it is absolutely right, that no one knows exactly how many homeless there are in Canada. That kind of study has never been conducted. What has been done is a number of studies in a number of major urban centres. Here
May 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
is what The Toronto Star had to say about a study done in Toronto:
Each day all of Metro's 2,500 hostel beds are occupied and social service
officials estimate that up to 20,0000 people rely on them annually.
About 20 hostels in Metro are run by charity groups with government
funding and there are special shelters for men, families and battered women.
The waiting list for government housing assistance has thousands of names.
I can attest to that. All you have to do is pick up the telephone and call City Homes, run by the City of Toronto, the Metro Housing Authority, or the Ontario Housing Authority and ask them how many people they have on waiting lists. It would knock your eye out. In fact, I call the number of people seeking affordable housing and unable to find it a national disgrace, especially when you consider that Canada is a signatory to the U.N. Declaration which recognizes that housing, like health care, education and the other things we take for granted, are in fact a necessity of life.
I could say a lot more about this. Unfortunately the Minister is not here but I could tell him, and he knows this full well, that there is absolutely no shortage of innovative ideas and concrete suggestions about what can be done to rectify the homeless problem we have. If implemented, these proposals could provide decent, affordable housing.
The Co-op Housing Federation, for example, have been complaining for a number of years that they entered into good faith negotiations with the Minister's officials, the Ministry committed itself to providing funding for 5,000 additional coop housing units a year, but it has never CQme through with that funding. It is well short. The Federation put forward a concrete set of proposals to provide alternative housing for people to move into co-op housing. That is an excellent form of housing if you cannot afford to buy. Even if you do not want to buy, it is an excellent form of housing in the sense of community it brings to people who live there.
I will just read quickly through the proposals the Federation made to the Government. They said the budget for co-op housing should be increased to raise production to 10,000 units per year. If the Government were to do that this year it probably would not cost a cent in extra money for co-op housing because it has not come through with the allocation for co-op housing it promised for the last couple of years. All the Government would be doing is carrying out the promise it made over the last couple of years.
On the question of affordability, the number of subsidies for low and modest income people in co-op housing should be increased so that co-ops can achieve an income mix reflecting the communities in which they are developed. Subsidies for low income people should be available for 40 per cent of all new units, and subsidies for modest income people, slightly above core need, should be available for 20 per cent of all units.
They also argue that a one time contribution of $20 million should be made to a CHF administered national land trust to be used to secure land for co-op housing development. They
Supply
also make the point, and I urge the Minister to give this a lot of consideration, that administration of co-operative housing units should be transferred from CMHC to the Co-operative Housing Foundation.
With respect to the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, they suggest housing co-ops be allowed access to federal rehabilitation programs which would be added to the basic co-op housing program. These would allow new co-ops to renovate more existing units at lower cost and provide them at lower charges. Any rent increases due to renovations should be phased in gradually so that existing tenants are not forced to leave. In the conversations I have had with the Federation they advised me that it would not cost the Government a red cent if it just shuffled some of that responsibility around and let the Federation carry on its own administration.
I just cannot understand how the Minister can come up with the arguments he has to minimize the housing crisis when you consider his own Department, CMHC, the main agency responsible for administering housing policy at the federal level, identified the three categories of families or individuals who have a core social housing need. This is the CMHC criteria:
Individuals or families paying 30 per cent or more of their gross income for rent and for whom the basic cost of a decent housing unit of suitable size in the market area represents 30 per cent or more of their income; households paying less than 30 per cent of their income on rent but living in housing that is too small or of poor quality and for whom the basic cost of a decent housing unit of suitable size in their market area represents 30 per cent or more of their income; households with a need for special purpose accommodation, such as the disabled, the elderly, female victims of violence, juvenile delinquents or individuals with alcohol or drug problems and requiring special services.
You could take all that criteria and apply it to a place like Metropolitan Toronto and it fits. The Department's own criteria says there is a housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, for all the reasons I mentioned previously.
I see I have about two minutes left and I want to use them to say that while housing is a very serious matter for most Canadians and their families, it is a special problem for single parent families which are usually headed by a woman. They are the ones who suffer most in this housing crisis. It is that area which needs immediate attention. From what I can see of the Minister's policies, that problem is not being addressed.
Very quickly I would make the argument again that you can argue all you want about housing starts increasing across Canada in the last couple of years but it does not mean anything if you happen to live in Metropolitan Toronto, earning the average wage I spoke of, about $25,000 a year. Those kinds of figures are meaningless to these people. What is really required is for the federal Government to step in and make Crown lands such as the Downsview Airport, available for affordable housing construction. There are all kinds of
[Stage Direction]
May 18, 1988
Supply
groups willing to lend assistance and technical know how to do that. An innovative, imaginative group of people are out there. All it will take is the political will on the part of the Government to provide leadership and allow them to go ahead and do the job required.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this debate which the Opposition motion is affording Members of the Efouse even though it makes the characteristic error of attributing the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto to the federal Government. Common sense itself should show, as I regret the last speaker did not indicate, that there is a greater spread of government responsibility over all three levels of Government. Much of the fault lies in the private sector itself. It is absolutely essential that the Government and the House of Commons in general address the problem of housing in our major urban centres because it is necessary to the social well-being of our country.
I have just a moment or two in the time allowed for comments by Members, nevertheless I would like to suggest that we have the potential for a very positive housing policy if we address ourselves to such proposals as the ones I have time only to itemize. I hope to elaborate upon them when I have the chance for a fuller debate in Private Members' Hour some time within the next few weeks on this same subject. I would like my neighbour and friend to join in that debate.
For example, we need a greater incentive for apartment construction. The only way we can drive rents down in an urban centre like Metro Toronto is by getting a greater supply of apartments. Second, we need the province to review the number of approvals and the cost of approvals needed for a development which drive the price of development up and which is then added to the cost of housing. Third, we need to provide some opportunity for people living in social housing as tenants to obtain ownership of their accommodation. That opportunity has been given in other countries and has been successful. We need to look at it here.
We need some way of addressing the problem of house value speculation by private citizens and companies. Governments have tackled it in the past with some success. We need in this highly inflationary, this explosively inflationary, period of housing prices to make that a priority. We need also to look at the way in which Governments can use land under government control, but not when Canada Mortgage and Housing and the authorities of the Province of Ontario act as if they are private developers themselves, interested primarily in the bottom line. The process of distributing government land to persons who build houses for purchase and who will acquire it for themselves should be done in a way that does not drive up prices in a speculative manner.
I would like some attention to be given, perhaps speakers later in this debate will do so, to a method used successfully by
the federal and provincial Governments a few years ago, namely, to lease land on which houses were constructed so that a low-income person who wanted to own his own house could buy the house and lease the land for a period of time. Later he or she would have an opportunity, when finances were better, to acquire the land. There are ways by which Governments at all three levels can act on behalf of a person who has limited resources now and who is being crowded out of the housing market and unfortunately out of the rental market as well.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I took it that the Hon. Member was commenting rather than asking a question. I welcome his comments. I tried to be extremely careful to be non-partisan in the course of my speech.
I really believe that the solutions to the housing crisis do not belong to one level of Government. I would make the argument that while Governments can play a major role and provide the means to resolve the housing crisis, I do not think that Governments can do it on their own. When they have tried in the past, very often things have been a mess. Housing construction has taken place at the local level for all the wrong reasons, very often for political reasons and not to serve a need.
A lot of individuals and groups have been involved in providing alternative housing sources over the years. We should be asking them for innovative ideas because they have them. Ideas are best supplied by people who understand the community and who want to provide solutions. I have no objection to one of the suggestions made that perhaps land could be leased by an individual for some period of time until that individual finds himself or herself hopefully in a circumstance whereby he or she could purchase that land. That proposal should be looked at seriously.
This is one of those issues that comes before the House of Commons periodically, not often enough unfortunately, that is non-partisan in nature. This problem affects people across Canada regardless of who represents them politically. It is in that vein that if I offered any criticism in this debate at all, it was against CMHC for not carrying through with its obligations which were made through consultation and negotiation with one of the major groups having expertise in providing alternative housing in Canada. CMHC has not followed through with that commitment and as a result, rather than becoming a part of the solution, CMHC has become a part of the problem and I think that is extremely sad indeed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that a Conservative Member, and NDP Member and some Liberal Members all agree on the importance of a national housing policy, and I think I share the views of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I really believe that the Government has really missed the boat during the International Year for the Homeless.
Home rehabilitation programs in Montreal in working class districts such as mine are inadequate, and I should like to
May 18, 1988

know if the situation is the same in the Eton. Member's own riding. I know that in Montreal, with the new housing cooperative policy, the people in the tenement sections whose incomes are around $12,000, $15,000 and $20,000 are penalized.
It is because CMHC is telling these people that their incomes are too high, and they are not entitled to grants and that it has to operate according to the market income. Well, automatically, these people are excluded. Which means that the co-operative program, as delivered on the basis of the share provided by the Federal government is for people who are either very poor or somewhat better off and who can go ahead.
Well, I should like to know if in his own riding, in other areas-I know that in Toronto and Montreal, they have the same problem-but I should like to know if in his region, the people are in the same position as the working men and women of average means who are penalized because they cannot be eligible to grants under this program.


Neil Young: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. One of the problems identified by administrators and committees in co-op housing units is the rather rigid rules under which CMHC requires units to operate. It is specified they can only have so many low-income people in a project. In order to provide adequate funding on an ongoing basis for a project, they have to bring in more higher-income people to subsidize it. It is untenable and too rigid. This was part of the program when funding for co-op housing was introduced a few years ago.
I think the whole administrative attitude toward co-op housing needs to be revised radically. That is why I support one of the proposals from the Co-op Housing Federation, namely, that it be allowed to administrate its projects. They are democratic organizations, supported very strongly by people who have lived in co-op housing. They like that kind of housing. It provides them with a real community unit within the larger community. I think it is time that officials at CMHC sat down with the leaders of the co-op housing movement and listened to the suggestions that have been made to them to improve an already good system, though it is good only in the sense that the people in the co-op housing movement have made it a good system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate. With the consent of the House, the Chair would propose that we proceed in the following way: As there are 25 minutes left in debate, if the House agrees, the time will be shared equally between the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague opposite for giving me an opportunity to provide an update on
Supply
the Government's activities in social housing. For almost three years now, the Government has endeavoured to use more efficiently the programs and moneys available to address the serious problems affecting close to one million Canadian households.
Hon. Members may recall that in November of 1985, my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), announced a global strategy that the Government would adopt in order to systematically address the housing problems of the most impoverished members of society. This strategy consists of several phases.
First, we wanted the different levels of Government to honour their efforts toward a common objective. Second, we wanted to concentrate the expenses for social housing on those whose needs were the greatest, those who are not able to find decent housing without having to spend more than 30 per cent of their incomes. Third, we wanted to introduce improved programs to ensure that housing needs of the households served are fully satisfied.
I would like to insist on the importance of the word "strategy", since in fact we are taking the first steps toward a national policy. The results of this policy can already be measured, and that is what I would like to talk about in the time available to me this afternoon.
My opposition colleague accuses the Government of being inconsistent. If we were to believe what we hear, the policy adopted by the Government shows that there is no national policy.
Would you consider it inconsistent, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to target its efforts toward the poor? Is there any inconsistency in the fact that for the first time in the history of social housing in Canada, a Government has taken measures to control the eligibility for programs so that the neediest Canadians in the worst housing conditions can at last find decent housing? Would you consider the fact that all levels of Government were invited to join hands in fighting the problems afflicting those in need as not having a vision for a national policy?
It is the needy who should answer these questions. It is the homeless who benefit from the new initiatives of the Government. Very little was available to them before.
My colleague from the Opposition blames the Government for its lack of leadership. Is it possible that she does not know the difference between leadership and loud publicity? The federal Government works hard and often in a discreet way in housing. Maybe she would prefer it if my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, were to announce with much publicity how the Government has managed to integrate thousands of needy families into new communities. She might also want the Minister to mention the success of the Renovation Assistance Program in the cities, towns and villages across Canada.

May 18, 1988
Supply
The results are there to attest to the Government's leadership. Since 1986 when the new federal-provincial agreements and the new social programs were implemented, the Government has practically doubled the rate at which traditional forms of social housing provide assistance to Canadians to meet their core housing needs. This means that almost twice as many needy households are now being provided with new units, twice as many households assisted for the same total expenditure. If this cannot be qualified as effectiveness, I really do not know how else to describe this unprecedented success.
We are talking here about single-parent families, elderly people living in very poor housing conditions, families who have to spend large sums of money on housing out of proportion to their incomes in order to provide their children with suitable housing conditions. These are the people our programs have addressed.
The Government, which some try to blame for not providing leadership, has succeeded to such an extent that the previous Government would be envious of it. It is not on this Government that the blame must be put but rather on previous Governments for having waited so long to offer assistance to those most in need.
The Government is accused of having delegated its powers, of having abandoned its responsibilities, of having lost control of the national housing file. This is simply not true. The Government has not abandoned its responsibilities. On the contrary, it has acted in a responsible fashion and has entered into a dialogue with the provinces, a dialogue which is producing positive results.
For over two years now, the federal and provincial Governments have worked together to solve housing problems jointly. Rather than limiting its influence to federal expenditures, the Government now also has the opportunity to impact provincial expenditures. Not only has the Government been successful in influencing how the provinces spend their funds, it has also succeeded in convincing the provinces to substantially increase the amounts of funding to assist the homeless.
We know that there is still work to be done. Many voices are crying out for assistance from all levels of Government. The challenge is not small and the energy invested by the Government attests to its concern to act to provide assistance as rapidly as possible to the greatest number possible, but dedicating those funds and those actions to those who are most in need.
I see that my time is running short. The Government is receiving feedback from the people of Canada in order to make sure that the policies meet the needs of the people. The Government's leadership may be shown in many ways, but the most eloquent way is certainly that this leadership is based on national consensus. This is precisely what the Government has been successful in doing for almost three years now.
Every year the Government spends a considerable amount of money to alleviate the housing problems of Canadians. Each year over 50,000 additional families benefit from various forms of assistance offered to people in need. These amounts do not take into account the more than $1.5 billion already earmarked each year to reduce rents to an affordable level for families. Facts speak for themselves. They show a commitment to social justice and development for all Canadians. The housing policy of the Government has been well designed and is now yielding benefits.
My hon. colleague opposite who introduced the motion today said in closing her remarks: "Wait until the day after the next election for the Liberal Government to pick up the pieces of the previous Government's housing policy". The day after the next election, this Government will be here on this side of the House, and it will continue its housing policy. On that day, we will find fewer people in need because of the actions of this Government today.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate because it concerns a very fundamental aspect of the Canadian economy, the need for housing. I wish to compliment my colleague for introducing this motion today. It gives us a clear opportunity to debate some of the substantive aspects of the housing policy or the lack of housing policy in Canada.
One aspect of the issue which has caught my interest and the interest of my constituents as well as the interest of many Canadians is the lack of support the Government has provided to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The previous speaker said that there are a number of Canadians who have innovative ideas with regard to housing policy.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, for the benefit of Members opposite, was a program introduced by the Government of Canada in 1973 under a Liberal Government. One would have to concede that it was followed up by the Clark Government for a short period of time. We would have hoped that it would not only have been followed up on beyond 1984, but indeed expanded upon between 1984 and 1988. The exact opposite has occurred.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program was started by the federal Government to encourage the upgrading of substandard dwellings, especially those occupied by low to moderate income earners-I wish to emphasize low to moderate income earners-in order to improve and maintain the existing housing stock. Eligible home owners and landlords were entitled to receive partly forgivable loans for admissible renovation costs.
Look at the market for this particular program. Does it assist home owners in the urban centres of this country who make in excess of $100,000 or $150,000? Is it a program which assists Canadians who make in excess of $50,000 or
May 18, 1988

$40,000? No, it was a program directed to low-income earners, individuals on pensions and various fixed incomes.
The example I will provide for the House today is a rather telling story of what the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has done in his own native Province of Nova Scotia. The officials of his Department will tell you that there has never been a program of the federal Government under Canada Mortgage and Housing which has been more successful for those in need than the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, for both urban and rural communities across Atlantic Canada. However, nowhere has that program been more successful than in Nova Scotia.
The Government ought to be ashamed of its record on the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. As a Nova Scotian and one of the political Ministers from Nova Scotia, the Minister responsible should be ashamed. He should be even more ashamed that he has substantially cut the budgets under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program.
For example, I do not know why a Member of Parliament representing Halifax would have it in for the people of New Glasgow, but the budget for that particular municipality has been cut back since 1987 from $207,000. The forecast budget for 1988 is $126,000. This program does not throw money away. It is needed by many Canadians. In fact, this program provides provisional financial assistance to those in need, extends the life of existing housing stocks, promotes the acceptable level of maintenance of such stocks, and improves substandard housing to an agreed upon level of health and safety standards.
Those are the over-all objectives of the program. Yet, the political Minister from Nova Scotia is telling municipalities which need this money to improve their housing stocks that he is sorry but the Government is not going to provide that financial assistance to low income earners or people on fixed incomes.
It does not stop at New Glasgow. I do not know why the Minister from Halifax would have it in for the people of Pictou but the reduction there is from $113,000 in 1987 to $67,000 in 1988. The Town of Truro is a great community with an enthusiastic population. Its budget in 1987 was only $207,000, but in 1988 the Minister from Halifax reduced that to $126,000.
There are many similarities between the Town of Springhill and the area which I represent. In 1987 it was allotted $198,000 and the initial budget forecast for 1988 indicates $123,000. Granted, the Town of Amherst does not have the numerous restaurants or the convention centre which Halifax has, but it does have its share of low income Canadians and Canadians on fixed incomes who are in need of upgrading their housing. Their budget has been reduced from $293,000 in 1987 to $185,000.
This is a wonderful political Minister from Nova Scotia. He is doing a phenomenal job for low income Canadians and
Supply
people on fixed incomes in the Province of Nova Scotia. He should do the honourable thing and ask for a change of portfolio. This is a shameful performance.
What about the area which I represent and Cape Breton Island as a whole? I repeat, for the benefit of Members who are present as well as those who are watching on television, that this particular program is needed on Cape Breton Island. In 1984 the previous Liberal Government provided the municipal units on Cape Breton Island approximately $6,763,460, almost $7 million. Now, under a Conservative Government in Nova Scotia, a Conservative Government in Ottawa, the political Minister from Nova Scotia has told the people in Cape Breton that for 1988 they will be allocated only $1.7 million.
There is a tremendous need, Mr. Speaker. There is a backlog of applications from low income Canadians and Canadians on fixed incomes in that area of the country who need this assistance in order to improve their housing stock. The Conservative Government and the political Minister from Nova Scotia have cut, cut, cut to an all-time high.
What has the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) said to low-income Canadians and people on fixed incomes who want assistance under this particular program? He has said nothing. He has demonstrated that both he and the political Minister do not have the will or foresight to secure the necessary funds from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in order to provide those Canadians with financial assistance to make the repairs which are absolutely necessary. My colleague, the Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has said that his constituents will deal with him in the next election.
The City of Sydney was allocated $563,000 in 1987. That has been decreased by 16 per cent to $350,000 in 1988. That is utterly shameful.
Richmond County, which is represented partly by the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and partly by myself, has had its budget slashed by 17 per cent from 1987 to 1988. In Cape Breton County in excess of 1,000 applicants are seeking money under this program and they have been slashed by 17 per cent as well, down from $763,000 in 1987 to $447,000 in 1988.
The list goes on and on in terms of the cut-back on a program that has been exceptionally successful. It was successful because it focused on people on pension and low income Canadians. These are people unlike the Minister, who makes in excess of $100,000, but make from $10,000 to $13,000 a year. They are not your Texaco president or Royal Bank president.
These are average Canadians trying to get along in their daily life, and it would be so much easier with a little assistance from the Government of Canada. Yet they are being told

May 18, 1988
Supply
that they cannot have this assistance because the Conservative Government of Canada and the Minister responsible say they are not a priority. The Government's priorities lie with the banks and the big multinational drug companies.
I know that you are a man of reason, Mr. Speaker, one who would want to place the taxpayer's money in the hands of those who need it most. Why does the Government refuse to acknowledge your wisdom? Why does it refuse to provide the necessary funds to Canadians with fixed pensions or low income and need some form of financial assistance, whether they be in the town of Dominion or Glace Bay?
I hope that municipal leaders will speak out. In 1987, RRAP funds amounted to $401,000. There was a reduction of $146,000 in 1988, down to $255,000. That is absolutely criminal. I am confident that the municipal authorities in that area will speak out loudly and clearly to impress upon the Government the many problems they are experiencing with their program.
My colleague raises a fundamental question. What about those other programs that were successful, such as the Canada Elome Insulation Program and the Canada Oil Substitution Program? There are no programs. There is a program for those who have all sorts of money. The Municipality and County of Halifax has been cut adrift by the sleepy Conservative Members of Parliament who have said absolutely nothing with regard to this program.
I can understand why the Minister is not here. He does not want to hear the truth. He does not want to hear the realities that are taking place in Nova Scotia. That is why he is not here and participating in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the Member skip the reference to the Minister.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very relevant and germane to our debate. But in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it ought to be remembered by one and all that the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program was a very effective program for low income earners in Canada and those on fixed pensions. It was a very successful program. The Conservative Government and the Minister responsible have purposely, intentionally and deliberately told those Canadians that they are not a priority and have slashed funds substantially, as we saw in Cape Breton.
I hope all Members will support my colleague who introduced this motion in condemning the Government for its very regressive and insensitive programs relating to the housing stock in this country. I can only say to those Members who support these drastic cut-backs to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program that they will be remembered in the next federal election by those Canadians who are being denied that opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions between the Parties and tomorrow the debate on Meech Lake will begin. The official spokesperson for the Government and the Official Opposition will have unlimited time. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party to have at least 45 minutes for her speech.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.﻿15609
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers