1990-06-06

Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to halt the deportation of Mr. Jayantha Ilanderidewa, a refugee claimant from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is one of the most violent countries in the world. As many as 20,000 people have been killed in that country in the last year. Many areas, particularly in the south where this man comes from, look like ghost towns.
Five members of Mr. Ilanderidewa's family have already been killed in the strife in that country. He has lost two brothers, two uncles and a cousin for their involvement with the JVP, the People's Liberation Front.
A Sri Lankan M.P. and human rights activist was recently shot dead outside the Canadian embassy. He was calling to arrange a visa for a speaking trip to Britain and North America.
The government should not be deporting people to Sri Lanka. I ask the minister to reconsider her decision.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House that 46 years ago today was D-Day in Europe. June 6, 1944, D-Day,
will always remain a memorable date in the history of the world.
Canadians can take pride in the knowledge that our services were a major part in this largest ever armada. Over 15,000 Canadians, a fifth of the total allied invasion force, established themselves on the Normandy beaches. Our army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force all played notable roles in the invasion.
As a country we can also take some comfort in the knowledge that the lessons learned during the disastrous Dieppe raid saved many lives on D-Day.
Canada suffered over 1,000 casualties on D-Day. The 5,400 Canadian graves in Normandy tell of the tough times that were to follow during the inland drive.
Mr. Speaker, 46 years ago the prospect of freedom came ashore in Normandy. Let us never forget those who were there for us on that day.


LITERACY
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the Southam Literacy Survey found that 45 per cent of those 65 or older have low literacy skills.
Although this is a shocking figure, we learned last week that the problem is much more serious. Statistics Canada revealed that 65 per cent of older Canadians have only fair to poor literacy skills.
Illiterate seniors may not be able to understand the directions for taking their medication. They may be unable to find the right bus, or an important phone number in the telephone book, or be unable to manage their own bank accounts.
Illiterate seniors must rely on a network of friends and family for assistance. When the support network breaks down they may find themselves unable to cope with their daily survival, resulting in premature institutionalization.

June 6, 1990
Why this lack of literacy skills among older Canadians? Not because they are unable to learn, Mr. Speaker, but because existing literacy programs too often neglect the special needs of older learners.
We have a responsibility to our seniors to address their specific literacy needs. One Voice, The Seniors' Network, is developing a national literacy strategy for older Canadians to be completed by the fall.
I urge this Elouse to ensure the implementation of that strategy.


LE PAVOIS
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, to many of us, schizophrenia means little, but it is a very serious illness whose causes are insufficiently known, and it creates tremendous problems for its victims and their families.
It is an illness that many people do not understand and it is also frightening, and because of that, people are reluctant to get involved with those suffering from schizophrenia.
Last week, in my riding of Quebec-Est, I visited a new community agency founded by a woman directly concerned by the problem of mental illness, who works very hard to rehabilitate patients.
Le Pavois is, first of all, a psycho-social club where a person suffering from this disease can meet fellow sufferers. Together, under the skilfull direction of a social worker and three specialized group leaders provided under the federal government's Job Development Program, these people work to regain the self-confidence they have lost as a result of their illness, and they learn skills that will eventualy help them return to the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, this work deserves our admiration and should be supported in every way possible.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed goods and services tax will apply to public utilities commissions, thereby adding an additional 7 per cent on electricity bills. Canadians view electricity as a right and not just as a service. Electricity is as much a necessity as water, groceries, sewer services and garbage collection and, therefore, should not be taxed.
Public utilities commissions have predicted that the proposed goods and services tax, combined with their normal rate increases, will push electricity bills up by 15 per cent or more in 1991 in the riding of Kenora-Rainy River.
Consumers will already be faced with a barrage of increases as a result of the proposed goods and services tax. As a basic, necessary service, electricity should be exempt from the proposed GST. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax should be scrapped entirely.
I call on the government to scrap the proposed goods and services tax and if it refuses to do the honourable thing, then I would suggest that it identify electricity as a necessity of life and therefore exempt it from this inflationary tax.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, even as I speak Canada's Prime Minister and the 10 premiers are meeting in a last-ditch effort to resolve some of our constitutional differences. Most Canadians are conscious of the dangers that face our country should these 11 leaders fail in their task.
However, one of my constituents, Don Armstrong, Secretary-Treasurer of the Boissevain Legion, perhaps said it best when he in a recent open letter implored me to do my personal utmost "to halt the current trend toward the disintegration of Canada". He went on to state: "Stop those who are doing so from only thinking and talking in terms of deadlines, 'inevitable results' and 'regional realities'. Stop them from thinking in terms of re-election and party policies. Rather, publicly encourage the idea of Canada the nation, Canada the strong, united country, a world symbol of opportunity, bounty and tolerance."
In closing, I want to add my voice to those thousands of others who plead with those meeting just a few hundred yards away to remember that they must be Canadians first and politicians second. The future of Canada depends on those who lead today.
June 6, 1990


NUTRITIONAL HEALTH
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to meet with members of the Canadian Dietetic Association which represents more than 4,500 dietitians dedicated to helping Canadians toward better health.
They are concerned that Canadians are faced with food insecurity through shortages and limitations of choice. The CDA made hunger a priority issue. Food banks are the best evidence of food shortages.
According to the report released yesterday by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, there are 2.8 million adults, many single-parent families headed by women, and over one million Canadian children living in poverty in 1986.
The CDA points out that there is a lack of information regarding many different aspects of the nutritional value and food intakes of the poor.
There is a growing recognition of the role of nutrition in the promotion of health and treatment of disease. Limited access to food can have a detrimental effect on physical and mental health.
I urge this government to take immediate action to adopt and promote the goal of food security for all Canadians and to combat the growing feminization of poverty.


PARTAGE HUMANITAIRE
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, more than 1,200 people attended the annual benefit supper of Partage humanitaire. Established in 1971, this non-profit agency, the oldest local agency of its kind in Laval, focuses exclusively on senior citizens and the handicapped. Mrs. Pierrette Patenaude, member of the Laval executive committee, was one of the agency's most committed and energetic founding members. General manager of Partage humanitaire from 1982 to 1990, Mrs. Patenaude is now honorary chairman, leaving Mrs. Carmelle Lefebvre as general manager.
S. ft 31
The services of this agency, enjoyed by more than
1,000	people in 28 institutions, are provided by 16 group leaders and about 350 casual volunteer workers-that in a nutshell, represents Partage humanitaire and its community involvement during the past year.
I am proud to see that the federal government supports this outstanding humanitarian cause through its job development programs.
Thank you, Partage humanitaire, and our thanks you to all those who make it possible!


THE SENATE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I must voice my profound frustration with the actions of the Senate. Prior to 1984, there was only one incident of Senate obstruction. Since 1984, the Liberal-controlled Senate has blocked two supply bills, held up drug patent legislation, refugee legislation and a copyright bill.
More recently, the Senate has delayed the passage of the unemployment insurance bill for almost seven months. It has delayed the passage of Bill C-28 for close to six months. When the Senate received the GST bill, it decided to take a three week vacation. I have no doubt that with its return, active stalling will begin in earnest.
As part of the elected Parliament, I feel it impossible to fulfil my duties to my constituents when my attempts to carry out their wishes are continually frustrated by the other place. There must be Senate reform and it must come soon.


SOVIET PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Spasibo, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to welcome the parliamentary delegation of the Supreme Soviet led by Rafik Nishanov, Chairman of the Soviet Nationalities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
This visit is part of a regular exchange program between the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Soviet. It follows the visit of last August to the Soviet

June 6, 1990
Oral Questions
Union by a Canadian parliamentary delegation led by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate.
I am particularly pleased to welcome the delegation because, together with my colleagues on the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, I visited Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev a month ago. During the course of that visit, the committee was treated with the greatest warmth and hospitality. Moreover, we found that our often probing questions and critical comments were responded to with openness and candour.
I think I can speak for all my colleagues in the House of Commons when I say that we applaud the new era of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union. Moreover, we recognize the obligation to undertake the new thinking about relations between our two countries, the future of east-west relations and our common responsibility for the fate of the planet. Again, a warm welcome to the House of Commons and to Canada.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, we have a first for the corporate welfare bum of the week. A winner by acclamation. It is the privatized Route Canada, and its friends in the Conservative government. The Mulroney government sold the $100 million company for $29 million in 1986.
Route Canada was sold to Manfred Ruhland, the Road Warrior, and Dave and Paul Fingold, capitalists without capital. The cabinet knew that Mr. Ruhland was such a credit risk that he could not even get a credit card. The buyers of Route Canada never put up a penny of their own money. They just took out a mortgage on the land owned by the company. Soon after buying the company without spending a penny, Mr. Ruhland went on a spending spree, using Route Canada money to send his family to Austria and his mother's dogs to Italy.
The company went bankrupt 20 months after the sale. For throwing 1,900 people out of work, Route Canada is the corporate welfare bum of the week, with credit going to the federal cabinet.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
It was reported today in The Globe and Mail, "Report on Business" by Ken Romain that, "shackled by high interest rates which are biting deep, car sales by the North American manufacturers fell by 22 per cent" in the month of May, compared to a year ago. This is the fourth straight month that auto sales have declined.
Why will the Minister not recognize that the automotive industry, a key sector of our economy, is being seriously damaged by this government's economic policies? When will the minister bring in policies that will reverse this decline, rather than encourage it and make it worse?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would do the country a greater service if he would point at what the true causes of the interest rate policy that we have been following are. That is the underlying cost pressure in the economy, as set out yesterday in a study from Wood Gundy, which is very consistent with the message that I have been making to the House through committees and speeches across the country. We must get our underlying cost structure under control.
I remind the hon. member that in 1989, our unit labour cost, which is the broadest measure of our competitive position, increased by 4.9 per cent at the beginning of the year and by 6.9 per cent at the end of the year. Throughout 1989, the American unit labour cost increase was 4.9 per cent and it was a good deal less in Japan and Germany.
These are the things we are faced with. We must get these competitive cost structures under control in order to save jobs in the country.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this same Wood Gundy report pointed out that the government's high dollar policy is one of the key
June 6, 1990

reasons for any loss of competitiveness we are suffering. The government's own policy is causing the problem.
Auto makers like Bill Atkinson, vice-president of sales at GM Canada, are pointing the finger at the government's high interest rate policy. He said that "because of continued high interest rates, GM had expected a further softening of the market."
Othmar Stein of Chrysler Canada, said that interest rates and the softening economy are "spooking car buyers-Canadians are getting nervous, and they are hedging their bets."
Why does the Minister want to see automotive plants like Kelsey-Hayes in Windsor shutting down? When is he going to bring in economic policies that will create automotive jobs in Canada and not destroy them as his policies are doing right now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to take exception and correct what the hon. member said in the preamble to his question. He said that the primary reason is the increase in the Canadian dollar. That is not so. That is not what Wood Gundy said.
They point out that compensation per person/hour rose by 8.2 per cent last year, a 6.5 per cent point premium over productivity gains, and the growth gap widened noticeably in 1989. They point out that the gap between compensation and productivity has widened steadily since 1985.
Throughout this whole report, the focus is the cost increases, not the level of the Canadian dollar. They talk about an alarming loss of competitiveness. This continual higher cost growth in Canada has led to a dramatic decline in our competitiveness. For the business sector as a whole, Canada's advantage in U.S. dollar denominated unit labour costs has shrunk from nearly 20 per cent in 1986 to only 5 per cent in 1989. It is-


An hon. member:: We can read.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says he can read. I would hope that he would read and learn.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I quote from the Wood Gundy report:
The rise in the Canadian dollar has, of course, heightened even further the difficulty in which Canadian business now finds itself.
The minister wants to make the situation worse by the added cost to the economy of the GST.

Mr. Speaker, the government wants Canadians to believe that the economy is in good shape. However, our manufacturing sector has lost 70,000 jobs since January. Last year, our trade surplus fell by more than 50 per cent. Finally, during the first quarter, the bankruptcy rate rose by 29 per cent.
I have the following question for the Minister of Finance: When will he introduce economic policies that will boost the economy, not strangle it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we listen very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said, he was drawing conclusions based on the symptoms of the problem. I do not question the symptoms of the problem. Our job as a government is to deal with the cause of the problem.


An hon. member:: You are the cause of the problem.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The cause of the problem as set out very clearly by the Wood Gundy study is the growing loss of competitiveness in the Canadian economy. The loss of competitiveness is related directly to the increasing cost structure, primarily wages, in the Canadian manufacturing sectors.
Since 1986, manufacturing costs in Canada have risen 10 per cent faster than in the United States and Germany, and 20 per cent faster than in Japan. If we do not get these costs under control in Canada, we will suffer a further loss.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, as my leader did yesterday, to keep us and the nation informed of devel-

June 6, 1990
Oral Questions
opments at the Conference Centre with respect to the constitutional question.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, and as was indicated by all first ministers coming out of their sessions yesterday, there has been some progress on a number of issues. There still remain a number of difficult issues to be undertaken. While there has been progress on some individual items, it is such that, until such time as there is a broad agreement on the package, the deal will not be consummated.
The report I received just before coming into the House is that the work is ongoing, the mood is excellent, and the First Ministers are working hard. It is hoped progress can continue today. At an appropriate time, when all the issues can be agreed upon and a package consummated, hopefully we will then be able to accept the good news. That is our hope.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, fully understanding the reservations that the Deputy Prime Minister has and the reasons for them, I want to ask if he can nevertheless give some details about any agreements which may have been reached about the possible composition of a reformed, elected Senate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer to the statements made in the press which I believe are a fair reflection. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any one specific or given issue because I think it is fair to say that, until such time as there is agreement on a broad range of issues, all First Ministers are not prepared to sign any package.
While I would like to be as helpful as I possibly can, I think the hon. member will realize the dynamics of the discussions are such that things change minute by minute. But, I repeat, there is a very firm and strong commitment in that room to put the unity of the nation first. The negotiations are going very well. They are working very hard and I am confident, given the mood I discern, that there will be a successful outcome. I am
sure that is a view shared by all hon. members of the House.


SALARIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the minister said "we must all fight inflation by reducing underlying cost pressures that push up prices. The greatest of these pressures by far is wage costs".
Why is the minister attacking wage costs, which actually fell in real terms by 3.4 per cent over the 1980s, instead of going after bonus increases of $40,000 to $80,000 to senior executives in crown corporations such as CN or instead of attacking Governor Crow's increase of $40,000 to $93,000? Is it right that the rich get so much richer and the poor, the working people of the country, get hammered again and again?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the hon. member's attention the level of salary increases throughout the Public Service. The broad averages have been 4 per cent to 4.2 per cent, as well as in the senior levels of the Public Service, the deputy minister level. Ministers and members of Parliament have had salary increases of 1 per cent less than the inflation rate during the last seven, eight, or nine-year period. The federal government itself, I believe, has shown very clear leadership in the battle against inflation.
The hon. member has referred to certain Crown corporations. He knows quite well that the rules for increase in remuneration of Crown corporations are related to the comparability of the senior employees of those crown corporations to the private sector. They are subject to review by an appointed advisory committee that has been in place for the last eight or ten years. I believe this is a legitimate way of arriving at salary levels of senior executives of crown corporations.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. If we look, for instance, at a recent study by Towers Perrin of top executives throughout the world, we see that, in fact, Canadian top
June 6, 1990

executives are the second highest paid throughout the world with an average salary of over $400,000 per year.

I want to ask the minister whether he thinks it is fair to put the blame on Canadian workers, when such high salary increases are being given to people in the top jobs in this country. I think the minister will agree this is not fair.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not attacking Canadian workers. What I am pointing out to all Canadians is that if we allow our cost structure as a country to get out of line in relation to our main competing trading partners, then it will cost us business-business in the export markets and in competing against imports.
I am only making this point to draw to the attention of Canadians that if our competitive position gets out of line, we will lose business, and as we lose business we will lose jobs.
It is in the interests of all Canadians to contribute to getting our cost structure in line with our competitors so that we can have a healthy outlook for our economy, create more jobs, create a better standard of living and create a better way of life for Canadians.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance object to the salary increases paid executives like the President of Bell Canada Enterprises, who got a 9 per cent increase, or $100, 000 per year, and the President of Alcan, David Morton, who got a 15 per cent increase or $152,000? Why do workers always get the short end of the stick?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member had listened carefully to what I said, he would understand that I have been talking about the over-all cost structure. That includes wages, salaries, the salaries of people at senior levels in these corporations, as well as pricing policies.
Oral Questions
It is important in all elements of the cost structure of the economy that we take into account the fact that over the last two or three years we have become less and less competitive. Until we get that competitive position in line with our major competition, we are going to suffer as a country because of the fact that we will be losing jobs and business. That is certainly not in the interests of any Canadian.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question directed is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Before he was given Route Canada by the government, Manfred Ruhland did not have the financial stability to get a credit card. Yet, after he was given Route Canada by the government, within a week he took his family on a $17,500 vacation to Austria, paid for by Route Canada. Following soon thereafter were more vacations, expensive cars, two boats and a $3.5 million plane, all paid for by Route Canada.
Why did the government give Route Canada to Manfred Ruhland when it should have known that by doing so these abuses would occur?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, that is straight out of The Toronto Star, and my hon. friend knows it.
He knows that the assets were sold by CN after an investigation of the financial abilities of the Fingold brothers. That is also in the records, if he wants to check.
There was no gift, none whatsoever. It was sold as a going concern to the Fingold brothers. That is exactly the way it happened. Any other suggestion is absolutely incorrect, and my friend knows it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Manfred Ruhland talked to the government a month and a half before the Fingold's came into the picture. The government did a credit check on Manfred Ruhland before the sale. The government passed an Order in Council approving the sale.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: CN did not put this deal together, the government did. CN did not even know that Manfred Ruhland was involved.

June 6, 1990
Oral Questions
Why does the government say that the employees of Route Canada who lost their jobs-and many of whom lost their homes, their trucks and their futures, not to mention the taxpayers of Canada-have no right to know why the government gave this company to Manfred Ruhland?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government sold assets with a market value of about $50 million to $55 million, and received $29 million for them. Those assets were producing a grand loss per year of $30 million to $40 million. You can only do that for so long before you run out of taxpayers' money.
Therefore it was sold by CN as a going concern to a company formed by the Fingold Brothers in an effort to make those jobs continue. The jobs did not. They went bankrupt, and that is a fact.
My hon. friend knows the matter is being investigated by the RCMR I am sure the allegations that he made earlier will be investigated by the RCMR When the report is finished action will be taken, if there is action to be taken.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
The employees of Route Canada relied on the integrity not only of the president of CNR but their employer, CNR, the largest Crown corporation in Canada. They relied on the integrity of the cabinet for fairness. They relied on this government which has a positive duty to each employee affected by this aborted transaction.
When will the government acknowledge its responsibility to the employees of Route Canada, reinstate them to their former employment, pay those employees their back wages and bring back the pension benefits which most of them have lost?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, now I know why my hon. friend got out of business and went into law.
You can only lose $30 million to $40 million a year for so long, especially if your asset base is only worth $55 million. It was worth $55 million. We got $29 million for it, giving those employees an opportunity to continue working.
The company went bankrupt. Unfortunately, those are the facts of life. If my friend has any other information to bring to bear on the matter, he should phone the RCMP and give them that information.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, just to answer my friend, sometimes I wonder why I got out of business and went into law.
This transaction is truly a fraud on the Canadian taxpayer. Mr. Ruhland brought no cash to the table. He walked away with a $100 million company. In 20 months he destroyed a $100 million company by buying boats, airplanes and first class trips around the world. To add insult to injury, his mother's dog, whose name is Garci, is treated better than the employees of the company.
When will the minister take it upon himself to look after the employees who are affected by this aborted transaction?


Mr. Ferguson:: The government is going to the dogs.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that if anything was going to the dogs it was a company losing $30 million to $40 million a year. The taxpayers do not have that kind of money.
The Liberals used to think they had that kind of money. They used to think they would make it up on volume. But that does not happen any more. That is why we sold the assets.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mike Hunter, representing the processing industry of B.C., told the fisheries committee yesterday that the disastrous effects of the Canada sell-out of the west coast salmon and herring on the altar of free trade are just beginning to be felt.
Does the minister agree that the B.C. processors reflect the reality of the free trade ruling, namely, that the future of the industry has been thrown into serious compromise?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not agree but the Prime Minister does. The Prime Minister, speaking at a press conference on February 23, 1990, said: "We want to do everything we possibly can to help the British Columbia fishery".
Can the minister give us any details, such as dates of implementation, estimated costs, nature of programs, with respect to the salvation promised by the Prime Minister just three months ago?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be pleased to see this council coming to Ottawa complaining that money should be thrown at the problem because money is being thrown at the problem everywhere.
The reality is that this ruling to which the hon. member refers under the free trade agreement reached between Canada and the United States forces not one fisherman-not one-in B.C. to sell to the Americans. Do not forget this.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Evidence is piling up in the David Milgaard case. There is mounting evidence that there was a terrible miscarriage of justice when Milgaard was sentenced for murder 20 years ago.
A second forensic report, this time from the chief medical examiner of Manitoba, seriously questions the only physical evidence that linked Milgaard to the crime. Yet all we get from the Department of Justice is foot dragging and silence.
When is this minister going to take her responsibility seriously and decide what she is going to do about David Milgaard?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to be cross with the hon. member-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: -who has questioned me on this issue at great length before the standing committee, and who has been given an explanation as to why it has taken some time for the Department of Justice to deal with this.
He knows perfectly well that that delay results not from delays in the Department of Justice but from the applicant himself, whose counsel has brought forward continuing pieces of new information that he wishes to have considered on behalf of his client.
I think it would be extremely negligent of the Department of Justice to rush this process and to tell Mr. Milgaard's counsel that there is an arbitrary deadline beyond which he may not bring new evidence forward to be considered.
In May of this year the applicant retained the services of Manitoba's chief medical examiner to provide a report on a previous forensic report that had been commissioned. That report has now been received by the Department of Justice. It is being reviewed and will be part of the considerations on which I will make my decision.
If Mr. Milgaard's counsel comes forward with more information, I am prepared to wait until I can consider that as well so that he may have the fairest possible hearing based on the fullest possible information that he can provide to us.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General.
For 20 years Milgaard has denied consistently his guilt. For that he has paid a high price. He has been denied parole-no confession, no parole. Just today, he was scheduled to appear before the Parole Board.
Given the unique aspects of this case and given the fact that there is a possibility of a wrongful conviction, would the Solicitor General be prepared to recommend a full parole for Milgaard?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Justice, has just indicated that she is looking into the question, awaiting further information apparently from Mr. Milgaard's counsel. Therefore, I think it is being handled in the appropriate way by the Department of Justice.

Oral Questions


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Seniors) and concerns the freeze on the New Horizons Program.
Last Friday, in response to my question, the deputy leader of the government denied there was a freeze.
The Minister of State (Seniors) told the Standing Committee on May 22 that one-quarter of the funds allocated had been withheld. Who is telling the truth?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: programs for seniors are being maintained. You read the Estimates, and you know this year's budget is the same as last year's.
What we must not forget, here in the House, is that the New Horizons Program has been in existence for several years. We are now in the process of evaluating the program, and we have withheld $4 million so that during this year, we will be able to introduce new initiatives following the results of our evaluation which we intend to submit in the next few months.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, it appears, contrary to what we were told on Friday, that there is in fact a freeze of $4 million of that program. I would like to restate my questions from Friday and try to get an answer from the government.
Will the minister tell us when the review will be completed? When will the frozen funds be released? When will the review's findings be made public, or will they be made public?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of consulting seniors to make sure that the programs meet the needs exactly. We say that funds are available to seniors and we have an office that answers all calls. Once the evaluation is done, I will be very pleased as minister responsible for seniors
to let you know our recommendations and, if there is room for new initiatives, to implement them.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Rafik Nishanov, Chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the question of Transport Route Canada.
I want to say to the minister that what we are debating here is not the wisdom in the first place of the privatization but the question of the relationship of trust between Canadians and a government which sets a certain series of events in motion.
The government cannot deny that it was as a result of its policy that these workers were turned over to a particular series of events that resulted in them losing their jobs, their pensions and their benefits.
I want to ask the minister this. Does he not see the dimension of elementary justice involved in this issue? Does he not see the obscenity of what has happened to these people as a result of the events which this government set in motion? Will he not at least give a commitment to these people that at the appropriate time the government will make good what these people lost as a result of its policy?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, CN was losing some $30 million to $40 million a year on this proposition. It felt that with the refinancing brought to the company by the Fingold brothers, and some reorganization, that the company would have the ability to turn things around. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Everyone in this House regrets the fact that those jobs were lost. The question is whether or not there is any responsibility on CN. CN sold the company, sold the assets. The taxpayer was thus relieved of a burden of a
June 6, 1990

loss of $30 million to $40 million a year. Unfortunately, as things turned out, it was not possible to make a profit and the company went bankrupt.
If there are any illegalities, they will be taken into account, I am sure, by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the RCMP in the course of their investigation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he recalls occasions on which he has risen in this House and made the distinction between a legal responsibility and a moral responsibility. What we are claiming here and what we are asking the minister to recognize is that the government, through CN has a moral responsibility to the people who lost their jobs as a result of this very, very botched privatization.
The very least the government could do would be to make a commitment, as I asked the minister before, at the appropriate time, whenever he feels that the investigation has gone far enough, to make good what these people have lost as a result of a train of events that this government, and not only CN, through its privatization plans set in motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, CN sold these assets with the expectation that with the refinancing and with the effort that the Fingold brothers said they would put into it that the jobs would continue. After all, these assets were bringing a loss of $30 million to $40 million a year. They felt it could be turned around. Unfortunately, it was not turned around. I am sure they made an effort to turn it around.
I am sorry, but CN's responsibility was terminated when it sold the assets to somebody who tried to make a go of it. Businesses succeed and fail every day in this country. This, unfortunately, is one that failed. We all regret that. I am sure CN does, too.


RADIO LICENSING FEES
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It deals with the outrageous and ill-conceived radio licensing fees that he has imposed on municipalities and emergency services right across Canada.
Oral Questions
There are literally thousands of volunteer and municipally-operated fire departments that simply cannot afford these fee increases, and in some cases they will either have to decrease service or put off the acquisition of much-needed emergency vehicles.
Is the minister prepared today to respond to this issue which could affect public safety and announce that fire departments and other emergency services will be fully exempted from these fee increases?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to be asked that question today because it has been public knowledge for months. I recently had the opportunity to meet the leaders of the Canadian Municipal Association and they agreed it is normal for all governments to share equitably in both spectrum management and the public costs of its operation, Mr. Speaker.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The issue has not been before the public for only a matter of months. The issue, indeed, has been before the public for a matter of years.
I would like to quote from December 1, 1986, the previous Minister of Communications, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, who said in the House of Commons in reference to Bill C-3: "The changes as they affect municipalities and volunteer fire departments will not be proceeded with".
Why has the current minister broken this government's stated commitment to exempt all fire departments from the Bill C-3 schedule of fees? Will he now finally see that the reasons for which fire departments were exempted in 1986 are equally valid today in 1990?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, we agreed that there should be some equity among users of the frequency spectrum and governments, be they departments of the federal or provincial governments or even municipalities.

Oral Questions


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The GST advertising campaign is extremely confusing and misleading to Canadians. Since last fall the government has embarked on an $11 million advertising campaign, a campaign that has been filled with inaccurate and incorrect information because of change after change.
Now, new brochures, and millions more must be spent, to attempt to correct the information already sent out to the Canadian public.
How much more money is being spent on this advertising propaganda program?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the description the hon. member uses.
I have received a lot of very good comments from people-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -who have received the most recent tabloid which responds to specific questions, questions that we have monitored on the phone lines, the 1-800 numbers. We have had somewhere around 250,000 to 300,000 calls.
We have taken the calls that have come from those 1-800 numbers and put the answers to the questions these Canadians have asked us in a tabloid which cost, I think, less than 10 cents a copy.
These questions respond specifically to what Canadians are interested in knowing, information that they have been asking for about the goods and services tax.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The tax went from 9 per cent to 7 per cent. There has been a total change in small business advertising.
Will the minister promise that they will get their act together here today, stop wasting money on propaganda campaigns, inform the Canadian people properly or take the tax back?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the language that the hon. member has used.
The tabloid that we have just sent around to some 10 million Canadian homes responds specifically to questions that have been asked of us again and again through the 1-800 number, the information number. The responses that have been given are straight, direct responses. They are not propaganda in any form. They are specific responses to questions that have been asked by
250,000	Canadians.
The responses that I have had as a result of this tabloid have been very good. People have said: "That is exactly the information that we want to hear about the goods and services tax".


FUR INDUSTRY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday when the Deputy Minister of Agriculture appeared before the agriculture committee, he informed us that the fur component in the $500 million Supplementary Estimate is to be aimed at fur farmers and that fur trappers will not qualify for assistance to counteract the 50 per cent decline in fur prices due in part to the European boycott.
Will the minister reconsider this decision and include trappers who have also suffered from the price decline and have traps, vehicles, cabins and other equipment to pay for and maintain, as well as families to support?


Mr. McDermid:: Why not talk to Greenpeace? They ruined the bloody trade.


Mr. McKnight:: Are you supporting sealing now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this assistance package is one that was designed with the help and support of the provincial governments. It was in that context that the program was put together.
The funds will be distributed by the provinces. They are closest to the scene and in the best position to design the program in the most effective way so that it is targeted to the area that is in most need.
June 6, 1990

I will certainly take the hon. member's question as a representation and raise it with the provincial counterparts. If there is a disposition on their part to provide the assistance in that manner, I will certainly make that representation on the hon. member's behalf.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since trappers have recently had to invest in heavier equipment, heavier traps to meet the humane component of consumer demand, and since they are suffering from virtually the same negative income that Saskatchewan farmers are suffering, will the minister change the federal component of the program and make it available to fur trappers, which is not now the case, so that the provinces can pick up on that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it was through the provincial representation on behalf of the fur industry that the federal government responded.
As I said, I will certainly take his question as a representation. But we felt that because they were closest to the scene and identified the area of need we, in a generous fashion, responded, which this federal government has done in the past.
We can only hope and trust that the provinces will design their program in such a way that the industry that is affected in all its elements will be supported by the results of our joint efforts.


THE ESTIMATES
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
Can the minister tell us if he is going to support the vote as proposed by the chairman of the finance committee to cut the budget of the National Gallery of Canada by $1.8 million?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and there is going to be a lot of debate and a lot of anxiety. I hope the hon. member will be here this evening to see the last instalment of this drama!
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I have a request from the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead to raise a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, at noon I went to the Conference Centre where the First Ministers' meeting on the constitutional question is being held. I was denied the necessary accreditation to enter the building, unlike over 100 reporters from across the country, members of provincial legislatures, and leaders of provincial parties, including opposition leaders like Mrs. Carstairs and Mr. Doer. Members of the House of Commons were also there. I asked why I, as a member, could not go in. I was told it was since I had not been a member of the Charest Committee and was not on the list of a recognized party, either the government party or one of the opposition parties.
I know other members who were denied the same accreditation. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important conference, and I wanted to express my objections to the fact that this important question is being discussed behind closed doors. Quebec's return to the constitutional fold will not only be without honour and enthusiasm-but they are now trying to do it in secret.
Mr. Speaker, my rights and privileges as a member of this House have been breached. Surely, a member of the House of Commons has the right to be admitted as an observer to the Conference Centre, as much, if not more, so than the people representing the media.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has raised a very important question of privilege. I hope the Chair will, as usual, give it prompt consideration, as it has always done in the past.
I do not agree with everything my colleague said, but if there is one thing that must be perfectly clear it is that there can be no difference between members, whatever their political affiliation, whether it be an official party or not. When the Chair considers this very important question, and there may be other precedents, I hope it will take all the time required to do so. My colleagues

June 6, 1990
Privilege
and I will listen very attentively to the Chair's ruling on this question of privilege.
I must say that I was not aware of the situation, but I immediately and instinctively thought that we do not make distinctions between members of the House in matters such as this one.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, to be very brief on this issue, I am not aware of the details and certainly would want to have more information before being absolutely definitive.
It is the nature of these kinds of situations that there is limited space and limited ability for people to observe. In this case, of course, we are talking about a conference that is closed and there is no opportunity for anybody to participate.
The way we have handled that is to have representation from the parties in the House based on the proportion of their membership in the House, rather the same way we do with any delegated operation in the House, be it a committee and so on.
We have always had a problem on how to deal with Independents. The question is one of wanting to be fair to Independents but by the same token recognizing that it would be equally inappropriate to give Independents an opportunity not available to every member. If you open things up to every member, is it possible to have some delegation from this institution as opposed to everyone in the institution participate?
Without knowing the details of what is involved, I would humbly suggest that it might be something like that. Certainly, I will undertake on behalf of my party to examine and ensure that there was no overt attempt to exclude anybody by virtue of them not being a member of an established party in the House. That, I am quite certain, is not the intent, but I will look into it and inform the Chair if I find out differently.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the question of privilege raised by the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.
I believe that members elected to the House of Commons are here to represent their constituents, and they all have the same rights whether or not they belong to a political party.
I think it is inconceivable that a member sitting as an independent should be subjected to flagrant discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take these points under consideration. I know you have excellent judgment and I hope you will respond to the questidh of privilege raised by the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead.


M. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the position of the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead although I have, as a member of the Charest Committee, been accredited for the congress.
We were 15 members on the Charest Committee, but the issues we dealt with concern all the hon. members of this House. Of course, the independant members were not appointed by the three parties as members of the Committee.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, and also because of the fact that there are so many people from the media and so many provincial members and because of the importance of this issue affecting not only the members of Parliament from the province of Quebec but all Canadians, I hope that the Chair and the government House leader will consult each other and give their support to the position of the member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat comments made by other members on the matter of principle and privilege, but what is important in this particular instance is the fact that access to the meetings may become an issue which detracts from the debate itself that is taking place.
If the member feels that he was denied access, that indeed could be misinterpreted by the Canadian public in terms of access to process, which is already a question relative to the accord itself.
I urge that the member and any member who wishes, as a duly elected member of this Chamber, to be present at any meetings that are open to any elected person be given absolute access. Without that we develop a side issue that becomes a separate story that does damage to
June 6, 1990

the process rather than allow us all to participate without an easy excuse that there was no access to anybody who wanted to go.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the concerns that have motivated the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and the others to take that stance.

I think it is a very helpful suggestion from the government House leader and I will look into the matter further. I treat it as a matter of some concern.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Monday of this week the opposition House leader, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, rose on a point of order concerning two items which the government placed on the Order Paper.
One was for the appointment of an information commissioner and the other was for the appointment of a privacy commissioner. The opposition House leader contends that the government erred in requesting that these items be placed under the rubric "Motions" in the Order Paper. He believes that they should have been placed under the rubric "Government Notices of Motions".
Several members, including the government House Leader, contributed to the discussion of this interesting point of order. The Chair thanks all hon. members for their contributions. I am now prepared to address the concerns raised and render a decision.
To many persons in our listening audience, it may appear irrelevant as to where a notice of motion is placed on our Order Paper and Notice Paper. It is important to note, however, that these categories have been developed over a lengthy period of time in order to respect the organization of the business of the House. Some categories are uniquely reserved for the government or the
Speaker's Ruling
opposition, whereas others are reserved for private members and some very special categories are reserved for items which affect the transaction of the routine business of the House.

To illustrate matters, motions to amend or suspend the Standing Orders, to appoint special committees, to concur in committee reports, to instruct a committee to divide or consolidate bills are moved under the heading "Motions" and are often adopted by unanimous consent.
By contrast, motions to deal with matters of substance or government policy are moved under the heading "Government Motions". For example, motions to advance government bills or to adopt resolutions are handled under this heading and are usually adopted on division after extensive debate.
At this point I wish to refer to a decision I delivered on June 13, 1988 relating to a similar procedural problem. At page 16377 of Hansard I explained:
-	a "Government Notice of Motion" is any motion that the Government gives notice of. In other words, a "Government Notice of Motion" is not based on the content of the motion, but rather upon the mover. In many cases, therefore, a notice of motion could go under more than one heading and it is up to the Minister giving notice to decide which heading should be chosen. Clearly a "Government Notice of Motion" can only be moved by the Government, but the Government can choose to place it either under "Motions" or under "Government Notices of Motion".
This concept is borne out in a ruling on May 16,1985, by Speaker Bosley. He was called upon to rule on whether a time allocation motion had to be moved under "Motions" during Routine Proceedings or whether it could be placed under "Government Notices of Motion" and then transferred to "Government Orders" His decision was that it could be proceeded with in either way and that the choice was up to the Minister moving it.

A key element in the government House leader's argument concerned a definition of what items are permitted to be placed under the rubric "Motions". While no specific Standing Order enunciates exactly what should or should not be included under this rubric, Standing Order 67(1 )(p) gives us a partial list. It reads, in part:
-	[motions] as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

From this the opposition House leader and hon. member for Kingston and the Islands suggest that it is inappropriate to file a motion for the appointment of the Information Commissioner or for the Privacy Commissioner under the rubric "Motions" because these appointments are for officers of Parliament rather than for officers of the House. This rubric, the opposition House leader contends, should only be reserved for officers of the House.
A review of precedents reveals that previous appointments to these positions were moved under the rubric "Government Motions". However, the question still remains: because that route was followed in the past, can we logically conclude that this route is the only option open? The Chair is not persuaded to that conclusion. Instead, as in the decision of June 13, 1988, the Chair concludes that the government has the option of choosing to move such a motion under either heading.
Several hon. members have pointed out that the Standing Order refers to the appointment or conduct of the House's officers. I have been unable to find anywhere a precise definition of who fits into that classification.
Taken in its widest sense, an officer of the House could include such positions as diverse as the chair occupants, the House leaders, the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the other officers reporting to the House through its Speaker. Some of these are appointed by resolution of the House, but many of them are not. Unless the House directs me otherwise it is this broad interpretation that I intend to be guided by.
As to the distinction that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands attempted to make between an Officer of the House and an Officer of Parliament, I have not been able to accept his reasoning on that issue, although I must say it is an interesting if not ingenious argument.
It is my view that the Auditor General for example could be considered to be either an Officer of the House or an Officer of Parliament.
In conclusion, the Chair judges that the government has liberty to move the appointment of the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner either under the rubric "Motions" or under the rubric "Government
Motions". The motions as they now stand on the Order Paper under the rubric "Motions" are regular and can be proceeded with.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) they are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I would like to table in both official languages, the government responses to six petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FISHERIES ACT


Bernard Valcourt: for leave to introduce Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
June 6, 1990



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Jacques Tétreault: for leave to introduce Bill C-311 intituled "An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval-des-Rap-ides".


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jacques Tétreault: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill to change the name of the electoral district of Laval-des-Rapides to Laval Centre, in order to better represent the communities in that riding. In fact, my riding extends from the riviere des Prairies in the South, to the riviere des Milles-fles in the North, through Laval-Centre and takes in the areas formerly occupied by the towns of Laval-des-Rapides, Renaud, Vimont, Auteuil, as well as Sainte-Rose which is celebrating this year its 250th anniversary.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


A. Kim Campbell: That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the appointment of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner.
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the important elements of parliamentary reform in this House some time ago was the opportunity for the appropriate parliamentary committee to consider proposed government appointments, to interview and scrutinize with care the qualifications of the proposed appointee and then to report back to the House.
The procedure which the minister is following in this particular case, while it may be strictly legal according to the provisions of the act, clearly flies in the face of the intent of Parliament in allowing parliamentary committees to conduct this form of scrutiny.
I want to raise this point of order and ask whether the minister might be prepared to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in order that we might conduct the kind of careful scrutiny that is required before an appointment of this nature is made.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make exactly the same point of order. I think of all the appointments that one can imagine, the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner is one in which the government should have made the greatest possible effort to obtain agreement among all parties about the choice of a candidate. To my knowledge, there was no consultation at all about this appointment, at least not in the form of trying to find someone who would be acceptable to all parties. We know there are many, many Canadians, even for this difficult position, who would have been acceptable to all members of the House.
I would ask the minister, as my colleague from the NDP has done, before proceeding to enforce strictly the rules of the House, to consider referring this nomination to a committee and the choice of the justice and solicitor general committee is an excellent choice before the appointment becomes final. It may well be that the minister herself will find that process useful in making her own decision about the correctness of what it is she is proceeding to do for the first time, I believe, as Minister of Justice.

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I would urge the minister not to proceed to force a nomination on the House, knowing in advance the position of the opposition parties, without at least the opportunity for the candidate to present himself to a parliamentary committee and to let us hear from him about his qualifications.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, these points of order are more in the form of representations to the government to put aside the procedures in the law for the appointment of these positions which call for a resolution of this House and resolution of the other followed by a Governor in Council appointment.
Mr. Speaker, I will allow questions, which seem to be behind this, to be debated during the debate period. At this point in time my response to the representations from the opposition parties is no, we intend to follow the procedure as laid out in the law. There will be ample opportunity because of parliamentary reform and the ability that committee and others have to call people forward to go on whatever witch hunts members might want.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments. I find it shocking that the government House leader would use that kind of approach. Indeed, he is pre-empting debate on a very important matter, that is, our last allotted day in this period where we want to debate certain important matters such as finances, housing, and other very important financial questions.
I respect the decision the Chair made at 3 p.m. but it suited the government's purpose just beautifully, to move the motion at this time and then spare us the obligation to ask it to have the decency of referring this to a committee, which is a reasonable suggestion made by all parties on this side-the opposition parties in particular.
I think it would be in the interests of democracy and good debate that the whole issue be sent to a committee for study and consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have raised a matter under points of order which amount to a suggestion, or perhaps a complaint, to the government as to the procedure on which it has decided to use this afternoon.
Whatever merit lies in those suggestions, it is certainly a matter of legitimate discussion, I think it is really a matter of debate. I am bound with the rules as they are. It was pointed out by one hon. member that the government is proceeding strictly legally, although there is dispute within the Chamber as to whether it ought to be proceeding this way at this time.
But, the government has so chosen to proceed, and I must say that the procedure is in order. I will now recognize the hon. Minister of Justice for debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I made my point, and I want to raise another point of order.
Today is the last allotted day in this period where the government has before us expenditure plans for the coming year. If we do not reach Orders of the Day, the government loses its day. If the government loses the day today, and loses the Estimates, I hope it does not come to us crying that it missed the boat on this one.
If the government cannot figure this out, I am telling you right now that we are going to debate this one until 10 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops, and then I want to come back to the hon. leader of the government.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the point just put forward by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier.
This is the last allotted day, and as you see by the agenda it is a very full day. We have been looking forward to this day for some time.
The government has decided to proceed this way on an important motion, and we have a number of speakers who wish to speak to this appointment motion. I am seeking clarification.
If, in fact, we do not get to Government Orders because of our interest in speaking to this government motion, what happens to the final allotted day? Can you give some guidance on this, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to give the hon. member some guidance. I would suggest that he speak to me in a few minutes.
Strictly speaking, the question is hypothetical, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to rule on it. I would be very pleased to discuss the matter with the hon.
June 6, 1990

member or with any other hon. member in a few minutes.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members will know, when there is an Order in Council for this appointment, it will be referred to the standing committee for 30 days for discussion. The standing committee is always free to call forward the person nominated to discuss the nature of the appointment.
As Some hon. members will know, the seven year appointment of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner expired at midnight Friday, June 1, 1990. Under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, commissioners are appointed by the Governor in Council under the Great Seal: "after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons."
We have given notice of the two motions we would like to move today in the Notice Paper.
As the hon. members already know, the Privacy Act provides for the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner by Governor in Council under the Great Seal after the approval of the Senate and the House of Commons.
To obtain the House's approval, we put the following Notice on the Motion Paper on May 31, 1990:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the appointment of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner.
I am sure that Mr. Phillips is not unknown to you, especially through his work as a Member of the Parliamentary press gallery. If I may, however, I should like to give a brief rundown on of Mr. Phillips' career to assist the House in its consideration of this motion.

For 35 years Mr. Phillips has been a nationally-respected, award-winning journalist. He became a familiar face to Canadians when, in 1969, he joined the CTV Network as its Ottawa Bureau Chief. Previous to that, he
Routine Proceedings
undertook assignments with Canadian Press, The Calgary Herald and Southam News Service.
Through his work as a journalist, Mr. Phillips has demonstrated a deep commitment to Canada and what it stands for. In the early 1960s, he received the prestigious National Newspaper Award for a series of articles on the attitude of Quebec towards Confederation. He was also the recipient of the Bowater Award for journalism for a series of articles on the Canadian economy.
In 1984, Mr. Phillips agreed to set aside his distinguished career in journalism to serve as the Minister for Public Affairs in the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., and from April, 1987 to February, 1990 he served as the Prime Minister's Director of Communications.

In February 1990, his appointment as Assistant Privacy Commissioner made it possible for him to embrace with his usual vigour the cause of the individual's right to privacy. Working closely with the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Phillips made a significant contribution to the study on Drug Testing and Privacy whose findings were tabled in the House last Friday.

Because of his distinguished journalism career, Mr. Phillips brought with him both knowledge of and experience with the delicate and difficult problem of balancing the public's right to know and the individual's right to privacy. He also brought with him the persuasive communication skills and independence of mind of a journalist.
This combination served the first Privacy Commissioner and the interests he advanced extremely well, as his seven year term attests. That they are shared by Mr. Phillips augurs well for the cause of privacy and the challenges which will face him as Privacy Commissioner.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I notice that the government, through the Minister of Justice, has moved one motion ahead of the other. In the Order Paper for today, Wednesday, June 6, we see that the Minister of Justice's motion approving the appointment of John Grace as Information Commissioner came first. Yet, the minister chose-in her own judgment, or she was coached by

Routine Proceedings
somebody-to move the second motion wherein the Minister of Justice asks for approval of the appointment of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner.
We have no objection at all to John Grace being appointed as the Information Commissioner. Why the did minister not call that appointment first and get it over with?


A. Kim Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I wanted the hon. member to have an opportunity to debate while he was still fresh.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a very fresh remark, Mr. Speaker. However, the question is a serious one.
Why is the government not proceeding with something it knows it can get? It knows that it is going to prejudice the appointment of Mr. Grace by delaying it until, perhaps, later this month? Why is the government not proceeding now with Mr. Grace's appointment which causes no difficulties?
We know Mr. Grace, his reputation is well-known, and he has been seven years in the position of Privacy Commissioner. We are asking the government to give us the appointment now and we will approve it now.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member objects to the particular order. As I say, if this appointment is one that will be debated and is contentious in the House, then I think it is appropriate to deal with it first so that we can have as full a debate as is possible and is appropriate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to respond to the concern that has been raised regarding the appointment of Bruce Phillips, precisely because he did, in fact work directly in the office of the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister's Director of Communications. The minister has pointed out that other public officials, including John Grace, have distinguished backgrounds in journalism.
Inger Hansen, the former Information Commissioner, certainly has a distinguished background. She was previously Privacy Commissioner and, during part of that time, Commissioner of Corrections. I might say that the treatment of Inger Hansen by the government is appalling and unacceptable in the way that it has just dumped her without any form of respect or consideration. But that is a separate question.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice to respond to the specific concern that it is fundamentally important that this office, which after all is an officer of Parliament, should be seen by all Canadians as being completely independent. By appointing an individual who has been working directly in the office of the Prime Minister she taints that independence. As Professor David Flaherty has indicated, this completely diminishes the significance and the importance of this office.
Could the Minister of Justice respond to that particular concern about the close previous link between Bruce Phillips and the Prime Minister's Office? Does she not recognize that it is that link, in the eyes of the public, which disqualifies him from being seen as completely independent in this very important position of Privacy Commissioner?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the link depends to a great extent on the characterization and the hon. member chooses to characterize it in the worst possible way, in a way that I do not think is fair.
As I pointed out yesterday, the current incumbent of the office of Privacy Commissioner was appointed by a previous Liberal government. He was appointed by a Liberal government to the CRTC and has close personal ties with senior members of the Liberal Party. It has never occurred to us that in any way impaired his ability to perform in a professional fashion. I have the good fortune to know him personally. I would be very surprised if he votes for my party, but that has never impaired his ability to perform in a very professional way. I have never assumed that reports coming from his office that were critical of our government were motivated by any partisan considerations at all.
I want to point out the implications of somebody in Mr. Phillips' position spending time in the Prime Minister's Office.
When I was executive director of the premier's office in British Columbia, we had a press secretary director of communications who was not a journalist. The members
June 6, 1990

of the parliamentary press gallery complained because, notwithstanding that this person was an enormously able and pleasant individual, her lack of journalistic credentials meant that she did not understand the constraints under which the press gallery worked. They complained quite severely about this. They felt that the premier should hire a journalist to do that job, someone who understood how they work and how they should be served. The director of communications in the office of a first minister is someone who is a liaison between those whose beat it is to cover the first minister and Parliament, who requires quick access to information, and who requires the provision of certain kinds of services and, of course, the first minister himself or herself.
After the premiership changed in British Columbia, the current premier in fact did hire a professional journalist to perform that job. Previous to Mr. Phillips taking that job in the Prime Minister's Office, as we know, Mr. Gratton held that position.
It is extremely important that members understand that that is a position that requires professionalism. It requires someone who understands how journalism functions in this country. If we are to say that any professional journalist who takes that job is thereafter tainted and cannot either, as Mr. Gratton did, return to journalistic life or take some other position without being tainted by what is in fact a very tiny part of his or her career, as opposed to the broad bulk of that career which has been an unimpeachable and award winning career in journalism, then I think that has very, very negative implications for the ability of governments to have the highest quality people serving them. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who wish to impugn Mr. Phillip's ability to provide some kind of evidence that he is not able to act with independence.
I would point out that in the period of time that he has been Assistant Privacy Commissioner, he has participated in putting together the report on drug testing that is very critical of the government. Mr. Phillips has clearly found it quite within his capability to take an independent view and provide and participate in the creation of a report that is critical of the government. Unless hon. members have some firm reason for suggesting that Mr. Phillips is unable to revert to that kind of independence-
Routine Proceedings


Jean-Robert Gauthier: His record is surely not very good. Look what he did during the election. He was a Tory hack and you know it.


A. Kim Campbell: When he worked in the Prime Minister's office, he was loyal to his employer and he did that job. The fact of the matter is that he has had a distinguished journalistic career for which he has been recognized by his peers in journalism. He has now moved on to a different stage in his career.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Keep him moving!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Send him to the Senate.


A. Kim Campbell: I am sorry, but the hon. member's party has already filled up most of the seats in the Senate, so the Senate is not available.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are 12 vacancies.


John Horton McDermid: He has a lot of nerve talking about political hacks.


A. Kim Campbell: In addition to being highly knowledgeable about the journalistic approach to information in need of secrecy, as is the current incumbent, he also has a very clear understanding of the government perspective as well. I think that balance will serve him well in the position.
It is extremely unsavoury to listen to members of the House of Commons impugn someone's character. As I mentioned yesterday, the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway's party probably does not have a realistic hope of forming a government, but those sitting right across from me do harbour that hope. The ability of a government to retain the services of professionals and to invite people, many of whom serve with great cuts in pay in order to provide public service. If everyone who comes to work for a government has to take with them the partisan label of that government, the pool-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is working for Parliament, not government. That is the point.


A. Kim Campbell: I am speaking of Mr. Phillips' tenure in the Prime Minister's office. If everyone who agrees to work for government has to take with them the partisan taint of that government, the pool of people who would be willing to make their services

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
available will be small and it is the people of Canada who will suffer as a result.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One very short question from the hon. member for York Centre, and that is it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this will be a brief question.
In the decision about Mr. Phillips' candidacy for this office, were other possible government patronage appointments considered? Was he offered any other government patronage appointments? Did he ask for any other government patronage appointments?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if I were in a courtroom, I know what I would say about that question. In the House, I will simply say that it is impertinent and insulting and I do not think that I will dignify it with a comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are terminated. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is such an amount of interest in this nomination, and we know the minister would like to answer further questions. I wonder if there could be unanimous consent to allow more members to ask more questions of this minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for York Centre has the floor on debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the appointment of Bruce Phillips, but I cannot resist replying to the minister for Brantford-


John Horton McDermid: Brampton! Get it right, if you are going to insult me.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -for Brampton who often comments that I find myself in the gutter when I take on the government. Well, I do find myself in the gutter when I take on
the government because that is where the government operates.
Those questions that were asked during Question Period today about Route Canada, the questions that we have raised and that I am very proud to have spent a lot of effort raising, deal with one of the most fundamental weaknesses of the government. That is the government's lack of class and its repeated insult to the Canadian people in the way in which it has exercised, in so many respects, its high office and the high responsibilities of its office.
It must be a great personal disappointment to the Minister of Justice to have to identity herself on her first assignment in nominating an officer of Parliament to have to choose Bruce Phillips who is unsuited for this job.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense! That's your opinion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As a matter of fact, I was quoting from a newspaper headline. It is an opinion that I share, but it is also an opinion that is widely held across the country.
In saying that, I want to say that Bruce Phillips is a very competent individual. I have no qualms about recognizing his competence, his great ability, his distinction as a journalist, and the service he performed for his country and for his government with distinction in Washington. I do not want to take any of that away from him. He is one of the able people in this country and he is the kind of person we want to see take part in the public life.
What I think the minister really recognizes and why she must surely find herself in a difficult position is because she has to take this individual who has served his government well, who has served his Prime Minister well, and make him an officer of Parliament in a job which should not be filled by an individual with the background of Bruce Phillips in the office of the Prime Minister during the last election campaign.
This country is not so small and there is not such a shortage of qualified, competent people that we could not have in this House agreed upon a proper candidate to fill this office of Parliament. If an effort had been made-


John Horton McDermid: That would rule out Derek Burney as Ambassador to Washington then.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He's not an officer of Parliament.
June 6, 1990


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Derek Burney is doing a good job in Washington. He is a competent person to be down there.
Bruce Phillips played a highly partisan role in the Prime Minister's office in the last election campaign, to put it mildly. Someone had to do it. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with doing that. People do it. We have partisan people on our side, you have partisan people on your side.
The insult to the office of the Privacy Commissioner and the insult to Parliament is to take that individual and appoint him to a position where he now has to be a watchdog on the government, a watchdog on his pal for whom he fought so hard and in such a partisan way to keep in the office of Prime Minister of this country. That is what is unacceptable.
I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice does not recognize that. I am confident that the Minister of Justice wishes she had a better case to put forward than the case that this individual should now become an officer of Parliament, to stand up as a watchdog against abuses by the government of the very important achievement that we have in this country in our strict rules of privacy.
The Privacy Act, a very important and progressive piece of legislation in this country, is meant to ensure that the government does not abuse the privacy of individuals.
We know governments collect more and more information on individuals. The government knows about every person in this country through records that are part of the public domain, whether they have been seeing a psychiatrist, whether they have ever had venereal disease, whether they have ever had an abortion, whether they have ever been charged with any offence, acquitted or convicted. There is a lot of information out there.
As the computer age has progressed, governments have come to know more and more. However, we have developed a wise policy, as expressed in our Privacy Act and other acts, which is designed to make sure that all of this information against every one of us is not used by government or by others to abuse those individuals. To put it in a sentence, the law requires that information which is obtained by the government or which comes to the government for one purpose cannot be used, even by the government, for another purpose. It is the high
Routine Proceedings
calling of the officer of Parliament who is the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that no such abuse occurs.
I think that our Prime Minister could have come up with an individual more at arm's length from the success or failure of himself, from the hurly-burly of politics and of the government than Bruce Phillips.
I know the government could have come up with a half a dozen or a dozen people who would have been acceptable to us on this side of the House. The government did not try. As much as I respect Bruce Phillips, what is needed for this job is a person who will not be identified with the political success of the government and of the Prime Minister to the extent that Bruce Phillips is.
St. Francis Xavier University is not the largest university in the country. I know the Prime Minister favours its graduates. Even if he had just looked at graduates of St. Francis Xavier University, he could have found some among that number who would not have been so intimately identified and so committed to the personal success of the Prime Minister in his political life and to the success of the government, who could certainly have done the job just as well.
The Privacy Act is meant to provide individuals with access to their personal information held by the federal government. It protects their privacy by limiting those who can see that information and it gives individuals some control over the government's collection and use of the information.
I do not want the House to misunderstand what I am saying about Bruce Phillips. I am not suggesting that we will have an individual in Bruce Phillips who will deliver personal information about individuals to the Prime Minister for political use. I am not suggesting that he will do that. I take him to be a man of integrity. The problem is that he will have access to all that information. He will know and he will be able to find out personal information about every political enemy of the Prime Minister in this country, of every political adversary.


Mr. Crosby:: Give us some examples.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Examples are not hard to draw. I am not going to give examples. But the Privacy Commissioner is in a position to have the most intimate details about the life of every Canadian, those in public life, their families,

Routine Proceedings
those not in public life. So whether the character of the individual is such that he will run to his former boss and deliver the goodies on people the Prime Minister may like to embarrass is less the issue than the issue of the appearance that he is a person with that kind of a close, intimate relation to the Prime Minister and with a commitment to his political success. That is why we are entitled to worry about this appointment.
I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice does not see the sensitivity of this particular mistake and perhaps has not advised the Prime Minister that it is a mistake to take such a close buddy, someone who has been so identified with the career of the Prime Minister, with the success of that career, with the political campaign of that career and put him in a position where ordinary Canadians are entitled to be suspicious that abuses may occur.
Choose another person. Give us the opportunity to examine some other names from St. Francis Xavier University, or elsewhere. It is not only a matter of being a Conservative either. There are lots of Conservative appointments that this government has put forward of which we have approved and that we have acknowledged are good appointments. But this is not the job for a person who has had the background in the last few years that Bruce Phillips has had.
I urge the government to consider it again. I assure the government that every member of the opposition will be voting against this appointment. I ask the government to take our opinion seriously.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the hon. member's statement. I have never heard anything so replete with innuendo and character assassination.
It is very difficult in this city to work without developing relationships with people who are elected members of Parliament. The hon. member has suggested that there is something about Mr. Phillips' relationship with the Prime Minister, as a result of his having spent about three years as a paid employee of the Prime Minister's office doing a job that directly related to his professional function, the career in which he spent most of life, that would in some way lead Mr. Phillips, who he regards as otherwise a man of integrity, to betray a lifetime of integrity and to betray the office of an officer of
Parliament by providing what he describes as his "close buddy" with information to which the "close buddy" is not entitled.
I find that an absolutely extraordinary assertion. I would point out again that the current incumbent of that office is a close and intimate friend of the recently retired leader of the hon. member's party, a close intimate friend who probably wished well-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Was he in his cabinet?


A. Kim Campbell: The hon. member is suggesting that somehow this close intimate relationship with the Prime Minister, the commitment to the success of the Prime Minister, would lead someone to behave in a highly unethical fashion.


Mr. Mills:: Not unethical, but partisan.


A. Kim Campbell: What I am saying is that there are many close relationships in this city that do not lead people to betray their integrity, just as it has never occurred to anyone in this House to suggest that the long, close personal relationship between the current incumbent of the office of the Privacy Commissioner and high profile, partisan people in this town would in any way compromise his ability to conduct the job with integrity. In some ways, perhaps it is better to have someone's relationships open and above board, because it makes it easier for the standing committee to subject them to scrutiny and to test them.
No one in a million years would suggest that there was ever any basis on which to impugn the integrity of Mr. Grace, and the relationship between Mr. Phillips and the Prime Minister is of so much less significance and importance. Mr. Phillips had a paid position in the Prime Minister's office. He has left that paid position. The Prime Minister is no longer his boss. He has shown a great ability already to be independent of mind in acting as assistant Privacy Commissioner in his participation in the recent study that has come out.
The hon. member's speech was an absolutely consummate example of character assassination by innuendo. It is very important to understand that, in this House, unless there is evidence to the contrary, we assume that people have integrity. Mr. Phillips has shown no evidence of not having integrity. In fact, the hon. member has said he believes he is a man of integrity.
June 6, 1990

We all change hats and we all have people who work for us with different perspectives who then go on and do other things. I have many people in my department who support me very strongly in what I do. I do not believe they necessarily vote for me, but they are able to make a distinction between the demands of their jobs and their personal alliances. I believe that we should expect no less of Mr. Phillips.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would be happy to take some time, if it was available, to show the difference in the relationship between John Grace and John Turner, on the one hand, who as far as I know, have had no political association, although they have been friends through life, and on the other hand the relationship between Bruce Phillips and his career and his relationship with the Prime Minister.
As far as I know, John Grace has never worked for John Turner. I do not even know if he is a member of the Liberal party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's not. He's a Tory.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would probably know by now.
I am accused of character assassination and maybe the minister thinks I am the only person who feels this way about the appointment. If that is the way her mind is working, let me just take a moment to quote very briefly from an article by Frank Howard that appeared in the The Ottawa Citizen. The whole article is under the heading "Bruce Phillips unsuited for job''. So it is not just Kaplan in the gutter here, who thinks this is a mistake. There is a national concern about the motion the minister has moved in the House today. The article stated:
The person who is put forward as the candidate for the privacy job
should look like -
We are talking about appearances here, not the character or integrity of the individual only, but appearances.
- he or she could stand up to the government of the day, not like somebody who is being rewarded for loyalty to the PM.
The bureaucracies of the two offices, privacy and access, need a standard bearer, not a spin-doctor.
Routine Proceedings
On the level of appearances mainly, his appointment will
demoralize the post and perhaps the office. Morale may or may not
suffer, but the high moral purpose of the office will be less obvious.
Surely the minister sees that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I might just note that in addition to the fact that the personal friendship between John Grace and John Turner is totally irrelevant to the issue of Bruce Phillips' previous employment in the office of the Prime Minister, there is another issue and that is that the member for Vancouver-Quadra is not the custodian of government information. Quite clearly, one of the reasons that concern has been expressed about the appointment of Bruce Phillips is that the Privacy Commissioner is an advocacy role and on more than one occasion he will be in a position of having to challenge directly the office of the Prime Minister with respect to either policies of the office of the Prime Minister or with respect to particular practices of that office.
The fact that Mr. Phillips was an employee of the Prime Minister, whether or not objectively he is tainted in that way or not, in the eyes of the public the perception-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the hon. member would comment on the speech of the hon. member for York Centre and ask him a question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for York Centre would comment upon my observation with respect to the ability of the Leader of the Official Opposition to disclose information under the Privacy Act.
While he is on his feet, the member for York Centre might as well want to clarify the current position because the Minister of Justice has not yet indicated what the current status is of both John Grace and Bruce Phillips. As I read the Privacy Act, and as I read the access to information legislation, the government does have the power, technically, to appoint these individuals for a term not exceeding six months even before Parliament has considered and adopted the resolution.
The hon. member for York Centre might want to comment on this and indicate whether, to the best of his knowledge, the government has gone ahead and ap-

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
pointed Bruce Phillips and John Grace without even listening to the concerns of Parliament on this issue.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, these are excellent questions. I gather this will be a lengthy debate. I hope that during the course of the afternoon and evening we will have answers to those from the government which really is more in a position to answer.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment in relation to the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre.
As I read the Privacy Act, it is all about the processes involved in the disclosure of information. It is not about the exact carriage of information. The member gave the impression to those who were listening that the Privacy Commissioner delves into banks of information and transmits information to other people. That really is not, in any serious way, the role of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner looks at requests for information that is held in the banks controlled under the Privacy Act and decides whether those requests shall or shall not be granted.
To see the Privacy Commissioner as someone who, in his or her own personal capacity, has information at their disposal is wrong because in fact this information is gathered by other Crown officers. It is gathered by heads of departments and held in privacy banks and the Privacy Commissioner is not the only one with access to that information.
If the member's concerns were legitimate, he would be concerned with every person in the Public Service who has access to the information, not just the Privacy Commissioner. In that respect you have to rely on the honour and integrity of everybody involved in this system, not just one person.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree. I hope I did not create the impression that the Privacy Commissioner is a collector of information. 'lake, for example, a former inmate in a who prison wants to know whether his cellmate made certain statements about him which are on the records of Corrections Canada. I am speaking here of things I know from my own personal experience as a former Solicitor General. The Privacy Commissioner can go through the record of what stool-pigeons
inside the prison have told officials about the the former inmate who is asking for the information.
So it could well turn out that the Privacy Commissioner will find out that a former inmate engaged in certain activities inside the prison. This may be someone who is pardoned now and that information, in some circumstances, can be of political interest. That is my point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Victoria.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Burnaby-Kingsway, who would normally be our first speaker on this, permitting me to put my remarks on the record on this absolutely outrageous set of appointments.
The issue is not so much Mr. Grace's personal appointment, which this House can approve, but the effect this has on Inger Hansen who has served the position and the country well in her present position and has not deserved the treatment she has received from this government.
Far more outrageous is the appointment of Bruce Phillips and the way in which the government has been handling this. First of all, let us go back to 1983 when the appointments of both of these people, Inger Hansen and John Grace, were put to this House and received the unanimous consent of all parties.
In Hansard we see the late Walter Baker speaking enthusiastically on behalf of the Conservative Party for both of these appointments and my friend, the present member for Burnaby-Kingsway, speaking on behalf of our party. These appointments were made not only in consultation with all parties in this House, but with the agreement of all parties in this House.
The Minister of Justice will know from her experience in British Columbia that when it comes to the appointment of an ombudsman, the unanimous consent of even the fractiously partisan legislature of British Columbia is sought.
Here the government not only tries to foist its own particular view of who should have this job, in the name of Bruce Phillips, but the minister's justification indicates that she clearly fails to understand the importance of this position to the people of this country and to this Parliament.
June 6, 1990

The former minister of justice understood his responsibilities as Attorney General of Canada when he outlined the basis and rationale for the appointment. He exhibited his awareness of the extraordinary sensitivity of this position when he commented, in addressing the House on the appointment of the information commissioner, as follows:
The Access to Information Act provides that any Canadian who has been denied access to a document he has requested under the Act, who has failed to obtain the requested document within the prescribed time, or who feels the fees charged are excessive, may lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner-I believe that this will happen in most cases and that no longer being required to institute an action at law will save Canadians both time and money. It will always be possible to appeal to the Federal Court in those cases where the problem has not been solved.
Of course the Information Commissioner is an officer reporting directly to Parliament. Being entirely free of the executive, the Commissioner will be at liberty to recommend release of government information, criticize the actions of the executive taken under the Act, table her recommendations in Parliament and take government institutions to court herself to obtain the release of information.
Those comments were made by the Hon. Mark Mac-Guigan on May 27, 1983. He went on to note that the Privacy Commissioner had precisely the same responsibilities. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner took precedence over the Information Commissioner when it came to a difference between the two.
This appointment is of an officer of Parliament. It is as important as the Speaker. It is as important as a judge. It is as important, if I dare say it, as the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, another appointment which this government botched because of its failure to consult.
Now it treats this as a common patronage appointment. It does so without any genuine consultation with the other parties in Parliament and it does so now without the approval of Parliament. It does so by moving a motion in a way which reduces the rights of Parliament to comment on the Estimates as they come through and to have a full discussion of those matters.
We then have the minister trying to equate this appointment with the friendship of Mr. Grace with the Leader of the Opposition. As my friend the member for Kingsway-Burnaby has pointed out, this dramatically underscores the complete failure of this minister to
Routine Proceedings
understand what she is doing in moving this motion. It is a terrible appointment that the minister is trying to foist on this House.
I do not know Bruce Phillips. I think that before this appointment should even come to this House it should go at least to the justice committee so that we have an opportunity to ask about and make some judgment about Bruce Phillips so that the House has the benefit of the views of the justice committee on this subject. If the minister prefers, let us have a special committee that can review it.
When the government is trying to ram through, with its majority, a partisan appointment of a very sensitive position of this kind, I would think it would at least give its own back-benchers an opportunity to put questions on Mr. Phillips' background.
What is Mr. Phillips' sin? It is not that he is a Conservative. I do not even know whether he is a Conservative. He has no sin at one level, but at another, for this particular position, he has served as the Prime Minister's communication director. He has helped the Prime Minister try to get elected. And in that position he allegedly played dirty tricks against the member for Vancouver Quadra during the last election. He apparently, according to a comprehensive story in The Globe and Mail, provided reporter friends of his with details of friends of Mr. Tbmer whom they could phone and find out what the gossip was about Mr. Tbmer during the election campaign.
That may be fair ball if you work for the Prime Minister during an election, but it is not the kind of conduct one would expect from someone who is going to be an officer of this House, reporting to this House on what the government has done.
Let us be absolutely clear what the Privacy Commissioner does. The Privacy Commissioner stands for the people of Canada in protecting their privacy against improper government intervention. That is a very sensitive position. The people of Canada are entitled to have in that position one of the 26 million or 27 million Canadians who at least all members of this House trust to do the job. We do not trust Mr. Phillips to do this job. That is why we are opposing it and it is wrong for the government to put him in the position.

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The other side of the coin is what this government is doing to Inger Hansen. Inger Hansen is a distinguished Canadian public servant. Let me quote from the comments made by Mr. MacGuigan when he was moving her appointment, comments which were concurred in by all sides of this House. I quote from page 25797 of Hansard of May 27, 1983:
Today, Ms. Hansen has earned the right to call herself Canada's senior ombudsman, having been in the field for ten years. In addition, she has built a solid international reputation for herself and for Canada in the ombudsman and data production fields. Over the past several years she has been active in the International Ombudsman's Association as a member of its planning committee. She is also a very active member of the International Association of Data Commissioners. She has chaired two of the latter group's recent annual meetings: in 1980 when Ms. Hansen hosted the meeting in Ottawa and again, by special request of the conference, in London this past summer. In all, Inger Hansen legitimately lays claim to a vast national and international network of friends and associates.
Mr. Baker was equally effusive. The member for Burnaby, as he was at that time, was equally effusive.
Inger Hansen, however, has apparently irritated the Prime Minister. She, in her job, has said that the government has failed to do its job under the Access to Information Act. As a result, not only was she not reappointed, according to public statements she was not even given the courtesy of a telephone call. She simply ran out her term. This government has failed to deal honourably with someone who has served this government, the people of Canada, and this Parliament for 18 years.
This is a bad appointment. The government should withdraw the bill and should engage in a process of fair and genuine consultation with all parties in this Parliament before proceeding further.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member. Since partisanship makes it impossible for people to be even handed later on, how does he feel about the appointment of Ed Broadbent and Ian Deans to two very important positions in which they are expected to be impartial and to fulfil the responsibilities required of them under the mandate of their particular agencies?
What qualities does he believe they have that enable them to put their partisan pasts behind them and operate in an even handed fashion fulfilling their responsibilities
which are somehow unavailable to those who might attach their allegiances to this party for some brief period of their life?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the intervention from the House leader demonstrates the government's complete blind spot on this point.
No one would suggest for a minute, nor is this House suggesting it, that Bruce Phillips could not handle a hundred different jobs for the people of Canada. That is not the issue. He worked for the Prime Minister however, and he is now being put in a position in which he is expected to be critical of the government on behalf of the people of Canada and of this Parliament.
If the House had been asked about the appointment of Mr. Broadbent and there had been significant disagreement, perhaps that appointment should not have been made. If the House had been asked about Mr. Deans and there had been significant disagreement, the same may be true. However that is not the issue. They are not servants of Parliament. They are appointed by Order in Council to particular positions established under legislation.
This position is a position of Parliament. The precedent was established in 1983 that it was a unanimous appointment of this House. That precedent was a sound one, and it should have been followed in this case.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the connection of trying to link Mr. Grace and Mr. Phillips together. Mr. Grace was appointed seven years ago. Mr. Turner was not even a member of Parliament at that particular time. He came from the post of editor of The Ottawa Journal which certainly was not considered a Liberal newspaper. The fact is that he had that one appointment.
Here we are talking about Bruce Phillips. The Minister of Justice says that we have been hard on Bruce Phillips. I have not heard anyone being hard on Bruce Phillips. No one is questioning his integrity at all. In fact everybody is going overboard to be extra nice to Bruce Phillips.
The fact is that he has worked in the Office the Prime Minister. He has also received an appointment from the government to our embassy in the United States. This
June 6, 1990

would be his third government job, and the idea that this will leave in people's minds is of very great significance.
Could the member for Victoria and his constituents actually look upon Bruce Phillips as a person who could carry on the job without any shadow of a doubt of a legacy with this government?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. My constituents and people right across Canada will see this as a bad appointment, in part because we are making an issue of it. It is appropriate for us to do it because this appointment was not the subject of effective consultation and agreement on all sides of the House.
It seems to me important that all sides agree on a position as sensitive as this of an officer of the House. Only if we cannot agree after some extensive period of consultation on an appropriate name to go into this office should the government be forced to use its majority to ram somebody through.
However, we have not gone through that process. There has been limited discussion. The government said: "This is the appointment. Take it or leave it". Does the minister have an intervention or is she just mumbling to herself?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The minister does have an intervention. The Minister of Justice on a question or comment.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria. I am very pleased to hear that everybody is in consensus on Bruce Phillips' integrity.
I would also like to make a comment about Inger Hansen. The hon. member has suggested that the decision to appoint an Information Commissioner is in some way an offence to Inger Hansen. I think that is a very wrong conclusion to draw. Inger Hansen is a very distinguished individual. She is from British Columbia, and I can remember hearing her speak a number of years ago at UBC when she was the Privacy Commissioner. She served as Privacy Commissioner and then Information Commissioner.
I hope it is not a reflection of the fact that there was a shuffle at the end of February that the appropriate
Routine Proceedings
representations have not been made to Ms. Hansen about her service. From my perspective or that of any government members that I know of there is certainly no intention to be in any way disrespectful of her.
I do hope the hon. member will recognize that it is a prerogative of this House and governments to renew and change appointments. Mr. Grace is following in a sense the same path that Ms. Hansen took: to be first Privacy Commissioner and then Information Commissioner. I would not want to leave the House with the impression that anyone on this side of the House considered Ms. Hansen to be anything but a very distinguished Canadian and a very distinguished public servant.
As she has said herself recently, she is still young and full of energy and eager for new challenges. I hope that she will continue to have opportunities to express herself in ways that are of benefit to the Canadian people and fulfilling to her as a human being.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member for Victoria like to rebut?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments the Minister of Justice has made about Ms. Hansen.
I may say frankly, and I hope it does not sound churlish, that it is long overdue. There have been questions about her reappointment for sometime. There were questions reported in The Ottawa Citizen. Frank Howard commented on it a week ago. It has taken until now for the minister to make the statement. Perhaps it is an oversight in the busy life, but now that they are on the record I am sure it is appreciated by Canadians that she finally made those fair and appropriate comments about Ms. Hansen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the member for Dartmouth, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is an inappropriate appointment. I think the member for Victoria said it clearly. On the one hand we have somebody in the person of Inger Hansen who did her job as the Information Commissioner and was critical of the government. She appeared before one of the standing committees of Parliament last year and was extremely critical of the government for not allowing the spirit of the act to come through in the actual actions of the government.

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The person who did her job, who was independent from the government, and who was protecting the public interest does not get her term renewed. In effect she gets canned for doing her job. That is what the government did.
At the same time as the government is trying to tell us that these appointments are all above board and that there is absolutely no scent of political interference, after it kicked Inger Hansen out of her job, which most Canadians thought she was doing quite well thank you veiy much, it plucked from the trough Bruce Phillips.
I am not going to be as gracious as my colleague for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Bruce Phillips may be the nicest man in the world; he might be one of the best journalists in the world, but the fact is that this is the third time that he has changed troughs. He was in one with the Prime Minister's Office where he was basically the propaganda officer for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Justice said it. She said that Bruce Phillips, when he was in the Prime Minister's Office as the communications officer-and I am quoting and you can check it in Hansard tomorrow-"had a commitment to the success of the Prime Minister".


A. Kim Campbell: I didn't say that, I am sorry. Your own colleague said that and I was quoting him.


Ronald MacDonald: Our colleague, the member for Victoria, indicated that Bruce Phillips was most recently a communications officer down in Washington, again a political appointment. Now he relies for his third job, on another political appointment by the Prime Minister of Canada. This time it is a political appointment as an officer of Parliament.
Does the member for Victoria agree that just as the old adage indicates, which I am just going to change a little, that these officers of Parliament, in this case Bruce Phillips and the office he has now been appointed to as the Privacy Commissioner, must not just operate outside the sphere of political influence but must also appear to operate completely outside the sphere of political influence?
Is that the primary concern of my colleague from Victoria? It is not so much that Bruce Phillips in this
position is going to be spreading secrets and looking into personal files, but that as an officer of Parliament he must command the respect of the Canadian public to do his job as the Privacy Commissioner?
Is the member trying to say that he is a little concerned that some Canadians are going to find it very, very difficult to believe the line of the government that this is an independent appointment clear of politics?


Mr. Volpe:: Yes will do.


John F. Brewin: It is suggested, Mr. Speaker, that my reply should be a simple yes. I am going to add a phrase however because I do not entirely agree.
I am not simply concerned with appearances. I am concerned that we do not know enough about Mr. Phillips to justify the appointment. I believe that because he served in the Prime Minister's Office there is a very serious likelihood that he is not qualified for the position, because of this connection. However I do not know that for sure, and I believe the appropriate action is to have this matter referred to the justice committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wanted to ask the hon. member to comment on the concerns that have been expressed by perhaps one of the most respected international experts in the area of privacy. I am speaking of Professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario.
The most recent report of the Privacy Commissioner, John Grace, refers to him as an internationally recognized authority on data protection who served as consultant to the justice committee in its review of the Privacy Act, who has been quoted extensively, and who has written extensively on this subject. Quite clearly Professor Flaherty is recognized as Canada's leading expert on privacy. He has no political axe to grind whatsoever.
Professor Flaherty has indicated that he is disgusted by the appointment of Bruce Phillips. He says that the appointment ruins the integrity of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
That is not the word of a member of this House; that is the word of Professor David Flaherty who as I say is a respected individual and probably knows more about privacy than anyone else in the country.
June 6, 1990

I want to ask the member for Victoria to comment with respect to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. I believe the hon. member has made his comments.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among House officers and I believe you will find agreement to adjourn now by consent the current debate on the motion to appoint Mr. Phillips and to resume the adjourned debate tomorrow during Routine Proceedings on Motions. That debate plus the debate, if there should be one, on the appointment of Mr. Grace to the position of Access to Information Commissioner will be terminated no later than 1 p.m. tomorrow.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: With one additional caveat. It is understood that members of the opposition alone will be recognized in debate for the two hours. If the government wishes to participate, we requested additional time. There was an indication there would be no government members rising in debate during the two-hour period tomorrow morning.


Harvie Andre: Hopefully, you are not expecting that hon. members will not have an opportunity, during the question and answer period, to ensure that the public has an accurate picture and to straighten out the misinformation that is presented during the debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, certainly I was very careful in saying "rise in debate". Of course, I would expect members of the government to try to defend the indefensible and to try to twist around the straight-talking words of the members of the Opposition in putting the truth before the people of Canada. I was very careful in choosing my words, and I think that is the additional understanding in the circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners are from Kamloops, British Columbia. They point out their concern about the government's intention to proceed with the proposed goods and services tax in spite of the incredible opposition, and state a number of reasons why they oppose this tax.
I know they would want me to mention that they would like to call upon the Liberals in the Senate to do the honourable thing and defeat this tax in the Senate. After all, if the Liberals in the Senate wanted to defeat the GST, they could do so this afternoon. Apparently, they do not want to do that. They would rather vote themselves an increase of $153 of incentive funds to go to the Senate.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to reconsider supporting this, and they ask the government to go back to the drawing board and start all over.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, today, it is my pleasure to present a petition to Parliament, pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by residents of Atlantic Canada, and more particularly, from various parts of Newfoundland.
The petitioners stand four-square and opposed to this government's proposed 7 per cent goods and services tax. They join over 750,000 people who have petitioned this Parliament for the same reason, to tell this government that the proposed goods and services tax is a tax that they believe to be unfair. They believe it to be a hidden tax, and they believe to be a gouge and screw tax on the taxpayer.
The petitioners are asking the government to, at once, reconsider this very regressive tax and go back to the drawing board.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise under Standing Order 36 to join my friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth who presented a petition, and present a petition from my riding. I am going to join him to get the numbers up from 15,000 to 16,000.

June 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
These are constituents from Spaniard's Bay, Bay Roberts, Harbour Grace, Clarke's Beach and that area of Conception Bay north. These people are very concerned about the goods and services tax adding to the already dismal burden of Newfoundlanders, with the various economic downfalls and dismal outlook that we have for the next year or so.
They are particularly concerned because, as middle and low income earners, they spend over 90 per cent of their incomes on consumables. They are looking at higher income Canadians who spend less than 50 per cent, and they really feel this is unfair. It is another addition to the already 31 taxes that have been levied since 1984.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.



VIA RAIL

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on two different subjects.
First, these are petitions which have been signed by hundreds of residents of Burnaby-Kingsway and elsewhere in British Columbia, concerning a tax by the Conservative government on railway passenger service in Canada.
They point out that railway passenger service, as carried on by VIA Rail, is essential for many Canadians and has been a part of Canada for more than 100 years. They express their concern about cuts by the Conservative government of over $500 million in its operating grant to VIA. They point out that the effect of these budget cuts is to eliminate one-third of our national passenger railway system.
They therefore call on Parliament to maintain the existing VIA Rail network, to upgrade VIA equipment and to guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions, again signed by a wide variety of residents of British Columbia but particularly signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, are petitions relating to the proposed goods and services tax, proposed by the Minister of Finance.
The petitioners point out that this is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. They urge the government to come to its senses and reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.
They urge the Senators in the other place to wake up and take their responsibilities seriously on the goods and services tax. I am sure they would urge that. That may not be explicit, but I am sure it is understood. They finally urge the government to cease its proposal which would shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform. I hope that the government would heed the plea of these constituents and put an end to the goods and services tax.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the province of Newfoundland.
I may say that the petition was gathered by my honourable and gallant colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and I believe that many of the persons who have signed this petition are constituents of his and they object to the goods and services tax.
They point out in their petition that this government has increased taxes 31 times since it has assumed office. As he so eloquently put it a moment ago, they, as residents of Newfoundland, have suffered unduly at the hands of this government that they look forward to the return of prosperous times with the election of a Liberal government in the forthcoming federal election. They call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I too rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, with a duly certified and correct petition both as to form and content.
This petition is from hundreds of residents of Newfoundland, from Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Spanish Point, Gull Island, Victoria, Rooche's Line, Spaniard's Bay and Bristos Hope.
They call on this Parliament to urge the government to withdraw the vicious goods and service tax, a tax which is going to wreak havoc on the economy of an already depleted region of Canada and will impose a very serious and grievous burden on those who are unaccustomed to paying an additional tax on services.
June 6, 1990



LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT TRAINING

Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, in accordance with Standing Order 36, from residents of Regina, Toronto and Calgary who are concerned with the government's carrying on of war training in Labrador and eastern Quebec.
They urge this House to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in opposing the use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training. They demand that the Canadian government end all the NATO and NORAD low-level flight training in Canada, and they ask Parliament to redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.



HUMAN RIGHTS

['For the years 1988 and 1989, did the government authorize permits for the export of goods falling under Section 7 (military goods) of the Export Control List for any country and, if so (a) which countries (b) in each case, what was the total value of such permits?\nRight Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External\nAffairs): For the years 1988 and 1989, export permits were authorized for the export of military goods as described in Group 7 of the Export Control List (Group 2 of the new List as of spring 1989).\nThe following is a list of countries for which export permits for military goods were approved. As export permits are often issued in advance of sales contracts being negotiated and thus resulting in many permits not being used, the values are not representative of actual exports. For this reason statistics are not maintained on the value of permits issued.\nAustralia\tMorocco\nAutria\tNetherlands\nBangladesh\tNEW ZEALAND\nBelgium\tNorway\nBrazil\tOman\nCameroon\tPakistan\nChile\tPeru\nCote dtvoire\tPhilippines\nCuba\tPortugal\nDenmark\tSaudi arabla\nEcuador\tSingapore\nEgypt\tSouth Korea\nFinland\tSpain\nFrance\tSri LANKA\nGreece\tSudan\nGuyana\tSweden\nHong kong\tSwitzerland\nIndia\tTanzania\nIndonesia\tThailand\nIsrael\tTogo\nItaly\tTrinidad', 'June 6, 1990']
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to table more petitions on behalf of Mr. Leo, who has been arrested in Taiwan illegally for speaking out on human rights issues. These are additional petitions to what I tabled back on January 24, and March 5, 7 and 28.
Mrs. Leo, the wife of Mr. Leo, and the petitioners, are asking the government and the external affairs department to treat this as a human rights case, not a legal case.
They cannot understand why the government is referring this to the Canadian Trade Office and the Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan to monitor the case. These two organizations are there to further trade between the two countries. They will not get involved in any human rights issues.
It is frightening to think that a Canadian can be arrested and jailed for speaking out to uphold human rights principles. Yet, his country does nothing to help get him out of jail.
I appeal to the government. Mr. Speaker, you know the government must respond to these petitions within 45 days, and it has responded to every petition that I have tabled since January. Unfortunately, every response is
Routine Proceedings
identical, which means that the government has done nothing in six months.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government House leader, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 273, 286 and 296.


Mrs. Stewart: For the years 1988 and 1989, did the government authorize permits for the export of goods falling under Section 7 (military goods) of the Export Control List for any country and, if so (a) which countries (b) in each case, what was the total value of such permits?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): For the years 1988 and 1989, export permits were authorized for the export of military goods as described in Group 7 of the Export Control List (Group 2 of the new List as of spring 1989).
The following is a list of countries for which export permits for military goods were approved. As export permits are often issued in advance of sales contracts being negotiated and thus resulting in many permits not being used, the values are not representative of actual exports. For this reason statistics are not maintained on the value of permits issued.
Australia	Morocco
Autria	Netherlands
Bangladesh	NEW ZEALAND
Belgium	Norway
Brazil	Oman
Cameroon	Pakistan
Chile	Peru
Cote dtvoire	Philippines
Cuba	Portugal
Denmark	Saudi arabla
Ecuador	Singapore
Egypt	South Korea
Finland	Spain
France	Sri LANKA
Greece	Sudan
Guyana	Sweden
Hong kong	Switzerland
India	Tanzania
Indonesia	Thailand
Israel	Togo
Italy	Trinidad

June 6, 1990



LUXEMBOURG


[Stage Direction]
Supply


Mr. Caccia: With respect to each of the five general and twenty-two specific recommendations set out on pages 53 to 58 of the International Joint Commission's Fifth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, is the government prepared to make a response at this time and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, at what time will it be made public?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Part I of the Commission's report describes aptly the public concern about the future of the Great Lakes and the high priority put on meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Government of Canada shares these concerns and is fully committed to achieving the purpose of the revised Agreement.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked his officials to study the five general and 25 specific recommendations to governments outlined in Part II of the Report. A detailed response to these recommendations will be provided at the end of this year in the second Canadian Report to the UC on the implementation of specific annexes to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.



CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE

Mr. Edmonston: With regard to the Champlain Bridge in Montreal (a) for each of the last ten years, is the government aware (i) of the global annual cost of operating and maintaining the bridge (ii) in detail, what the money was spent on (iii) the annual revenue obtained by tolls on the bridge (iv) the annual deficit registered and, if so, what were they (b) over the past ten years, was there an accumulated deficit and, if so, what was it (c) for the next ten years, has the government forecast major expenses associated with the bridge and, if so, what are they?


Philip Derek Lewis: The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, a subsidiary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, advises as follows:
a)	(i to iv) Yes, the government was made aware on an annual basis. See below.
b)	Over the past ten years, there was an accumulated deficit amounting to $10,582,970.00.
c)	For the next five (5) years, the government is forecasting major expenses associated with the Champlain Bridge. In its latest Corporate Plan, which was submitted to the government, the Corporation is forecasting a major maintenance program for the years 1990-91 to 1994-95 amounting to $69,131,000.00. Of this amount, a total of $32,625,000.00 is for that replacement of the main span of the Champlain Bridge.



THE JACQUES CARTIER AND CHAMPLAIN BRIDGES INCORPORATED CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31

[Stage Direction]
Unaudited
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	TOTAL$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$REVENUES	Tolls	5,254,475	5,500,478	5,458,613	5,641,056	6,028,129	6,515,257	6,948,975	7,642,908	7,874,963	7,978,204	64,843,058Interest	669,741	610,277	426,468	280,614	316,187	260,720	264,453	224,100	319,887	324,503	3,696,950Other	67,167	49,384	61,418	67,791	92,891	104,189	136,014	99,284	104,790	142,310	925,2385,991,383	6,160,139	5,946,499	5,989,461	6,437,207	6,880,166	7,349,442	7,966,292	8,299,640	8,445,017	69,465,246EXPENSES	Operation	2,357,026	2,882,121	3,176,823	3,208,538	2,778,888	2,862,485	3,075,752	3,344,251	3,240,883	4,104,499	31,031,266Maintenance	3,008,217	1,990,097	2,366,539	1,544,095	2,053,484	3,337,889	3,027,467	3,782,671	6,891,857	9,107,955	37,110,271Administration	802,025	1,015,044	1,070,669	1,140,463	1,180,563	1,232,322	1,479,589	1,558,813	1,542,354	1,551,523	12,573,365Depreciation	1,026,012	1,040,188	1,040,808	1,042,917	1,045,096	1,038,888	1,031,781	1,042,939	1,052,230	1,048,217	10,409,076
June 6, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Employee termination benefits	37,854	0	0	0	0Interest	2,812,673	0	0	0	010,043,807	6,927,450	7,654,839	6,936,013	7,058,031NET LOSS	4,052,424	767,311	1,708,340	946,552	620,824PARLIAMENTARY APPROPRIATION -Operation	220,885	(402,685)	658,327	(73,579)	(390,834)WRITE-OFF OF INTEREST	0	0	0	0	0NET DEFICIT	3,831,539	1,169,996	1,050,013	1,020,131	1,011,658
Supply
0	0	0	0	0	37,8540	0	0	0	0	2,812,6738,471,584	8,614,589	9,728,674	12,727,324	15,812,194	93,974,5051,591,418	1,265,147	1,762,382	4,427,684	7,367,177	24,509,259506,995	250,078	735,746	3,338,642	6,270,041	11,113,6160	0	2,812,673	0	0	2,812,6731,084,423	1,015,069	(1,786,037)	1,089,042	1,097,136	10,582,970
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since today is the final allotted day for the Supply period ending June 30, 1990, pursuant to order made Thursday, May 31, 1990, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of a Supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of the government House leader, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, laid upon the Table Thursday, February 22, 1990 be concurred in.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 75-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Harvie Andre: Motion No. 1
That Vote 75, in the amount of $90,704,000 under the Department
of Communications -National Museums of Canada- Operating
Expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1991 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Some hon. members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when we get a copy of the bill, we could probably comment on it.


An hon. member:: We have a few opposition motions to be moved too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can hardly wait for the opposition motions.

June 6, 1990
Supply
I am just waiting for the bills to be distributed so the hon. members will have an opportunity to debate. Is the House ready for the question? There is nobody rising on debate. I am going to have to put the question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to make sure that I understand the proceedings, I do not see any number but I assume the Supply bill would have a number. Could the Table please inform me of the number of that bill? There is no number yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The bill will receive a number when it is introduced the first time. Question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Harvie Andre: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Harvie Andre: Motion No. 2
That Vote 1, in the amount $27,605,000 under Parliament-the
Senate-Program Expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1991 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it the bill before us has been put to the House and has been printed and circulated.
The first question to be put was on the first proposed motion. I do not see the member for Mississauga South whose name was on the Order Paper as opposing the item. I would like to know if we are now going to proceed with that item at this time, or has he withdrawn it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have just proposed that motion and it was carried on division. Now we are on debate. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am actually looking forward to the debate on this issue, particularly from my hon. friend, the government House leader, who is suggesting that we provide funding for the Senate to continue its business. I find it to be most intriguing that, after days, weeks and months of bad-mouthing the Senate and criticizing what the Senate is doing, now the government is going to spend $27 million to allow it to continue.
I am looking forward to my hon. friend's presentation, and perhaps a number of presentations, to explain, now that the government has been given the opportunity to curtail the Senate's work-to bring it to an end, to cause it to wrap up, to eliminate the Senate in terms of being able to function-why the government is now enthusiastic and wants Parliament to concur in spending millions and millions of dollars to allow the Senate to continue.
Worse than that, we have had another blow just in the last few hours. The Senate has said: "We need an incentive to go to work". I have heard of a lot of incentives, but the Senate is saying: "We need an incentive now to go to work. We need to be encouraged and bribed"-I guess I cannot say "bribed", that would be in poor taste-"encouraged to go to work. We need $153 a day or else we will not go to work anymore. That is on top of all of the other benefits that we receive."
The government can say no to this today. The government can say, no, it is not going to provide $153 a day as an incentive for the Senators to go to work. After all, they do work very hard. They actually work three days a week now and, most days, they work two or three hours a day when they do work. I think it is up to 76 days a year that they actually manage to get a quorum to continue business. But that is not enough, so they need an incentive. I suspect with the incentive we will find the Senate holding committee hearings on Monday, and probably Fridays as well to round out their work experience. This is incredible.
Some days back when, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I gave notice of opposition to this vote in the amount of $27,605,000 in the Main Estimates to enable the Senate to conduct its business, I asked why we would want to do that. Why would we want to allow the Senate to continue doing what it does? I thought we would ask what the Senate does do. What is it that the Senate does on our behalf allegedly?
June 6, 1990

This is where I have to come to some difference with my Liberal friends in the House of Commons. A few weeks ago my leader asked Mr. MacEachen, the leader of the Liberals in the Senate, to do the honourable thing now and defeat the goods and services tax.
I think it has become clear across the country that, in spite of what virtually every Canadian is saying, the Conservatives are saying: "We are going to go ahead with this tax anyway. We are going to jam it down Canadians' throats, whether they want it or not." That is what they are doing. I am sure my hon. friends do not think it is a good idea, but for some reason they are surging along here and going ahead with the 7 per cent goods and services tax on virtually everything that we find in our society. It is going to cost Canadians a lot of money and Canadians are against this tax-60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, and up to 90 per cent in certain communities across the country. Does the Conservative government listen to that? Oh, no, it knows better than that.
I listen carefully and my hon. friends in the Liberal Party say: "We join with the New Democrats. We oppose this tax. We are not like the Conservatives." I listened carefully and, as individuals, they probably do.


An hon. member:: We even have alternatives.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And they have alternatives, as we do. When the Liberals got together in caucus and came to the position that they oppose the GST, a lot of us made the assumption that they meant all Liberals-not just the ones in the House of Commons, but also included the Liberals in the Senate.
My leader then said to the Liberals in the Senate: "Listen, since the Liberals oppose the GST, why don't you folks in the Senate-because you have a nice majority at the moment-do the right thing and defeat the tax this afternoon? Or next week, or in the next couple of days, but do it soon."
The Liberals in the Senate say they want to hold hearings. Hearings into what? Whether this is a good tax or not? I thought we had months and months on that decision. It is perfectly clear what Canadians feel. So, the Liberals want to hold hearings. They want to collect $153 a day, because they know they do not defeat bills and they do not pass bills now. There is a whole pile of them in the Senate. They study them. They look into them. They hold hearings. They go on and on and, with a $153-a-day incentive, they may be inclined to go on for months studying this legislation.
Supply
I do think we have seen a change of heart here, at least, in some of the Liberals. While the Liberals in the House of Commons certainly oppose this tax, their Liberal colleagues in the Senate seem to like this tax. They seem to want this tax to go through. So we have to ask ourselves: "Do we want and do we need the Senate of Canada?" I think not.
It costs the taxpayers of Canada $40 million each year to support the senators. Just think what $40 million a year could do in terms of child care centres and day care spaces. Think what it could do to help a lot of small businesses across the country launch into new ventures and hire more people. Think what $40 million could do to enable women's shelters across the country to expand. Think what it could do in terms of programs to combat drug and alcohol abuse. Think what $40 million could do in terms of literacy programs to assist those who are struggling with illiteracy in our country. Think what it could do to reforestation programs or to help municipalities develop their municipal infrastructure to have better sewage and water facilities. We could think of a long shopping list of how to spend the $40 million it costs now to keep the Senate in place. I cannot figure out what on earth the Senate does for us.
What it does is it creates a lot of jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, for certain folks. There are 33 Conservatives in the Senate now, and they will soon be joined, I suspect, by 12 new ones because there will be some opportunities to make new appointments. A number of people will find new careers in Canada's Senate, at least until we have a chance to reform it.
Looking back at the record we see that between 1960 and 1982 the Senate addressed 1,000 pieces of legislation. That is the number of pieces of legislation moved from the House of Commons to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many it amended of those 1,000 pieces of legislation from 1960 to 1982? It managed to provide amendments to 35 of those bills. Thirty-five out of over 1,000 pieces of legislation the Senate actually amended. The House of Commons accepted 30 of those. Of course, as far as I am able to determine, the Senate did not defeat any legislation in that period at all. They do have the constitutional authority to do so, but they did not.
I could go on and talk about the Senate. As we go through these estimates today, we have a chance to send a very clear message to the Senate as to what we think. The government on many occasions has raled on about how the Senate is holding up legislation, such as changes to the UI legislation and the clawback provisions where the government now has abandoned universality for

Supply
pensions, and so on. They are holding up progress on quite a list of legislation.
The government gets aggravated and says that the Senate should not do this. The government actually introduced legislation some months ago to limit the power of the Senate. I thought for a moment that we were now going to get serious about dealing with the Senate. The government actually tabled legislation, but what happened to the legislation? It went nowhere. It disappeared. It was never discussed in the House again.
When the government says that it wants to reform the Senate, curtail what it is are doing or change the Senate, I say: "When you actually introduced legislation to do that, you ignored it."
Here, we actually have a chance today to end the Senate. We can say to the Senate that it can pass all the little goodies it wants, pay itself $153 a day, or $553 a day-it doesn't matter. We are not going to give it the money to do it. That will send a pretty clear signal to the folks in the other place.
We look at the actual cost of the Senate and find, although it only sits the odd day a week, and just for an hour or two a day on average, that it costs the taxpayers $40 million a year which comes to about $435,880 per Senator. When we consider what that $40 million would provide to the people of Canada in real service, or to reduce the debt of the country on a regular basis, we would be hard pressed to find out why we should do this, why we should follow the government's advice and give these millions of dollars to allow the Senate to continue.
I think it is appropriate for me, Mr. Speaker, to take my seat shortly to allow my colleagues on the government side particularly to indicate why it is they want to move on this motion today and provide these millions and millions of dollars to allow the Senate to continue. I would ask my hon. friend, the government House leader, that the government reconsider this position that it is taking now and send a clear message to the Senate. Tell them: "We have had it with your antics. We have had it with what you are doing. We do not feel you are doing any good any longer because-"


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: How can you say that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend asks how I can say that. I thought we could give them a chance to show they are worth something, that they are actually representing the people of Canada on a very important issue. We chose the goods and services tax because it is virtually unanimous in opposition across the country. We said to the Liberal-dominated Senate: "Will you do the right thing, defeat this legislation, and kill this bill?"


Dennis Joseph Mills: You have to do it responsibly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You have to do it responsibly, my hon. friend from Toronto says.
Anyway, what became clear is that the Senate has no intention of killing the GST legislation. The government has no intention of not supporting the Senate. Why is it dragging out the agony? If it was determined to do that, it would. But I have a sneaky feeling, Mr. Speaker, a sneaking suspicion, that the Liberals are trying to get it both ways. They can give the illusion that they oppose the GST, but given due time and so on, the old Senate will let it through around Thanksgiving. The tax will be in place and the old printing press, the old gravy train is there for taxation. Maybe some day in the future, if and when the Liberals ever return to office, this whole process would be done. Who would take the flack? Well, the government would take the flack. The Conservatives would take the flack for introducing this. But who would have introduced it? The Conservatives would have introduced it and passed it through the House of Commons because of their majority. They have already passed it at second reading after a very short debate. That is the principle of the bill. At second reading we discuss whether or not we believe in the principle of this bill.
I note with interest that the Liberals in the Senate agreed with the principle of the bill. They said: "Yes, we agree with a goods and services tax of 7 per cent on principle." All I am saying is that is what we have seen so far, agreeing in principle. Yes, it was quickly done, with very little debate. Now we have to allow a little bit of time so that the Liberals can get a new leader in place and so on. Then we will let this thing slip through a little bit later.
That is why I think we should forget the bloody Senate. What have they done for us anyway? This is our opportunity, not only to forget the Senate, but essentially to abolish the Senate by not giving them the necessary operating funds to allow them to continue. That is what this initiative has done on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and I am proud of it. They have demonstrated clearly that they are not operating in the best interest of Canada. They are accountable to no one. They are an aberration in a democratic society. They are a parliamentary obscenity when you look at how this process operates. This is the chance to not support this motion by my hon. friend, the Conservative House Leader, to allow the Senate to continue indefinitely or at least give them money for another fiscal year.
June 6, 1990


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of ironies in this motion. The hon. member has been around for a while. He may recall where this procedure of objecting to a particular item in the Estimates arose. Then the President of the Treasury Board is obliged to bring forward a motion specifically identifying the vote to which objection has been raised.
He may remember that the government House leader at the time this procedure was devised is currently the leader of the opposition in the Senate, the famous Senator MacEachen.
I may have a point of privilege here. Here I am, forced by procedure invented by Senator MacEachen to move on behalf of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, a motion to restore the funds they need for their operation.
If ever a minister or member of Parliament deserves accolades for duty above and beyond the call, it is for having to undertake these actions. I am almost speechless at having to ask the hard-working taxpayers of this country to give up $27 million of their funds in order to provide Mr. MacEachen and his friends with the comforts to which they have become accustomed. It is one of the toughest things I have ever had to do.
I do have a question for the hon. member for Kamloops, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, who talked of his contempt for the Senate and how he thinks that we should deny them funds. Of course last Friday-mind you he wasn't here and I would have been away too had I been in his position, too embarrassed to be here-when his colleague the member for Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca moved a motion suggesting that we send a message to the Senate asking that it kill the GST legislation.
On the one hand he wants to deny them the money needed to operate, but on the other hand wants them to operate in a way that frankly is unconstitutional. I wonder if the member for Kamloops could tell me when he went through the change of heart, or change of mind, and when his party changed its policy. In the fall of 1987 when we were debating C-22, amendments to the Patent Act respecting pharmaceuticals, there was a lot of
Supply
opposition in this House and when the bill was sent to the other place the Senate refused to accept it, amended it, and kept sending it back. It was doing much the same as we are doing now with C-21.
At that time the hon. member for Kamloops was asked for a comment by a reporter and as reported in The Ottawa Citizen of October 30, 1987, he said: "Quite frankly I am very disappointed with the Senate because I do not think it has the right to be holding up legislation."
Now could the hon. member tell me what has happened over the last three years to cause his judgment to so fail, his principles to so desert him that now he would be calling upon the Senate to in fact kill legislation currently before it? What has caused this once fine, upstanding commitment to democracy as demonstrated by this quote of October 30, 1987, to have so deserted the hon. member that he would now stand up and proclaim the appropriateness of the other place taking the kinds of unconstitutional, immoral action he seems to be asking of them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my hon. friend and say that he ought to consider what action would occur if the government did not move on the motion before us.


Harvie Andre: We wouldn't get the appropriations bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know he has an obligation to bring it forward, but does he have an obligation to actually move on it and support it? I raise it as another question for him. My hon. friend has referred back to last Friday when we called upon the Senate-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On Monday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Excuse me. -on Monday of this week when we called upon the Senate to kill a bill. We filed the motion on Friday reminding the Senate that it does have the constitutional authority to reject, to kill legislation, to kill bills. I do not believe we should have a Senate with its present powers, answerable to no one, accountable to no one. That is my personal sort of point of view. We should not have the Senate at all.


Mr. Boyer:: Sort of view; that's right. Sort of view.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will take back the sort of-we should not have the Senate at all making these kinds of decisions. It has no place in a democratic society. However, the

June 6, 1990
Supply
reality is we have a Senate. There are a lot of things that I do not care for. There are a lot of things the government does that I do not care for, but we have to live with these things. We have to live with the Senate. So, let us give the Senate an opportunity to prove itself. It has the constitutional authority to kill legislation. That is reality. I might not like it, I might not endorse it, I might not support it, but that is reality.
My leader asked the Senate to do something responsible for once and rather than simply review legislation, hundreds and thousands of pieces of it, do something that the people of Canada want it to do as senators, and defeat the goods and services tax. It failed to do that. It is not doing that. It gives no indication that it has any intention of listening to the people of Canada. That is why, today, we bring forward this motion which states we should not provide funding to allow the Senate to operate any longer. In other words, not give it the $27-plus million they require to carry on.
This would essentially abolish the Senate. Nelson Riis today, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, is putting forward this initiative to abolish the Senate. We cannot be any clearer than that in terms of how we feel when it comes to this particular Senate and the way it operates. The reality is that it exists and I am providing an opportunity for my friend, the government House Leader, and for the government, to do the right thing and not concur in this motion to provide operating funds to allow the other place an opportunity to continue for another fiscal year.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, to say that I was amazed in listening to the hon. member for Kamloops would be putting it mildly. I can only say how glad I am he has come back to the Chamber. I know he was away Monday when the motion his party put forward was debated. I looked forward to his participation in that debate.
The hon. member is now saying he wants to abolish the Senate. He now says that is party policy. Yet, on May 10 in the House, he told us the NDP policy had changed. He made an announcement that apparently at the December convention the NDP decided to scrap the policy of abolition. The hon. member for Edmonton East apparently had not grasped that fact. That became obvious on Monday. There may be dissension in the NDP about what their policy really is. Some seem to
think it is still abolition, some say it is not. It is a personal view of his that abolition is still-


Patrick Boyer: It is a personal view.


Harvie Andre: It is a personal sort of view.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The government House leader says it is a personal sort of view. But, somehow, we do not know what NDP policy is on this.


An hon. member:: You never do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On the one hand they say "we want to abolish the Senate". Some of the members seem to think that. Apparently their official policy is to look at other options. That is what the hon. member for Kamloops said on May 10. On Monday they were saying how the Senate really was very important and should exercise its constitutional rights and block government bills willy-nilly. It was right there in the motion.
I am sorry the hon. member for Kamloops did not participate in that debate because I am sure he would have supported that motion. It was his party's official position. Or, perhaps the hon. member Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca went off on his own and dumped this motion on the Order Paper by mistake on Friday afternoon. We do not know what happened, but I wish the hon. member for Kamloops had clarified that for us in his remarks on the Senate. We would appreciate hearing his views. Nevertheless, having moved this motion on Monday saying that it supports the Senate, today we now have the hon. member for Kamloops trying to take away the Senate's money so it cannot do what the NDP wanted it to do on Monday.
What is the NDP position? What is the hon. member for Kamloops really saying? Are some of the members of the NDP in favour of abolition and others not? Do some think the Senate should block this legislation and some not, or is he simply playing a game and trying to blame the Liberal Party for the passage of this bad tax that this Tory government has introduced? Is that what he is really trying to do? If so, does the New Democratic Party, being a party of principle, not think that politics is a naughty thing to do and it should not be engaging in such silliness?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, imagine politics in the House of Commons. What is going to happen next, politics in the Parliament of Canada? I guess I have to admit that, from time to time, politics does rear its lovely head in here.
June 6, 1990

In response to my friend, I have two points. Yes, I was trying to point out the fact that the Liberals in the Senate are passing the GST. I must confess to that. They are passing the GST, just like the Conservatives in the House of Commons passed the GST. To clarify for my hon. friend, the motion on Monday read as follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate reminding the Senate that it has the constitutional right and the power to defeat any bill coming from the House of Commons.
Anybody who understands how Parliament works would agree that the Senate has the authority to do just that, so that is a given. It is just a reminder, I suppose, to my hon. friend that that is the reality of our parliamentary system, that the Senate has the power and the authority to defeat any bill.
All we were asking on Monday was that the Senate do what we would expect it to do, in terms of listening to the people of Canada and defeat the bill. The Senate has failed to do that. We have given it ample time to indicate if it intends to defeat the goods and services tax, but the Senate obviously does not. The Liberals in the Senate plan, as they already have voted in favour of the tax once in the Senate, to take a little bit of time but eventually pass it one way or the other. Probably a lot of people will be sick on that day, or away or whatever and their incentive plan will not work to bring in the senators. Eventually they will muster up a majority and probably pass it on division so it will not be clear who it was who supported it, but it will pass the Senate.
To answer my hon. friend's question: What is the NDP's position in terms of the Senate? I will read, specifically, from party policy, because I think my hon. friend asked a very important question. As far as the Parliament of Canada is concerned, it states that "The NDP will continue to fight for further changes, including the abolition of the Senate". As of the last party convention in 1989, Motion 30 reads, "and that the proposed committee on the Canadian Constitution examine options to promote better regional representation in the Parliament of Canada including, but not limited to, proportional representation, an elected Senate, a House of the provinces and territories, as well as the abolition of the Senate", in other words, a number of options.
Supply
All I can say is that the NDP has been consistent. We do not change our policy by the day. We develop our policy at the grass roots at party conventions and we support that. What we are doing is completely and totally consistent with party policy; it is totally consistent with initiatives that we have taken on Friday of last week, on Monday of this week and certainly today when we have asked for the abolition of the Senate.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to make a few remarks in this debate. I have given a great deal of consideration as to how I might usefully contribute to the discussion. However, after listening to my hon. friend opposite, the hon. member for Kamloops, I must confess I am left a little bit confused as to exactly where the New Democratic Party stands with respect to the subject of democracy. If I understand correctly, what I have just heard the hon. member calling for is the other place to defeat legislation that, in the case of the GST, has been approved by this House. He is calling for the other place, the non-elected other place, to defeat that legislation and I find that a remarkable bit of confusion.
The hon. member says that that defeat should take place because of democracy, I believe that was the term; that the will of the people should prevail. I have lived with the understanding, perhaps it is a delusion, that the way we practise democracy in this country is that every so often Parliament is dissolved and we have an election and the people make their choices. It is, I believe, what is referred to as a representative democracy. Both in 1988 and in 1984 the people of Canada made their choice and gave an overwhelming mandate to this government to govern the country. Indeed, during the course of doing so, the government, through its elected representatives in the House of Commons, reflecting the perceptions of the will of the people, brings forth legislation that addresses the serious problems of this country and attempts to prepare Canada to move into the 21st century.
That is precisely what this government has been doing and has done in introducing the GST. My goodness gracious, changes in taxes are not popular things but sometimes they are necessary in a democratic country. We need a government that has the courage, the integrity, the honesty and a mandate from the people to get on with the business of the nation. I hear my hon. friend opposite suggesting that a non-elected body

June 6, 1990
Supply
should stop the will of the people, the will of the people as freely expressed in a democratic way at the polls.
We have had, in my opinion, an absolute travesty of democracy for the last several months in this country as we have seen the other place not once, not twice, but three times flaunt the will of the elected people of this country in passage of Bill C-21. This bill is a long overdue revamping of the unemployment insurance system in this country, a bill that is in fact going to take our unemployment insurance from being a passive approach to making it an active approach. Among other things, it is going to make changes that are tremendously beneficial to the people of this country.
Thinking in terms of my own South Shore riding in southern Nova Scotia, I think of the crisis that we are facing right now because of the downturn in the Atlantic fishery. I think of the fact that fish plants are closing far more frequently than we might want.
Thanks to the fact that C-21 is not in place, those people now have to work 20 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. If they would get that bill through, the number of weeks required to qualify for unemployment insurance would be down where it should be. Seasonal workers like fish plant workers would benefit because the repeater provision of the unemployment insurance system would be removed. Yet the other place, ignoring democracy, has refused to pass that legislation. That is something which should be a matter of grave concern to Canadians.
We have now passed Bill C-43 dealing with the contentious issue of abortion. That has caused anguish to Canadians from coast to coast in this country. What are the senators saying? They are not sure what they are going to do about Bill C-43. Perhaps they will hold public hearings on the subject. Goodness, gracious, is there anything left to be said on that particular subject and can we not get on with the governance of this country?
I must not allow myself to get waylaid by the confusion as to what democracy is or is not in the minds of what is called euphemistically the New Democratic Party. I must get on with my own comments about the other place. I happen to think it is a tragedy that the other place has strayed from what it was supposed to be. If we think back 125 years to the origins of our country, and we think of
the concept that existed at that time, of modelling a separate chamber, a chamber, if one reads the confederation debates, one sees was intended to provide what is referred to as a sober second thought. One does not know exactly what the state of sobriety that always might have existed in that or any other place, but nevertheless, the idea was that you had the elected people who essentially were charged with the responsibility of legislating for and governing the country, but you had this second body that would provide a second look that could enhance and contribute to the legislative process in Canada.
The idea was that very distinguished Canadians would be identified and asked to serve in that other place and that it would be a showcase of outstanding Canadians. I was perusing the latest issue of, I forget what it is called, something like the parliamentary guide. It gives little biographies of all the members of this Chamber and the other. I could not help but think to myself that indeed, sitting in that other place are a number of very distinguished Canadians; people who hold the Order of Canada and people who represent various vocations and professions in this country. I was thinking to myself what a tragedy it is the way that place has been abused, the way the credibility of that place, as an institution that could contribute with great value to this country, is being destroyed in the minds of Canadians.
Indeed, it is being destroyed in the minds of all people who believe in the democratic process and who believe that representative parliamentary government is the basis of democracy as we approach the end of this century.
Instead, what we have is gamesmanship being played by people of the Liberal Party who once sat in this place. I think of the distinguished gentleman who for many years represented my province in this place and now sits in the other chamber as Leader of the Opposition. I cannot help but wonder what he would have said when he sat here as House leader or Deputy Prime Minister. What would he have said if the opposition in the other place had done with his legislation what he is now doing with legislation that has been brought in after careful consideration to benefit Canadians from coast to coast? What a tragedy.
What has it come to? Where is it leading? In this country for the last several weeks, and in particular for the last three or four days, we have seen intensive discussion on the subject of Senate reform. We should not need Senate reform. The Senate is not what it is supposed to be. The people there are distinguished Canadians who do not recognize their proper role.
As my hon. friend from Kamloops said, legally and technically the Senate has the right to block legislation here. We also have convention. I am mindful of 1981 and 1982 when constitutional changes, on which there was failure to receive accord of all the Premiers of the country, were being proposed. Contraiy to the convention of this country, the government proceeded without the support of the province of Quebec in implementing the constitutional changes of 1982. This is, perhaps, one of the main reasons that we find ourselves in the state in which this country has been for the last few months.
Convention allowed Quebec to oppose that constitution. Propriety and wisdom would have said: "You do not do it until you get everybody to come together." We now have the same attitude, value and ethic being used in the other place, not surprisingly, by the very same people who had no more respect for propriety and convention when they sat over here than evidently they have in the other place today. In my judgment, that is a most regrettable thing.
The outcome of all of this, in my opinion, could be that increasing numbers of Canadians will end up drawing the same conclusion as the conclusion my hon. friend from Kamloops suggested. In fact, it is the position of his party, that is, that the Senate should be abolished.
Clearly, if the Senate is unable to perform the valuable role it can play for this country and if the role of the Senate de facto is going to be to disrupt the carrying on of democracy, then indeed there is no alternative except to get rid of it. I, for one, think that would be a most regrettable state of affairs if that happened.
Instead, I would rather see the other place and the leadership of the Liberal Party in the other place recognize the difference between propriety and abuse of position. I would rather have it recognize the will of a democratically elected government in this country with
Supply
the courage to lead and the common sense to get on with what the needs of Canada are for the 21st century. Then, Canadians would be well served. Indeed, all members of this House would be most enthusiastic in supporting measures that will provide the financial basis for them to operate in the other place.
I do not want to transgress for too lengthy a period of time on the House, but I will say in conclusion that I urge all members of the House, and in particular I urge all members of the Liberal Party in the House to go to their colleagues up the hall and tell them that it is time they had respect for the democratic process of the country. It is time they had respect for propriety and convention, so that the country can get on with its own business as it should. Canadians would have confidence in parliamentarians at both ends of this hall, as should be the case.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very brief comment.
I listened with great intensity and interest to the hon. member from South Shore. I am sure what he had to say was technically correct, but he glossed over a few points which I think I should certainly raise.
Whether it is in defence of the Senate or not, my particular issue is with some of the comments he made on Bill C-21, which is an issue of some concern to those of us on this side of the House and particularly those of us from the Atlantic region.
My hon. friend talked about the extension beyond the usual 10 or 12 weeks, whatever it is in the particular UIC region that has been charted out, up to as high as 20 weeks in my riding from 10 to 14 weeks. I am sure anybody watching this debate on television would have been very conscious of the comment that was made by the hon. member for South Shore.
Just to refresh his memory, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance was brought into this country about 50 years ago by the Liberal Party as a protection for those who did not have jobs and could not find jobs in tough times so that they would not be hungry.
It was a practice by both governments since 1977 to pass what was called a variable entrance requirement. This, in effect, recognized the areas of higher unemployment, reduced qualifying time, and gave extended

June 6, 1990
Supply
periods of benefit in accordance with the requirements and in direct relationship to the rate of unemployment.
This happened every year since 1977 on an annual basis and almost as a matter of course and, I believe I am correct in saying, almost without debate, until Bill C-21 was introduced in this House last April by the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, debated in the House of Commons and, indeed, debated across the country.
Bill C-21 included the variable entrance requirement. Without using unparliamentary language I think it is safe to say that Bill C-21 was held hostage, as was indeed the variable entrance requirement, to the whole procedure. In other words, the drill was if you do not pass C-21 you will be punished and you will not get the variable entrance requirement.
The other place being discussed here in very negative terms, the place of second sober thought, had the wisdom, foresight, integrity, and courage just before Christmas last year, in fact moments before this House adjourned for the Christmas break, to reintroduce Bill S-12. This was the variable entrance requirement, the very measure that the hon. member talked about so despicably and which he voted against along with his other members.
How can he possibly blame the Senate for that? In fact, I hope he will remember that he voted against this when we break during the summer because people will remember.
I just want to wrap this up by saying we talk about democracy. A great man, Abraham Lincoln, talked about democracy as being "by the people, of the people, and for the people".
Well, I have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, 300 committee items, various people, teams, individuals, appeared before groups of the Commons committee and the Senate committee when they went across the country. Ninety-five per cent of those disagreed with Bill C-21 and, indeed, 90 per cent were very much against it.
That may be democracy "of the people" but I do not think it is "by the people" and it certainly is not "for the people".


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to respond to my hon. friend though I must confess that I
think the House has seen an absolutely extraordinary thing happen here. We have invoked the name and the distinguished Gettysburg Address of Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, to defend the absolute abrogation of propriety and democratic principles by the people up the hall.
My hon. friend knows perfectly well that he speaks with his tongue in his cheek when he says what he has just said in this place with respect to Bill C-21 and the variable entrance requirement. It is interesting.
I call to his attention what happened in this very Chamber in 1977 when Bill C-27 was moved by the previous government. It was a bill not dissimilar in much of its intent to Bill C-21. It brought in a number of changes. In fact it was the one that introduced for the first time the variable entrance requirement.
It brought in a number of other similar changes. It was hotly debated in this Chamber. In fact the government of that day, which by the way was a government formed by the same people who now sit on the other side of the floor in this Chamber, brought in time allocation to impose that bill on this House at that time.
I wonder what they would have thought if the people down the hall had said: "We are going to take our time with this piece of legislation". Interestingly enough, many of those same principles were debated before that bill had been put through this place with time allocation. What happened to that bill when it got down the hall? The bill was introduced on August 2, 1977 and reported without amendment the following day, August 3, 1977. What of the principles in the other place? The same people had the majority in that place. It is interesting to check the record.
We see that the following year Bill C-14 was introduced in this place dealing with the subject of unemployment insurance and a number of very contentious issues including, I might point out, that it would result in a saving of $885 million in UI benefits, a remarkable achievement. What happened to that bill? That bill was similarly dealt with in a very contentious manner in this place. What happened? Were they worried about it in the other place? It passed through the other place and received Royal Assent in one day, on December 22,1978.
June 6, 1990

Our friends down the hall, with respect to Bill C-21, said they had to go out and hear from Canadians. Yet if my hon. friend would check the record, and I invite him to do so, it is interesting to note that as they went on their grand tour of Canada to hear witnesses they heard from 54 of the same witnesses who appeared before the C-21 legislative committee of this House.
While I enjoy my friend's eloquence, as always, I am not sure exactly what his question was. His question had to do with a bill originating in the other place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member for North Island-Powell River has a question for the member.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded not only at the activity in the House right now but by the hon. member's incredible speech in that it totally missed the point of the motion. I am not surprised he did not understand the question from our Liberal colleague. It is my hope that the member for Kamloops can stand up once again and with more patience and concern draw the hon. member a picture so he understands what is going on.
My colleague from Kamloops, through his motion and debate; painted a picture of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in the other place and of its candidates for leader who want to pass the GST.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is one thing that we in the House must do. It is to have a little more respect for the other place, whether we like to or not. It is in the rules. I hope the hon. member will have a little more respect for the other place and will direct his comments to the speech made of the hon. member for South Shore.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you for your kind and judicious guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Did the hon. member completely miss the point? The concern was the fact that the Liberals in the Senate do wish to pass the GST, but they do not wish to appear as if they want to pass the GST.
The member argued in his speech that it was some nefarious act to block and oppose what 90 per cent of Canadians want destroyed, that is the GST bill.
What we need here is a comment. This is no longer a representative government. Its popularity is now lower than the interest rate.
Supply
Will the hon. member admit that if the popularity of his government and the Prime Minister drops below the level of his IQ his party has lost its right to rule?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for South Shore has a minute left in questions and comments.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whose IQ my hon. friend was referring to, so I will not of course comment on it.
I realize that the time is nearly done. I think it is interesting that the New Democratic Party believes that the Government of Canada should be driven not by the needs of the country, not by what is right for Canada, but by the public opinion polls of the day.
I can go on at some length describing to him the fact that, for example, 85 per cent of Canadians once supported capital punishment at a time when his party totally opposed capital punishment. Where do we stand?
To come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, it seems to me the bottom line is that a democratic system is one in which the people elect governments and they elect governments to govern.
What I hear from my friends in the New Democratic Party is that they want the non-elected, appointed people to make the decisions, to reflect the will of Canadians, when in fact Canadians have spoken. Canadians have spoken in 1984. They have spoken in 1988. They have made it plainly clear in which group they have confidence to govern this country. I invite my hon. friend to wait until 1993 when he will find for the third straight time that this party will be re-elected.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the debate this afternoon, especially before the member for South Shore explodes.
For people who are watching today on television and for those in the gallery, the debate that we are seeing among the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the New Democrats is interesting. The debate is on where these various parties stand on the question of the Senate.
The New Democratic Party's House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, made it very clear in reading our party's policy from our recent convention in Winnipeg, at which we elected our new leader, the member for Yukon, that the New Democratic Party has always had a

June 6, 1990
Supply
strategic and forward thinking policy when it comes to the Senate.
Why do I say that, or why can I say that? The reason I can say that is that we do not have the hidebound approach to dealing with the Senate of our friends in the Liberal and Conservative parties. Let us take a look at history. Let us look at the historic debate that we are having today, that we had as well on Monday, and that the First Ministers are having down the street today.
We all know the history of the Senate. All those who go through school and university have probably written at least one essay on the Senate and how it should be abolished. It represented the classes with property. It gives a sober second look at legislation from the House of Commons, from the commoners. Property was a requirement to be appointed to that place. I believe, if I have my history right that, the right hon. member for Yellowhead was the Prime Minister who appointed one of his friends to the Senate who had to buy a condominium in Ottawa in order to be eligible to accept his appointment to the Senate.
I recall debate in the House at one time when the current Prime Minister asked in this House the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, if he would agree on the spot, that day, to legislation to abolish the Senate. We agreed. Our leader, Mr. Broadbent, the former member for Oshawa, agreed with the Tories that day that the Senate should be abolished then and there.
However who was it, which party was it that refused the necessary consent to abolish the Senate that day? You guessed right, Mr. Speaker. It was the Liberals again. Why?
It is pretty clear from the debate today and the debate we have heard in the House, particularly over the goods and services tax, that the Liberals are in favour of preserving the Senate as much as the Conservatives are. Of course the debate around that has been around the goods and services tax.
It was revealing when our House leader just mentioned to this House that in fact Liberal senators of the Liberal dominated Senate have actually now given second reading to the goods and services tax legislation. It is on its way to becoming law. It is becoming law with the
co-operation and assistance of the Conservatives in the House of Commons and the Liberals in the Senate.
It is clear from the attitude exhibited in the House by the Liberals that they feel confident that they are going to walk into office in the next election, just as the Conservatives feel so confident that they will be able to pull it off at the last minute and get re-elected. However the Liberals want to try and have it as many different ways as they can. When that legislation goes through- and all Canadians know the kind of tax grab the goods and services tax is-the Liberal Party of Canada cannot wait to get its hands on that money.
We know as well that even the leadership candidates for the Liberal Party are not clear on where they stand on the goods and services tax. We have had a couple of alternatives put forward from the Liberals. There has been the flat tax proposal.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The single tax.


Brian L. Gardiner: The flat earth proposal. The New Democrats have presented clear and consistent policies when it comes to alternatives to tax policy in this country.
Today we are giving the Liberals and the Conservatives the opportunity in this House to join with the first ministers in starting to take a look at what we should do with the Senate.
Monday was an historic day. We said in our policy that it is a tool that can be used. We said: "If you are so opposed to the GST then stop the legislation now. Use your power now to do that".
What did they do? We know what is happening with the Liberals senators and the GST. They are trying to
pass it.
The motion today gives a chance to government members to send a clear signal to the Liberal senators: "Stop delaying our legislation. We have a right to pass it". The Conservative members should vote for our motion, thereby doing in the Senate which can then go along and pass the legislation.
They can give it a try. We will oppose it in this House as we always have. Here is the chance for the Conservatives to send a very clear signal to the Senate of Canada to understand the importance of the kind of legislation it
June 6, 1990

will or will not support. I think that is the importance of this motion today.
Let us look at what the Senate does. It cost taxpayers $40 million a year for that unelected body, our senators. They work Tuesday through to Thursday. They have an 800 number so that Canadians can give them a call.
In my province, in my area, if we closed down the Senate for five years we would come close to having enough money finally to plant some trees. I think we could do more good for British Columbia and our environment by planting some trees rather than keeping the Senate going for a couple more years when who knows what it is doing.
The motion put forward by our House leader, the member for Kamloops, is part of a strategic policy platform. It is a forward thinking policy that our party has had, a policy which developed out of our convention in Winnipeg. We foresaw the debate that is going on now with the First Ministers with respect to how to change the Senate. Is it going to be changed or abolished? What are we going to do with the Senate? We are waiting just as all members and all Canadians are, to see what the first ministers come up with on the Senate.
We do not know what is going on, of course. It is a closed shop debate right now. I think we would all be interested to see exactly what the future of this country is going to be.
I wonder if the members of the Conservative Party in this House really know that their Prime Minister is saying down the street with the First Ministers. I wonder if they know what the Prime Minister is talking about when it comes to the Senate. Probably not. We have already heard some interventions by members to get in there and state their views, which is what all Canadians are arguing for.
These are historic days for the Senate in terms of its reform or its abolition. As well, I think that the motion that we have brought forward here today sends out a clear signal. My guess is that the Conservatives will probably be supporting our motion today because they want to send a clear signal to the Liberal-dominated Senate as well. I think we will have some support from the Conservatives with our motion so that we can send that signal.
Supply
In conclusion, politicians being what they are in their various chambers-and I suppose we and the Senate are not alone, and nor are other legislative chambers-sometimes cause Canadians to wonder about what it is we are doing. The latest example will become a new symbol. It is a $153 symbol just for showing up for work, on top of your normal pay because you show up for work.
The next button that will be a best seller in Canada will be a button showing $153 with a red line through it. It will become a symbol of exactly where we are with the Senate. Canadians are going to be outraged by that particular measure. They are going to be outraged by senators who now suggest that they need another $153 a day just to show up for work.
As the member for Kamloops said, maybe we will actually have a couple of extra days when senators will show up in Ottawa. Planes will be full of senators rushing back to Ottawa to try and collect their $153 a day. It has become an important symbol.
Before I sit down, and to put that symbol into meaning, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the sum of $27,605,000
and replacing it with the sum of $27,604,847.
That motion symbolizes that $153 the senators now want to pay themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Halifax West on a question or comment.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me first tell the hon.
member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops is rising on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for Prince George-Bulkley Valley just presented an amendment to the motion. Perhaps we should determine whether that is in order before we proceed with questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He did not do the
amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We were waiting for a Page to come to pick it up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I will accept the amendment.

June 6, 1990
Supply
There will be questions and comments first. The hon. member for Halifax West-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have a question of procedure here. Since there is a new motion before the House put by the previous speaker, the floor now belongs to someone else to discuss that motion. I do not think we want to put questions and comments to a speech on something else. I just wondered if we could have a decision on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has lost his turn as far as debate is concerned. However, we will allow questions and comments on the member's amendment and his speech.
The hon. member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question.
First, I want to tell the hon. member, because he mentioned tree planting in British Columbia, that this very day my son is in Prince George-Bulkley Valley planting trees on behalf of the people of Canada.
Dealing with the motion respecting the vote for the Senate, I think the member probably realizes that there is a constitutional obligation on the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, to provide funding for the Senate. This method of undermining the Senate would not really be acceptable, but I think members know that. That is why I want to ask the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley this question. It is becoming very apparent from the dialogue that this is really an argument between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party and has very little to do with the vote for the Senate.
As I understand it, the New Democratic Party is saying: "You cannot trust the Liberals. They are in fact in favour of the GST and are going to approve the GST through the instrument of their majority in the Senate". The New Democratic Party is just pointing out to the House of Commons and to all the people of Canada that the Liberals are less than honest about the position on the GST.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: They actually think it is a beneficial tax, one that will provide viability and fiscal capability for Canada for many years in the future. You might say in that respect that they agree entirely with the government party that the GST is basically an appropriate instrument of taxation and one which they really in fact support despite their posture in the House of Commons, and that it will be approved in the Senate.
I gather that is the point that the New Democratic Party is making. Of course, on the other hand it is continuing its unrealistic opposition to the Senate. As the member for Kamloops said, he has to deal with reality. I never thought I would hear a socialist say that they would have to deal with reality, but the reality is that the Senate is there, and members of the New Democratic Party recognize that. They have made this arcane appeal, knowing that the appeal is going to be denied and that the GST is going to be approved. It is simply to show that the Liberal Party in fact supports the GST.
Could I ask the member this? Have I understood correctly the position of the New Democratic Party?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the member's son is out planting trees in the great north of British Columbia. A number of other members have sons and daughters doing just that. We are glad they are making that contribution to the country.
The hon. member got part of the message right, not the whole of it. We are saying in this debate, as we have throughout all of the debate on the goods and services tax that, in the member's words, the Liberal Party has been less than honest about its real intentions on the goods and services tax.
It has already passed second reading the Senate, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I think most Canadians will be surprised to hear that that has actually happened.
Yes, part of the message in the debate we are having today is about the honesty of the Liberal Party on the GST.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my friend.
During his speech he made the comment that we sometimes do things in this House that Canadians must
June 6, 1990

wonder about. I realize that it is the New Democratic Party's opposition day. But, as the member from Halifax mentioned earlier, by constitution we must at this point in time let the Senate carry on. I am not going to get into whether I am for or against the Senate at this moment, but I will tell hon. members what really irritates me. The hon. members has pricked my conscience when he talks about Canadians wondering what we do here.
By the way, the Senate has not passed the GST. It is going to committee now. Do not mislead the people of Canada by saying that the Senate has rubber-stamped or passed the GST. But that is not the point I want to make.
The point I want to make is that I really think that we in this House today must look like idiots. Interest rates are going through the moon. There is a housing crisis. There is a crisis of confidence in this country. Yet we have spent the last three hours talking about the Senate of Canada. We should be using this place to focus on the real problems that exist in this country.


Patrick Boyer: He is grandstanding for the cameras.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am not grandstanding. I am telling hon. members right now that this is enough to drive people crazy. There is a crisis of confidence in this country right now.
Now I will turn to my question. The hon. member referred to doing things here about which Canadians must sometimes wonder. Would he not consider that the way we are carrying on here today about the Senate and this $27 million might also qualify in that category?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of what the member for Broadview-Greenwood has had to say. I think we all know what is going on in the Liberal Party now. I guess some of us know, or we read between the lines. The member has made some sincere attempts to convince his leadership candidates of some of his proposals and ideas. I would say that that is probably good. Most of the leadership candidates have been a little loosey-goosey when it comes to saying exactly where they stand on some of their policies, particularly the GST.
I know my hon. friend has been pursuing one particular tax policy idea, to his credit. He is working hard at trying to convince his colleagues to adopt that approach and policy.
He expresses some chagrin about the debate in the House today. I would say very sincerely that from time to
Supply
time, as I said earlier and he agreed, that Houses such as ours, and others, do things or debate issues about which Canadians might wonder.
Mr. Speaker has been quite helpful for the people who watch our proceedings on television. From time to time he takes a second or two to explain exactly what we are doing.
What we are doing in the House is using opportunities to debate issues, which is what we are doing now. This is not a frivolous motion. The debate about the future of the Senate is as serious in this Chamber now as it is down the street where the First Ministers are having their say about the future of the Senate.
We are talking about a motion which concerns $27 million or $40 million a year. What will be even sillier is that some time tonight we are all going to say yea or nay to this vote. By our yeas or nays we are going to pass over $27 million with nary a debate. I am thankful that our party had the forethought to bring this motion before the House today so that we could have some debate about the future of the Senate.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague a question. In his speech he made a number of comments about the position of leadership candidates of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party itself on the GST. Several spokespersons for the Liberal Party have clearly indicated our opposition to a regressive tax. We know that the Senate is indicating very clearly that it will provide Canadians with an opportunity to review the tax, because there are many changes occurring in this tax, even since it was passed by this place. The Senate will be providing that forum for Canadians.
I have a specific question for my colleague. He has grave concern for positions and alternatives to the government proposal on GST. Both the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party, in briefs presented to the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons, indicated that they sought a royal commission and that there should be tax reform based on a royal commission. I wonder if my colleague would be kind enough to explain why the NDP puts forward the thesis that it has a position on the goods and services tax if it is asking the people of Canada to foot the expense

June 6, 1990
Supply
for a royal commission to find an alternative to the government proposal?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to that question because it is an important one. I hope and trust that my reply will give an indication of just how seriously we have thought out the approach which we want to take to taxation policy in the country.
First, yes, we have made allegations about Liberal leadership candidates and how loosey-goosey they are when it comes to GST policy and other tax policies. They are playing politics and some of the front-runners do not want to be pinned down to one particular policy or another because then immediately positions are formed up. We all know in the House what that is all about. I guess it is about how sincere one is going to be and what about those frontrunners and exactly where are they going to stand. Our friends in the Liberal Party have tabled petition after petition calling on the Conservatives to stop and end the GST now.
Suddenly, the GST legislation is in the Senate. It has passed second reading and it is on to committee. Why are they not now urging and encouraging the Senate to stop the GST legislation right at this moment? There are some serious questions that people have raised about Liberal leadership candidates and whatever their strategy is when it comes to the goods and services tax.
The question from the member about a royal commission on tax policy is a good one. Our proposal is a package of 18 to 20 significant alternatives and suggested tax measures dealing with the goods and services tax. One of them is the call for a royal commission into taxation policy. Aside from, along with, and parallel to the tax measures that we are suggesting, it is important to bring in the Income Tax Act every now and then, put it up on the hoist and take a good look at it, quite like we are supposed to do with the Bank Act. We have reached a pivotal time for tax policy and a good close look at our taxation policy should be taken. We have suggested that it should be done through a royal commission. I think that is a credible and responsible approach to take and this would include our other tax policies, when it comes to alternatives to the goods and services tax.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here and minding my own business-


An hon. member:: I don't believe that.


An hon. member:: He was minding the nation's business.


John R. Rodriguez: I was minding my business. My friend, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, pricked my conscience. I have great respect for him. He is a thoughtful member of Parliament, very thoughtful. He puts it all on one page. Any member of Parliament who can put all of his thoughts on one page, I respect.
He suggested that with the big issues facing the nation, Canadians must be wondering what we are doing in the House talking about the Senate and they must think we are crazy. He is absolutely right.
I want to tell him and all Canadians that Canadians right across this land who are not wealthy are absolutely shocked that an unelected group of people can sit over there and vote themselves a $153 a day. That is to show up. They still get their $62,000 a year along with their $10,000 tax-free allowance. They now get $153 a day tax free to show up. It is absolutely outrageous. Do you know that there are poor people in the country who live for a week on $153?
Of course, they need an incentive to show up for work. God knows they find very little time to show up. A $153-a-day incentive. Do people understand the estimates that we are voting today? I tell my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood to look at what I see in expenditure: $1,525,000 for the construction of committee rooms in the Senate.
This is a time when we are asking Canadians to tighten their belts. We are asking them to make sacrifices. We are asking them to pay taxes on taxes on taxes. When it is not the federal government reaching into their pockets, it is the provincial governments, the school boards, municipalities, or hydro commissions. Everybody is into their pockets.
Is this not important to Canadians? Already I have received phone calls in my riding office because people heard on the news that the Senators voted themselves $153 a day. To whom are the senators accountable?
I was invited into a school the other day to talk about government. Here is a question that young people posed
June 6, 1990

to me: What does one do to get into the Senate? There is a tough question. I really have to think about that one.
First, one has to go to St. Francis Xavier University or the same kindergarten as the Prime Minister. The only way to get into the Senate is to be a friend of people in high places. The Senate is a resting home for all those who have served the Conservative Party and Liberal Party well. The Senate has become a hiving ground for all the flicks, flacks, and hacks of both the Conservative Party and Liberal Party. That is how one gets into the Senate.
This Senate is not elected. Therefore, there is no accountability. Lo and behold, senators can actually vote themselves $153 tax-free.


An hon. member:: That is for showing up.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the incentive. The other thing is this business of a $1.5 million to renovate the committee rooms. If they show up, Madam Speaker, there has to be committee rooms for them.
The other question that the young people raised was: What does a Senator do? I have never been able to answer that question in all the 17 years that I have been involved in federal politics. Quite frankly, I have never seen a real live senator. In fact, the other day the cleaning people were cleaning up, a senator was there and he keeled over. She said: "Oh God, he is dead." She ran out to get the head of the cleaning staff who said: "Don't worry. He has been dead for years. He has been sitting there." I do not know what a senator does. I really don't.
The Senate is supposed to be a Chamber of sober second thought.


An hon. member:: Does the NDP want the Senate to hold up the GST? That was your policy yesterday.


John R. Rodriguez: We will get to that.
What we have is a second chamber, not elected, not accountable, and suddenly now revived. The Senate became the issue around which the future of Canada was to be decided. Can you believe this moribund place suddenly became the focus around which the future of the country would be decided. I cannot believe it.
Supply
I think our proposal is a very simple one. If the government supports the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops to eliminate the $47 million, voila, the problem is resolved. The government's headaches are finished. The solution is one of the hitches in the Meech Lake Accord is eliminated. Then, without a Senate, we can start to look at how to reform the House of Commons on a proportional representation basis. We can build into the elected chamber representation from the regions of the country, over and above the elected members.


An hon. member:: You were doing well until a minute
ago.


John R. Rodriguez: No. If you follow me. I really-


An hon. member:: The responsibility is over there at the railway station.


John R. Rodriguez: No, the responsibility is ours, right here. We are faced with an opportunity to resolve it.
I heard the government House leader the other day when Bill C-21 came back to the House. He made a speech in which he raled against the fact that the Senate was unaccountable and dominated by ex-Liberals who got a second coming over there and somehow are dictating policy for this House. I heard the government House leader say that.


An hon. member:: They are still Liberal die-hards.


John R. Rodriguez: They are still Liberals, yes, in different clothing. But there they are over there. I heard the government House leader rale against the Senate because of what it did to Bill C-21.
The obvious solution to that problem is not to stack it with more Tory hacks to outvote the Liberal hacks. The solution to the problem is to cut the tree down. Go right to the roots and pull it out. Take it right out. That is the solution to the problem. We, today, have given the government an opportunity to solve its headache. Just think about it. If the government does what we ask it to do, it solves it here and it solves it across the street, in the Conference Centre. It is simple. No problem. No problem at all.
On the other hand, I am caught on the horns of a dilemma because I do recognize that a Senate can be useful. I know the problem. Even we sometimes would want a Senate where we could put all the people who give us particular problems in the NDR Then, the question logically extends, do we really need to have them here on the Hill? I do not think so. We could set them up in some sort of a hole and send the cheques. We

June 6, 1990
Supply
do not have to ring bells for them. We do not have to have people come knocking on our door here to invite us down. We do not have to have all of that stuff.
Now, what is rumoured from across the street? They want to increase the numbers in the Senate. They want to increase them.


An hon. member:: There is an opportunity.


John R. Rodriguez: I am not preaching for a call, brother. I am quite happy here.
The problem that we are trying to help the government through is to pass the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops. I do not think that one can justify to the Canadian people an unelected body which thwarts the wishes of the elected members of Parliament. That is my position. That is our position. We believe that. But if the government persists in supporting the Senate and you want to keep it on our backs, then for heaven's sake we are going to use it against you. We are prepared and have put it in writing that if you want to cut it out, we will cut it out. But if you vote us down and foist this unelected group of party hacks and flacks on us, then we are going to use them. Why not? Absolutely, we should use them.
We socialists not only have principles, we are practical. And if you do not like those principles, we have others.
Madam Speaker, how can we be practical? I think the best way is to vote for the motion of the member for Kamloops and cut off their money supply.
The point is that this is our principle, to kill the Senate. We put a motion to do that. Now if the government votes it down as we know they will, I hope you vote with us and if we are defeated, so be it. We have achieved a policy that our party has established in convention, the elimination of the Senate.
We have not rescinded. In fact, Liberals and Conservatives constantly get together to support the other place, and we are practical. Until you defeat it we recognize that we have to use it. And we are going to use it against you. We are going to use the Senate as we are using it with the GST, to say to them: "If you are sincere Liberals, simply vote against the GST, defeat the GST, do not send it back".
Now a greater principle than that is the principle that there should be no unelected, unaccountable group of men and women sitting in the other place who deny the desires of the elected group. That's not democratic. In fact they not only deny the right of the elected body to pass legislation, but they turn around and impose more taxes on the people of Canada to the tune of $153 a day. That is a tax. It is a tax on the Canadian taxpayer and it is tax free to all those poor, poverty-stricken Senators over in the other place.
Look at them. If Senator Molson does not get that $153 a day, you know what will happen. The whole empire will dissolve. There will be no Hockey Night in Canada. It will be gone. Just think about it!
In fact, all they have to do is check in with the Clerk, walk in through the front door, walk to the back, and they get their allowance.
Brother Lawson was appointed by the Liberals and I assume that Liberals appoint only Liberals. Therefore he is really a Liberal. In fact these people sit over in the Senate, good Liberals and Tories, and all we have now is Allan MacEachen leading the Liberal forces in the Senate.
Of course, the Tories want to get the majority in the Senate. There is a rumour around that the Prime Minister is going to name 11 Senators and then he will have the majority so he can pass all these bills.
The Canadian people must ask in wonder, how can this lower House, the House elected by the people of Canada, countenance and stand and vote for what is being placed on their backs. I know how the member for Mississauga South is going to vote on this because those are his fat-cat friends and he is going to support them right to the hilt. He knows his day is coming, but it had better come before 1993.1 think there is a good possibility that the member for Mississauga South will end up in the Senate. I think you would make a fine senator-


An hon. member:: High Commissioner to Uganda.


John R. Rodriguez: If ever there was a reason for putting a stop to the Senate right now, it is the thought that the hon. member for Mississauga South would end up in the Senate.


An hon. member:: What about support?


John R. Rodriguez: He wants my support, Madam Speaker. Who am I? I am a member of Parliament opposed to the Senate. Why would I support you? We have denied Canadian people the opportunity for a guaranteed annual income, and these people sitting over in the other place have a guaranteed annual income to 75 years of age. Those who were there before the 75 year deadline came in or those who were grandfathered, some of them can go on forever.


An hon. member:: Some of them do.


John R. Rodriguez: We are saying to the Canadian people, we cannot give you a guaranteed annual income. But to some people who are friends of those in high places, you could get into the Senate and in fact, you can actually get a guaranteed annual income to age 60 and after the seventy-fifth year get a nice pension. You could get an beautiful pension because there is an allowance for the pension in the Estimates and we are going to pass that.
It does not end at age 75. It continues and that pension is fully indexed because they are over 75. Yet we have said to old age pensioners in this country, we can't fully index your pensions. Isn't that something? Now we have a partial indexation. We cannot fully index the GST tax credits, for God's sake, we cannot fully index that. But, by golly, we can give $153 incentive a day to go to work. To go to work! Imagine what any trade unionist would give. He would give his eye tooth for an incentive over and above his hourly wage-


An hon. member:: Or a single parent.


John R. Rodriguez: Or a single parent. In this country we nickel and dime poor people to death. We have all sorts of forms to fill out to see if you qualify with your income. You have to qualify, but people like those in the Senate have carte blanche. In closing, I call on members of this House to vote for the motion that eliminates the $47 million from the Estimates which then would put an end effectively to the flicks and flacks and other kinds of characters in the other place.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great attention to the discourse of our colleague and the profound words he just shared with us but I wonder whether Brother Lawson in the other place was listening attentively.
I want to ask my colleague from Nickel Belt that when he says he wants to cancel the budget of the Senate, and therefore abolishing it, is this the same Senate that was asked by his colleague for Yorkton-Melville when he said on the steps of Parliament Hill, on May 7, that he wanted that Senate to abolish the GST? Is this the same Senate he is referring to or is this something else and am
Supply
I misunderstanding it? Second, the Premiers and the Prime Minister are meeting right now to reform the Senate, and hopefully they may have arrived at a successful conclusion. I think all Canadians wish that. They want to amend the Senate and if they arrive at this unanimous agreement of all premiers and the Prime Minister to change the Senate, but nevertheless to continue having a Senate, does that mean that he wants to remove all the funding for that body of Parliament which may have today already received the unanimous consent of all the Premiers and the Prime Minister? I wonder if that is the specific proposition that he is entertaining. Perhaps he could clarify that for us.


John R. Rodriguez: I thank my colleague for the questions. I will answer the second one, first. He is too good a politician not to recognize that what will come out from across the street, from everything I have heard so far, is not that they will agree to include that idea of a Senate within the Meech Lake Accord. They are saying that that is an idea that might be discussed at a later time. That is my impression. I do not have the facts but I do not think that is the way it is. I do not think any of that will happen now. Meech Lake is not going to be amended to include the kind of Senate which you have just described.
We cannot get caught in the same trap again with respect to whether we are going to have a second chamber and how it will operate. It seems to me that the lesson we have learned from Meech Lake is that we need to hear from the Canadian people.
First of all, do we want the second chamber, how is it going to operate and what powers is it going to have or should it have? How will the representation from across the country be in the Senate? Will it be by region, constituency or by proportional representation? I think the Canadian people have to be consulted on that question. We are not going to have the same process again where 10 premiers and a Prime Minister sit around in a room and decide the form of parliamentary democracy for the next 50 generations. We are not going to go through that again. That is number one.

June 6, 1990
Supply
What I am suggesting is that we are helping to resolve this problem, because if the Senate was killed and we had to start from scratch, that would be the best way to go. Everybody talks about a triple-E Senate, but if you are going to elect the Senate, then it has to have power. And where is it going to get the power? Obviously, you are going to have to take the power from the House of Commons to give to it. Then you are going to end up with a system where you have to have a check and a balance and voila, we have harmonized into the American congressional system.
I do not know where you come from, but I cannot imagine this in my own head space that we could go ahead and let these men sit in the building across the way and develop this concept of a Senate without the Canadian people having an input. Surely, we are not going to do that again. Surely, that is the lesson of Meech Lake.
The first question the hon. member asked about our asking the Senate to kill the GST. The reality is that we have a policy and our aim is to work, wherever we get the opportunity, to get the Senate eliminated. We are taking this opportunity today to try to get the government to vote with us to abolish the Senate, but the Senate is a reality, it is there and it is dominated by Liberals. The Liberal Party in this House has said it is opposed to the GST and it voted against it. The Senate Liberals are members of the caucus of the Liberal Party in the House and surely the Senate Liberals have got to be consistent with the Liberal Party. That is what we are challenging you to do. That is the challenge, but the greater issue is to get rid of the Senate and we are taking the opportunity today.


An hon. member:: Would you prefer to get rid of the Senate or get rid of the GST?


John R. Rodriguez: Well, we are killing two birds with one stone.


An hon. member:: All Canadians are birds.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, all Canadians have heard that the NDP prefer getting rid of the Senate to getting rid of the GST.
I want to ask a supplementary question of our NDP colleague. Notwithstanding the Meech Lake Accord and the unanimity clause of the Meech Lake Accord, which means that the Senate cannot be abolished or changed without the consent of all provinces, the NDP position right now is to breach the accord, even before it is fully passed by everybody, and get rid of the Senate notwithstanding everything else. That is the twofold statement that we heard.
One, it is better to get rid of the Senate than to get rid of the GST is the new NDP proposition which we have just heard right now through presumably their official spokesman on such issues. Second, notwithstanding the unanimity required under the Meech Lake Accord to get rid of the Senate, the NDP wants to do it unilaterally.
I do not think that my colleagues and I would agree with either one of those propositions.


John R. Rodriguez: I will try to draw the picture for my friend.
The first opportunity that the Senate had to deal with the GST was second reading. Everybody knows that second reading is in principle. If I recall, the Liberals in this House on second reading spun out the debate. They absolutely fought the GST in this House with us, toe to toe, jowl to jowl, body to body. Together we fought the GST at second reading because in principle we believed it was a flawed tax. That is what they said, a flawed tax.
Now, lo and behold, the first opportunity the Senate had to deal with the GST was at second reading. What happened? It went in there at 11.30 in the morning and second reading was finished at 11.45 a.m. on the same day. There was not one debate on principle on the GST in the other place, which is the most disastrous tax ever in the history of this country.
I am repeating what the Liberals said in this House. They have sent a message to Canadians. They have said that secretly they agree with the principle of this tax and maybe all they are going to do is patch it up here and patch it up there. So they showed their hand that in fact they do support the GST; it is just a matter of some cosmetics to fix it up and fix it up there.
Second, without a doubt, one of the problems that we have discovered about changing the institutions of government in this country are constitutional ramifications. Surely, the people of Canada have a right to participate in the form of government that will be in place. Surely,

June 6, 1990

that is a principle. Surely, that is something that we have learned from the Meech Lake experience.
The form of the other House, if there is to be another House, has to be dependent on what Canadians think. It has to be modelled on what Canadians think. We cannot go back to having 10 people and a prime minister sit down in one place and decide the form of government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to this debate. As a 40-year member of the democratic socialist movement in this country, I was very pleased with the motion moved by my colleague for Kamloops, and the speech by my friend for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He is a couple of years younger than me.
The abolishment of the Senate has been a matter of history since the second convention of the CCF in 1935, and we have never wavered from that position. Our party has been consistent in that position for close to 55 years. So let us set that matter to rest now.
Our caucus, our party, and our leader have called upon the Senate to exercise its constitutional authority to delay, stop, or amend legislation that comes from the House of Commons. That is the reality. There is nothing we in this caucus can do about that.
What we have said is that it is about time the Senate earned its keep. It has a golden opportunity to add to what was said in this place, and said by about three-quarters of the Canadian people, on the goods and services tax. Since there is nothing we in our party can do about the constitutional authority and rights of the Senate until the Constitution is changed, all we have done is called upon the Senate to get off their backsides and do what they are supposed to do.
My colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt mentioned the second thoughts. My problem is, when did they ever have a first thought on the GST at second reading? Goodness knows if they will ever come up with a second thought.
Supply
I suppose I was under some delusion that the government would like this amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops. I listened to the Prime Minister, the government House leader, several other cabinet ministers railing away over the last number of months about a Senate of appointed bodies usurping the rights of the supreme body, namely, the House of Commons, an elected body, by delaying, amending and otherwise compromising government legislation. Well now, isn't that sad?
However, I thought that the motion by my colleague from Kamloops would make the government most happy. If members want to put an end to what the other place is doing to government legislation, pass this motion of my colleague from Kamloops tonight and cut them off at the pass, and that includes their $153 a day on any days they might show up.
I know a lot of senators and I have regard for them personally. Some of them have spent many years in public life, in parties different from mine. I have never questioned their loyalty to the country. I have never questioned their motives. I have questioned their sanity lots of times and they do the same to me and that is fair ball.
But if there is any one principle in a parliamentary democracy, and this is why I worry about what was going on across the road yesterday and today, the whole principle of representation by population is so fundamental and basic to a parliamentary democracy that there should not be any question about it.
If one reads some Canadian history going back to the conferences in Charlottetown 1864 to 1866, and a few other places, it was agreed to have a second chamber. It may not be common knowledge, but its primary responsibilities were twofold: one, so-called sober second thought; two, the protection of property. That was built into the reasons for having an appointed second chamber. The problem has been that there is nobody in the other place protecting the property of Canada, in other words, protecting this country.
As I said at the outset, I stand for the abolition of the Senate. I think it is an anachronism, at best. I am not trying to demand that the policy of my party should be implemented yesterday. I recognize the reality. The Senate is there and if we cannot get it abolished, we will get it elected. However, if it is going to be elected, then somewhere in the scheme of things the principle of

June 6, 1990
Supply
representation by population has to come into play. Typically Canadian, we compromise here and there on the size of constituencies, the amount of population in each one right across the country. That takes into account and recognizes our geography and where our people are located and we provide a margin of above or below the average. If we cannot get the Senate abolished, then we have to arrive at that compromise.
In fact, many years ago my beloved former colleague, the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, turned pale and went into shock when a former colleague of mine went into his office and said that we need to have two NDPers accept an appointment to the Senate. He asked: "Why would you want to do that?" and we said: "There will have to be two NDPers in the Senate to move and second a motion to abolish the damned thing, otherwise it will never happen". So, I am tempted to volunteer and maybe my good friends the hon. member for Kamloops or the hon. member for Brant would be willing to join me so we could get something started in the Senate to abolish it.
I mentioned earlier that I have listened to government members in this government, and even members of the previous Liberal government, complain vociferously about the activities of the Senate. It is more particularly germane to today's debate. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister, the government House leader, other cabinet ministers and members on the back-benches of the government have complained about the abuse of parliamentary democracy by unelected members of the Senate. Cutting off their funding puts an end to that abuse, to put it purely and simply.
Unless there are a lot of hon. members on the government side or in the Liberal caucus who are preaching for a call and an appointment to the Senate, surely they can do no other. I maybe should exclude the members of the Liberal caucus, but certainly the members of the government caucus who are outnumbered in the other place at the moment, which they will correct some time in October or November, if worse comes to worst. It is perfectly legal and constitutional; they will have a majority and they will get their bills through.
What has that got to do with a parliamentary democracy? It is just a continuation of what has been going on since 1867. They are not there to represent the ordinary people of this country. They are there supposedly to supply second thoughts. They are something like some of the born again Christians that I have run into. They did not learn any better the second time around; their second thoughts, so much for that.
They are also there to protect property. I get phone calls from people who are losing their house or losing their farm because of what the banks are doing, or even what an agency of this Parliament, the Farm Credit Corporation, is doing to farmers in my province and all other parts of Canada. I have small businessmen phone or ask me to drop around and see them. Where is the Senate? It is there to protect them and have been since 1867.
I doubt if any of these words in this Chamber today are going to get across the road, Madam Speaker, but you never know. They might. I think the First Ministers better think again. This is my own personal opinion because it is not party policy. However, I have the right in my caucus to express my personal opinion on this issue and others. All three parties better think again about the whole principle of representation by population, and margins can be made below and above the average in every province or every region of Canada.
I have listened to all three political parties in several provinces over the last 40 years complaining about the gerrymandering and the unbalanced representation in provincial constituencies, for example, if one provincial riding had 7,000 population and the other one had 12,000 or 15,000. I have listened to all three political parties complain about that ad nauseam in province after province, always when they were in opposition.
We negate the principle of representation by population at the peril of a parliamentary democracy, unless we keep in place the paramountcy of the House of Commons. If that is not there, I do not care what kind of Senate reform is brought in we lose the power of the commoners, we lose the authority of the commoners and the government of the day, even if an unbalanced Senate were elected. We have hit very hard at the foundations
June 6, 1990

of a parliamentary democracy. If there is nothing else we have inherited from the British and the French, it is that.
I object to resorting to copying the United States congressional system. God knows they are good neighbours and good friends, but I think the flaws in their system are a heck of a lot worse than the ones in ours.
I for one do not want to adopt the kind of system where a province like mine has x number of senators and another province with four or five times the population has the same number. If they are elected, what does that do to the foundation of a parliamentary democracy?
I have more faith in the Canadian people. Whether they come from Ontario, Newfoundland, or Saskatchewan their basic instincts of decency, civility, getting along together and keeping this country united will always come through. The problem has not been with our own people, except when we fail to provide some leadership and statesmanship. That is where the problem has been too many times in my 22 years here and years before that in active participation in the political process.
If nothing else I hope, because the government could bring in another motion tomorrow and carry it, that it gives a signal to the other place to cut the mustard or it is shut down. It has a constitutional right presently to defeat a government bill, amend it, or delay it. That has always been there. That is the reality, but, by the gods of war, if it wants to survive for at least four, five or six years-I predict that is about the limit of its life-it better start earning its keep.
That is why the NDP demands that members of the Senate stop the GST. They do not have to worry about polls or their own political parties. They can do whatever they want. They talk a good fight. Now is their chance. If they want to do something just for once to present some evidence that justifies their existence, then they better do it now. I think we should cut them off at the pass, tonight. Whatever the First Ministers come up with across the street that they agree on and that will implement Meech Lake, God bless them. I know it will be a big improvement, if they agree, over what we presently have.
I think no harm is done to this House or to this country if we cut off the funding for that other place, because as a famous British parliamentarian said "for what you have
Supply
done for as long as you have been here, you can do no more. In the name of God, go".
Please, Madam Speaker, I ask this House to pass the motion of my hon. friend for Kamloops.


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, I sat here and listened to my highly respected and hon. colleague from Regina-Lumsden. I have also sat and listened to the comments and questions made by others in relation to earlier speeches. I could not help but think that if we could induce the public to listen to the debate that has gone on over the last hour, indeed the spirit and essence of the debate would be such that we would be leaving the public totally confused.
On the one hand we have a group arguing that it is essential to abolish the Senate tonight. On the other hand we have another group arguing that the Senate should be in a position to stop completely and totally the goods and services tax legislation before it.
We have the argument from those who are proponents of abolishing the Senate that for them to ask the Senate to abolish the goods and services tax is in effect supporting the existence of the Senate.
It is a totally confused message that the public and those who care to take the time to listen to this debate tonight are receiving.
There is another interesting aspect to this issue too: if we were to support the motion of the member for Kamloops, which would effectively pull out the funding from the Senate, this would, I suppose in a practical sense eliminate the Senate. Further, if you carry this logic to its next conclusion, this automatically means the passage of the goods and services tax because without the Senate or the other place for the House of Commons to send its business for the so-called sober second thought, the goods and services tax bill would be a fait accompli. We would have the matter before us.
We have one argument to cut the funds from the Senate because we do not need the Senate. On the other hand, we are asking the Senate, although we do not believe in it, to discontinue its apparent support up to this time. There has been some argument about whether or not there was support for the goods and services tax at the second reading stage. We have people saying to eliminate the budget for the Senate, which will bring the Senate down and cause senators to have no place to

June 6, 1990
Supply
come to work. This would mean the passage of all these bills that are deemed so controversial.
I am totally confused by what message it is that we are intended to have conveyed to us. There are likely some people who are taking parts of my sentence and saying that the hon. member is probably confused most of the time. For those who only pick that out of my comments, I would say to listen to the entire sentence.
I offer some sympathy to my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. While he has conveyed to us that he is given the opportunity to speak freely with an open mind on any subject that he wishes whether or not it addresses his party's policy, he is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Does he really mean-and I say this in all sincerity- that the Senate, should not have any funds, which will mean the automatic passage of the goods and services tax? Is that what they really want? Or, do they really want the Senate which they do not believe in to step in and annihilate the goods and services tax? By the way, it is a tax about which members of the opposition have spent much time and effort in passing along half-truths to the public so that they are, as is most of the public, totally confused and baffled and object to the imposition of what is perceived to be a new tax?
I present that proposition to the hon. member. Does he not find himself on a shaky fence? I do not mean that he has placed himself there but, by virtue of the motion the hon. member for Kamloops has placed before us this evening, does it not leave him with a bit of a contradiction in principles?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank my colleague and friend from Regina-Wascana. I did not want to repeat the argument that has been put up numerous times today and in the previous few weeks.
We have stuck to our guns on a policy that goes back 55 years on abolishing the Senate. All we are doing is facing up to what we have to face today and over the last 55 years. The Senate is there. The majority of people supported the present government and the previous one on maintaining the Senate, so we lost. I am not complaining about that. In spite of that, a large body of
opinion in the country says either do something about it or get rid of it. I hope the latter point will gain sway.
Given that reality-and I said it in my remarks and I say it to my hon. friend-for once will they earn their keep? They are there to provide second thoughts. Just for a change they should protect the property of homeowners and farmers from the GST. They should protect the businesses of small business people by the thousands all over this country. Why do they not protect that property for a change instead of the property of the corporate few? I am not interested in those kinds of bodies being in a first or even second chamber of this place. We do not need it. They have victimized the people of this country for decades and they continue to do so.
May I remind my hon. friend what is going on among financial institutions these days. The Senate is silent about the farmers, the little store keepers and the homeowners in my riding and his as well. But when it comes to the property of the wealthy or the Toronto Stock Exchange, the bondholders, oh my goodness, that is their idea if protection of property. The Senate has failed to understand the reason and purpose for its existence, if there ever was one.
I make no apologies for the position my party has taken since 1935 and the position we are taking today. They either put up or shut up or we get rid of them, one or the other.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I do not want to unduly irritate the member for Regina- Lumsden so I hope he will keep calm. I just want to point out something to the House. We understand the nature of the debate on the amendment to the motion and we understand what the New Democratic Party is attempting to accomplish here.
However, I want to point out to my hon. friend and to other members of the House that he has perhaps misinformed himself on the effect of defeating this $27,605,000 item. He said in his speech that we should cut the Senate off at the pass and that this would destroy the Senate. That is not in fact the case. There is another vote applicable to the Senate of some $10 million which provides the salaries, allowances and other payments to the Speaker of the Senate and the members of the Senate. So I am afraid that if we were to defeat this vote
June 6, 1990

for $27 million we would still be left with the Senate of Canada. We would still be left with the members of the Senate receiving their allowances, which the member from Nickel Belt detailed and complained of, and we would not really accomplish anything.
I just want to point out that while it is a very interesting debate, it will not accomplish the end which the members of the New Democratic Party have suggested. We will still be looking at the Senate the day after tomorrow.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A short comment, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Halifax West. At least he was better today than he was yesterday.
If we only have to pay $10 million for the Senate, that is a hell of a lot better than another $27 million. If that is for severance pay and to retire the Speaker and whatever else, we got by cheap, we saved a lot of money. All we are trying to do is get a message through to them.
By the way, as I understand the rules, if this piece of the Estimates were defeated tonight, the government could bring in a new motion tomorrow and round up the troops and defeat it. I have listened to the speeches of my hon. friend the government House leader about how terrible those terrible senators are. We are trying to be helpful. We are trying to help him get rid of these nuts that are delaying or hurting the government's bill. We would like a little thanks and appreciation from my friend from Calgary. We are just trying to help him out and help out the government. I do not understand the logic of kicking the hell out of the Senate and then providing all the money for it.
We could tell the rest of the country, the municipalities, the business corporations and whatnot, that if they want to keep a Senate they can put up the money, but we won't.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Supply


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 5, 1990, the recorded division stands deferred until 10 o'clock p.m. this day.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25-PUBLIC WORKS
Harvie Andre: Motion No. 3
That Vote 25, in the amount of $1,883,690,000 under Public
Works -Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation -Budgetary
Expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1991 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the motion before the House.

I welcome the opportunity today to address the impact of the Main Estimates on housing. There have been allegations that the federal government has lost interest in housing and is letting the disadvantaged find for themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the Minister of State for Housing I ask all members of this House to support the approval of the Main Estimates for 1990-91. With respect to the $1,884 billion included in these spending estimates with respect to housing, I must point out to the House that over 90 per cent of the total included in Vote 25 is associated with commitments made in prior years.
These moneys are required as a result of the contractual obligations entered into by this government and former governments. These are obligations to provincial housing agencies and their reimbursements for expenses

June 6, 1990
Supply
which are being incurred as a result of these continuing commitments.
Within the remaining 10 per cent or less, most of the expenditures relate to planned 1990 social housing commitments in accordance with agreements between the federal government and the provinces that have been in place since 1986.
Approval of Vote 25 is essential if we are going to honour the commitments that we have made in the context of our current federal-provincial agreements, and if we are to allow the many non-profit groups to develop and proceed with the needed housing for low-income Canadians.
Finally, in the housing support expenditures that we have planned, the Estimates include some $32.3 million against $33.9 million in fiscal year 1989-90.1 should point out that there has been no increase in this proportion of CMHC's expenditures for several years.
Although planned new activity has been cut by some 15 per cent, many people do not realize that the budget is actually continuing to grow. In fiscal year 1989-1990, it is estimated that the federal government contributed some $1.7 billion in social housing assistance. In fiscal year 1990-1991, our total budget will increase almost $91 million.
We will not be able to increase the supply of assisted housing as far as we had planned, but we are still going to provide almost $90 million for new social housing in
1990.
Since forming the government we have been very upfront about the belief that the deficit must be reduced. If Canada is to enjoy a strong and growing economy, one which will increase the opportunities for all Canadians, we must demonstrate our readiness to manage effectively-
In the housing area we have made great strides since 1984. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has exemplified the the kind of good management that we need throughout all of the government. For example, the Mortgage Insurance Fund had a deficit of some $786 million in 1984 when the government came into office. Today that has been turned around to a position where it is solvent for the first time in a decade.
CMHC has made some very significant reductions in manpower as well, with a decrease of over 1,000 staff years since 1984, while at the same time improving its performance in a wide range of other areas. As a result of the last expenditure review, CMHC will have reduced its administrative costs associated with government programs by $3.5 million by 1991. In area after area, we have demonstrated the ability to reduce spending, to use assets more efficiently and to provide increased help where it is most needed.

Before 1984, federal government policies provided programs designed for various income levels. Two out of three households receiving federal assistance could afford housing on the private market. In the private sector, a series of intermittent programs cost hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies which were found to be both ineffective and inequitable and even caused some distortion on the market.

The two main principles of our housing program since 1986 have been to direct social housing assistance to those most in need and to support rather than interfere with the effective functioning of the private housing markets.
Over the four preceding years, some 80,000 assisted housing units were produced, but only about 40 per cent of those were directed to those in need, perhaps some
32,000	households. In the four years since 1986 we have assisted some 75,000 low-income households, that in comparison with only 32,000 low-income households in the previous four years that the former government was in office.
In 1984, there were less than 135,000 housing starts in Canada. Since then we have averaged over 200,000 housing starts in this country each year. Preliminary numbers for May show that housing starts have actually not fallen this year but have stabilized somewhere around the 200,000 mark, and that in spite of the slowing down of the economic situation that we have seen in recent weeks. We could expect that there will be some drop-off in the number of housing starts, obviously in reaction to current interest rates, but this has not yet materialized and we are still in the neighbourhood of some 200,000 a year.
June 6, 1990

It is clear that we have provided more opportunities both in assisted housing and in the private market. But that certainly does not mean that the job is complete. In my travels across the country over the past year I have met with representatives of provincial, territorial and municipal governments, with members of the native community, members of the academic community, with people in every aspect of the housing industry and with people who are in real need.

I have listened to single parents who have trouble making a living; to native people in remote areas living in very difficult conditions; to higher income senior citizens and even to young couples who are working very hard to give their children a good start in life.

I have listened to the concerns these people have and to their ideas. I have seen the deplorable conditions that many face, even in a country as rich as ours.
Affordability is the most immediate concern, one which clearly cannot be resolved by the federal government acting alone. Canada is a vast country with very different regional environments in terms in both geography and history. The complexity of the situation is illustrated by the fact that a single municipal by-law could frustrate the efforts to provide affordable housing in any given area. I could have millions or billions more dollars in my budget and one single municipal by-law could destroy the effectiveness of that funding as far as affordable housing is concerned.
If all Canadians are to enjoy adequate and affordable housing, we require a concerted effort by all levels of government working together and working with the home building industry.
At the federal level we have been building on a strong foundation of our two guiding principles to address the shelter needs of low-income households within our social housing programs and, in the private market, for renters and aspiring homeowners.
Although there is still much to be done, we really have much to be grateful for here in Canada with respect to housing. We have a very mature home building industry which has met the challenge of housing for a growing population. In the short period of some 40 years, from 1941 to 1981, the number of dwellings in Canada was
Supply
increased from about 2.6 million to over 8.2 million. That is quite an achievement.
What is more, the percentage of homeowners has increased to the point that 62 per cent of households now own their own homes. That puts Canada ahead of most other developed countries in the world as far as giving its citizens an opportunity to acquire an equity hedge for their retirement years. This accomplishment is all the more dramatic when you consider that these mean a seven-fold growth in owner-occupied dwellings in our cities.
Over the five-year period since 1985, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has provided mortgage insurance on almost three-quarters of a million dwellings, allowing people to obtain a home of their own with a down payment as low as 10 per cent. This includes many first-time home buyers who were able to achieve the dream of homeownership only through the CMHC mortgage insurance program.
Canada has also developed a large supply of assisted housing providing shelters to some 637,000 households. This portfolio provides decent shelter and affordable rents in settings where the residents can enjoy security of tenure. Over the lifetime of each of these 637,000 dwellings, they will provide a home to many households in time of need. This portfolio is a major component of Canada's social safety-net. It represents a federal commitment this year alone of $1.8 billion in annual subsidies.
Our emphasis now is on preserving this societal asset and in utilizing it more effectively. Now we are looking for ways to serve more low-income households within our existing supply of assisted housing. In part, we are encouraging the project sponsors of projects committed under previous programs to fill vacancies with households in need.
I firmly believe that we need not only to provide decent shelter to low-income families and individuals, but to ensure that these people have the maximum opportunity to take hold of their housing needs, to shape their own communities, and to experience the pride of self and place which so many of us take for granted. Many of the residents of public housing have shown their readiness to play a greater role in the management of

June 6, 1990
Supply
their own projects and to contribute to the building of strong and safe communities.
The Doone Street project in Fredericton, New Brunswick, is just one example of what residents can do want they join forces. Not only did they create a drop-in unit headed by a local policeman, but they were able to get rid of community violence and intimidation in the project. At the same time, they were able to take on the exterior maintenance work for their own project, creating work for teenagers who to live in that project. They are also organizing spring clean-up programs in which the entire community joins with help from the project management.
That is just one example of many exciting ways in which tenants in public housing projects across the country have started to involve themselves in the actual management and running of those projects. We are doing our very best to encourage much more of that.
Recently, I wrote to my provincial colleagues, asking them for their co-operation in encouraging more of this kind of effort. I believe that the residents of public housing are ready, willing, and able to play meaningful roles in their own projects, homes, and environments.
I am pleased that most of the provincial response has been very positive to that. Already we have announced a set of initiatives to encourage increased resident participation in New Brunswick and I expect that we will be following that up very shortly with other similar announcements and similar efforts in all of the provinces where the provincial governments agreed to co-operate.
We have a lot to be proud of in our housing, but there are still areas of concern. Young families just starting out are finding that ownership is getting beyond their reach. The cost of homes is escalating much faster than they can afford to save.
Several factors are involved in this situation. One is that we are continuing to produce larger homes which attract second-time buyers but are unaffordable to those purchasing their first home. This is, in part, a reflection of the zoning in place in many areas of the country.
Another problem is that in some of the major centres, such as Toronto and Vancouver, there is a shortage of serviced land that is suitable for housing. We have built
up large areas of suburban sprawl that result in extensive travel to and from work, expensive and under-used service infrastructure, and often under-populated city cores.
[Translation}
The federal government has taken steps to deal with these problems. We have freed surplus government property in Toronto and Vancouver. In the Toronto area, for instance, this means developing new communities that will accommodate from 12,000 to 16,000 residents. Many of these new units will be affordable housing.
[English \
A few weeks ago I announced plans to redevelop some 16 properties in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver which are owned by CMHC. This initiative will ensure more appropriate housing to the existing tenants, many of whom are getting on in years, while it frees up land for other uses. It will be a hallmark of our commitment to both consultation and making better use of our land resources. I am sure that we are going to see many more residents utilizing that great federal asset than have in the past.
I have also announced our plans to redevelop the very land on which the CMHC Toronto branch is situated. That is another case of using what we have more effectively. Other sites are under active consideration at the present time.
Just last week I turned the first sod for the redevelopment of a major 43-acre site in the district of Burnaby, in British Columbia, where we will soon see the first new dwellings being built in what will become a new and integrated community of up to 1,200 people.
As I have said, the federal government cannot do all this alone. I am pleased to see that the mayors of Canada's major cities, in their caucus in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, have recently joined in my call for a more concerted effort to address the housing affordability issue. This is why I have initiated the establishment of joint committees of all three levels of government to identify other potential lands and to overcome some of the roadblocks to meeting the needs for affordable housing. Such committees are already operating in a goodly number of urban centres across the country.
June 6, 1990

I mentioned the role of zoning and by-laws. Important as they are, we cannot allow them to be cast in stone so that they can prevent the realization of needed housing and the implementation of new approaches to better serve emerging needs. That is why earlier this year, I announced a program called ACT, Affordability and Choice Today. This is a co-operative program of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Home Builders, and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, funded by the federal government through CMHC.
The objective of ACT is to encourage reform of our system of by-laws to better reflect today's needs and to reduce the delays which can add so much to the cost of housing without adding any value.
We believe that consultation is the answer to many of our housing problems. We believe that with consultation we can benefit those who need housing. This is evident in our continuing work on developing housing options for seniors. Recently I have undertaken to have a series of housing conferences for seniors across the country. These are just some of the things that we have undertaken with respect to housing initiatives at the federal level over the last year.
The $1.8 billion in the Main Estimates for federal housing programs are absolutely essential if we are going to continue to meet the social housing commitments we have made over the years and if we are going to be able to produce even more social housing and help more Canadians to be housed better in this coming year. I urge the House to support the motion and vote to make sure we can assist the federal government to do a better job to house Canadians in the coming year.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks. I know he cares deeply about the very serious problem we have in the country today with affordable housing.
I want to ask him two questions. Right now young people cannot get the down payment required on many new large homes being built, especially in major markets. I would cite my own market, Toronto, as one prime example. Not only do they not have the money for the down payments, they also find when they do get a mortgage it is only for three or five years, and with the
Supply
fluctuation in interest rates there is no long-term stability. It is very frustrating for them and promotes a lot of insecurity in families.
Because this is a very trying and difficult time, would the minister consider asking Canada Mortgage and Housing to supply up to 100 per cent of the financing? At the same time, what is the longest period that Canada Mortgage and Housing is providing for mortgages with the current formula? It was not that long ago that you could have a mortgage for 15 and 25 years. I wonder why we could not get back to that.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments and remarks of the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood. I know he too has a deep interest in making sure that Canadians have affordable housing, particularly in his and my city of Toronto. He specifically asked questions with respect to the amount of down payments or mortgage insurance which might be available and also the term of a mortgage.
I will start with his second question first and say there really is no limit on the term of a mortgage that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will insure. If a buyer of a home wants to commit to a mortgage with a long term, they can very well commit to that and there is no problem providing insurance as was common a number of years ago.
Unfortunately, because of the interest rate situation and the fluctuations in interest rates over the last few years, many people gamble that they will fall and so accept shorter term mortgages, sometimes as short as six months. As the hon. member points out, sometimes three years or five years but not the longer term mortgages we used to see. It is not because it is not available, it is that the actual borrowers are interested in getting their interest rate as low as possible and then lock themselves into a longer term commitment.
In the last four years we have provided a new program called "mortgage backed securities". A mortgage backed security allows for an investor in securities to sell those securities and provide a secondary market for the securities, which were not available prior to four years ago when the mortgage backed security form was introduced by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal housing agency.

June 6, 1990
Supply
At the time, it was hoped that the MBS, the mortgage backed security, would allow investors to feel they could give longer term mortgages, because they could always be sold. There would be a secondary market for their mortgages, and they would feel protected.
The mortgage backed securities have been very successful and billions have been put on to the market. It is a very well accepted program. Unfortunately, in spite of all that, the actual borrowers, the home purchasers or home buyers by and large have been unwilling to commit to longer term mortgages. I suspect it is because they feel that, while interest rates may be "x" today they will be "x minus y" tomorrow. They want to get in and take advantage of the lower interest rates.
I am not sure that answers completely the hon. member's question with respect to the term of mortgages, but I will be announcing shortly some further details with respect to a housing financing conference this fall. We will be looking at all aspects of housing financing, particularly for first time home buyers. We will be examining all the various options that anybody has ever thought of that might be available, to see if there is not a way we can improve the situation with respect to the financing aspect.
The hon. member also asked a question about 100 per cent insured mortgages. As he is aware, now one can obtain an insured mortgage with a down payment of up to 10 per cent. We are exploring this very carefully, and hopefully before too long we will have a 95 per cent insured mortgage with a 5 per cent down payment in place. Quite frankly, there are many people who feel concerned with down payments that are as low as 5 per cent. I guess it is against that concern that one has to balance off the thought of having a 100 per cent insured mortgage and a zero down payment.
Those things have been tried in the past. However, I think it is important that there be some personal commitment by the people buying a home so that they know they have their own stake in the home and it is not just the stake of the taxpayers involved. Still, we are pursuing very vigorously the concept of a 5 per cent down payment and 95 per cent insured mortgage. We are going to be holding this conference on financing housing this fall, which I am sure the hon. member will find very interesting.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for a very able presentation of his motion.
The presentation of his motion is more able than the government's performance. I am sure he will be able to comment on figures that were presented to us by the Canadian Home Builders' Association concerning what it thinks is the main cause for the disastrous decline in housing starts, which it finds in the interest rate rise.
The Canadian Home Builders' Association commented that first time home buyers who could afford 10 per cent mortgage rates number about 96,000. It requires an income of $51,500, and that includes 24 per cent of all buyers. When the mortgage rates went up to 14 per cent and the income required was $67,500, instead of 96,000, there were less than half. There were 40,500 who could afford it. This is 10 per cent of all potential buyers.
I am wondering what the hon. minister can tell us about the government's plans to relieve the situation of home buyers, home builders, construction workers, furniture makers, material suppliers and all the other many thousands who depend on the building of homes, either to use them or to produce them. If a rise in mortgage rates from 10 per cent to 14 per cent cuts the number of possible buyers to less than half, can the minister assure us, either that the interest rates will soon come down and enable people to buy homes again or that the schemes he has been telling us about will, in spite of the high interest rates, be able to bring the percentage who can afford to buy a home up from 10 per cent to 24 per cent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister. There is very little time left.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina for his question. As the hon. member is aware, there are a number of factors involved in the question of affordability of housing. One factor is the amount of the monthly payment and that is impacted by interest rates. Other factors relate to the price of the house itself.
Recently, many people have been saying that Canadians should really be applauding the fact that housing prices are now starting to fall and indicating that perhaps it was necessary that we have a situation like that if we are going to avoid a real disaster in the future, so that we can make sure that for future generations housing will be
June 6, 1990

affordable. When housing prices go up, they cause problems. When housing prices come down, they cause problems. All of this, unfortunately, does not help the situation for people who want to buy houses.
At the same time, I would like to assure the hon. member that many of the programs that we have now under way, including the development of surplus federal government lands for first time home buyer housing in the metropolitan Toronto and the Vancouver areas, other initiatives that we hope we will have on stream before too long such as the 5 per cent down payment, all will help the affordability situation and will certainly help people to be able to buy homes, people who cannot buy them now.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and talk about a very important matter, the question of affordable housing. In the Estimates the government is seeking approval of some $1.8 billion. I do not believe this truly represents the situation in Canada today with respect to those people who are seeking affordable housing, be it the home owner, the people in rental accommodation, people wanting to renovate their homes, the single parent, people of social assistance, seniors, or the physically challenged, who are finding it more and more difficult in respect of housing affordability.
While I applaud the efforts of my friend, the Minister of State for Housing, it is the government's lack of a sense of urgency and lack of commitment to housing which troubles me and troubles Canadians generally. I want to say that the stark reality of what is happening in this country cannot be disregarded any longer. While the minister paints a picture that would suggest, "Don't worry, be happy, although we are going through some difficult times, the situation is not as bad as it looks".
Let me deal first with the question of home ownership and what it means to those people who want to keep that dream of owning a home. My colleague spoke of the situation in Toronto and other centres. CMHC has projected that the industry will continue to build something like 200,000 homes this year. In fact, not only has the minister said that, but the former minister and the Minister of State for Privatization have spoken about the fact that the situation is stabilizing, that there is no need
Supply
to get too excited about the fact that there seems to be a slowdown in the construction industry.
The Toronto home builders and the Canadian home builders have tried to tell the government that 14.5 per cent interest rates are killing their industry. It is not only killing the dreams of people but killing the industry. Not
200,000	homes will be built in 1990-91 but only somewhere between 160,000 to 170,000 homes will be built in the next year. What that means is you have a lot of people who cannot buy these homes because they have become unaffordable as a result of high interest rates. Second, the construction industry and other related industries from window manufacturers to durable goods manufacturers are all starting to lay off people.
The industry is trying to tell the government, CMHC and the finance minister that 25 per cent to 30 per cent are already being laid off. The minister would want you to believe that don't worry, be happy, 200,000 homes will be built next year, the fact is that people cannot afford to buy the homes and the industry is declining very quickly. I hope that CMHC and the minister will meet with these people at the earliest possible opportunity to get the facts right because housing is not only good economics, it is good social policy.
I want to cover a number of topics, especially as they relate to the $1.8 billion that this government commits to people and social housing. I can tell you that if you look at the stark statistics of what is happening in this country, you will see that there are over 1.3 million households in the country that are paying more than 30 per cent of their income toward housing. There are close to 600,000 Canadians across this country paying over 50 per cent of their income toward housing.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that is not only a serious economic problem for Canadians but a serious social problem as well. If Canadians cannot afford to pay their rent, or have to pay more rent, they will have to deprive themselves of certain things such as clothing and food. That is why you have over 500,000 people going to food banks each and every day, because it is too expensive for them to live.
I want to deal with this government's commitment to social housing. While the minister has paraded around the country saying: "Give my government hell so that I can do my job and get some more money to help people and so that the non-profit groups and the co-operative

June 6, 1990
Supply
groups get more money so they can build more units", every time he comes out of the cabinet room, he comes out with less for housing.
In this year alone there was 15 per cent less for social housing. In the next five years there will be $165 million less for social housing. Over the past four or five years, the government promised the co-operative sector to build 5,000 units to help the thousands of people on waiting lists from B.C. to Newfoundland to Ontario. Every province has waiting lists and people looking for affordable housing.
The co-operative sector was a way of being able to achieve affordability. In 1986 the government promised
5,000	units a year. We are at the end of the five-year term and in not one year did the government provide enough funds to build those 5,000 units. This year it will only be able to fund 1,500 units. Last year it funded 2,000. The year before it may have funded 2,500. What happened to the commitment to the 5,000 units each and every year for co-op housing and for the people who want to share in collective ownership? The government's commitment has been worth absolutely nothing. The whole program is threatened with cancellation because the minister and CMHC is reviewing the co-operative program.
I attended the meeting of the Co-Operative Housing Federation in Edmonton on the weekend. They are seriously concerned that this government will kill co-op housing and kill the opportunity for thousands of people across the country to have affordable housing.
Mr. Speaker, it is also very clear that in this country the homeless and people seeking affordable housing want a government that is responsive to their needs. As I have said, over the past four or five years, we have had a government that talks a good line but in actual fact has shifted the responsibility of housing more and more in each and every year to the provinces and the municipalities. In fact, the minister says tonight that governments cannot interfere in the private market-place. However, they are interfering in the market-place, especially when they will not do anything to lower interest rates.
When the Minister of Finance and other ministers say that it is essential to keep high interest rates to deal with inflation, the fact remains that people paying 14.5 per cent interest rates are potentially going to lose their homes. I think it is important for this government to realize that it can be a full partner in the housing issue. It should realize that it has the provinces, the municipalities, the non-profit sector, the co-operate and private sector which are all working together, and can essentially deliver affordable housing if there is a willing partner in the federal government.
The federal government cannot continue to say to Canadians that it is not its responsibility, that is the responsibility of the provincial government to do something. It has a prime responsibility, as it has in the past. CMHC is the federal agency that produced many homes after the war and worked with provinces and municipalities to achieve the housing objectives that we have for this country. Yet, slowly but surely since 1984, this government has taken itself out of the true partnership that must exist to deal with the housing problems.
We believe that if you house people and give them the opportunity for affordable housing, you will not increase the deficit, you will not have to increase government expenditures but in actual fact, you may decrease them. We know for a fact that subjecting people to inadequate housing or the problems of high-cost housing causes social and family problems. It causes crime and drug problems. In turn, that will cost not only the federal but provincial and municipal governments millions of dollars in extra expenditures. Providing a decent home for every Canadian in this country is the best way to deal with not only shelter, but social problems. We believe the two have to work in tandem.
We as a party some year and a half ago travelled across the country and talked with homebuilders, co-operative people, the non-profit sector, tenants, municipalities, and provincial governments. Across the country we went and essentially the message was clear. Everyone was saying that the federal government must become more involved, must exercise its leadership in housing, be prepared to bring in those programs and be prepared to work with the other levels of government and the other sectors to bring affordability back to housing. We have not seen that.
June 6, 1990

Our party laid out in our task force report some 25 recommendations that deal with how we believe the housing problems can be solved in this country. They talk about forging those new partnerships which are important and looking at ways of changing those financial instruments with generation mortgages, long-term mortgages, lower interest rates and getting rid of the GST that is going to add at least 2 to 2.5 per cent on the cost of a house, even after the rebates. There are a number of things that can be done to bring affordability back into the equation. We would like the commitment of this government to continue co-op programs with at least
5,000	units per year. We want more social housing built in combination with perhaps the private and non-profit sector working together. We also believe there needs to be recognition for the working poor and people on social assistance. Perhaps their income is not adequate to cover the expenses of their home. There needs to be some consultation and co-ordination with the provincial governments for topping up provisions of income, especially when you have the supply side problem and you are not able to build enough units. There is an opportunity to help those people who are paying more than 30 per cent, or more than 50 per cent of their income, on shelter.
There is another opportunity to deal with the private sector more effectively. The Canadian Homebuilders' Association and other homebuilders across the country should be freed from some of the red tape that exists at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of governments so that they can in fact start to produce the homes that people want and can afford to buy.
We also have to recognize that not everybody wants to buy a home. They have to live in rental accommodation. We know what interest rates are going to do to the supply side and to rental accommodations. Builders will not build. Investors will not invest in buildings when they know that interest rates are 14.5 per cent and climbing. Fewer rental buildings and apartments will be built, exacerbating the problem and the existing waiting lists.
We also believe that this government has shown callous disregard in the renovation market for the existing rental stock. We used to have a fantastic program, RRAP, but it has now been cut by this government.
Supply
That was one way of being able to rehabilitate our existing stock so that people could have affordable housing. Again this government has cut the housing budget. At the same time it wants us to believe that it is sincere and sensitive to the plight of the people in this country and yet it cut these worth-while programs which in fact provided affordable housing.
Our report and our consultation with Canadians has indicated that we need the reinstitution of the RRAP. We believe there is an opportunity for existing stock to be rehabilitated.
We believe that financial institutions have a very big part to play in delivering affordable housing, possibly the development of innovative mortgage instruments. We also believe that the government, while it talks a great line about Crown lands, essentially has done too little with respect to putting those Crown lands in the hands of the non-profit sector or co-operatives.
Rather than selling that land at market prices, we suggest that the government look at long-term leasing to the co-operatives and to the non-profit sectors, thereby taking the exorbitant land costs out of the total housing construction equation.
We believe that this could be an opportunity to reduce the rent subsidy that might be required. We also believe there is an opportunity for the government to look at community land trusts so that within a co-operative or a non-profit area equity participation or capitalization could be added so that those groups can in fact generate internal capital for other projects.
There are a number of great opportunities in housing but we believe that this government needs to be committed. I do not question the commitment of this minister whose background in municipal government is well known. But I do question the commitment of his government which, over the past four or five years, has slashed budgets, removing responsibility from the federal government and trying to pass it off to the provincial and perhaps the municipal governments.
Finally, I want to speak again of something important. It is not only a question of money and housing.

June 6, 1990
Supply
The minister recognizes full well that if we can use the talents of and involve the private sector, the non-profit sector, the municipalities, and the provincial governments working together to solve the housing problems- and I agree it is complex and not simple-we can get back to the principle of housing affordability. We can give each and every Canadian the possibility of keeping alive the dream of owning a home in their lifetime and give those people who are now in apartments or homes the decent affordable housing they need.
Our seniors need help. They are living in homes, for instance, they cannot maintain because their incomes are not enough. Perhaps reverse mortgages might be the answer for that segment of the population.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our physically challenged people need to have better opportunities so that they can be full participating members in our society by living in communities and not be relegated to one apartment here or another apartment there. We need to support the handicapped by allowing RRAP to meet their needs and to have them as full participating members in co-operative housing, non-profit housing, and in the private sectors.
I hope this minister and this government really do get serious about housing and get back into the game of making sure that they are doing their fair share.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the comments of the hon. member for London East. I felt, however, that we should make sure that the record is straight with respect to the co-op housing situation.
The hon. member well knows, as do I, that five years ago the government and the co-op housing movement entered into discussions aimed at arriving at a program which would produce, both sides hoped, some 5,000 units of co-op housing a year. That arrangement was based on certain assumptions with respect to the mortgage vehicle being used, the ILM mortgage vehicle, and assumptions with respect to the real interest rate that could be achieved. The real interest rate anticipated by the Co-op Housing Federation of Canada was some 4 per cent.
The amount of money that was put into that program by the government at the time was an amount which both sides agreed could produce 5,000 units of co-op housing
a year, with a real interest rate on an ILM mortgage of 4 per cent. Unfortunately, as the executive members of the co-op housing movement quite readily agree, we have been unable to achieve that real interest rate of 4 per cent on ILM mortgages. That is the reason we have been unable to reach the target that was agreed upon of
5,000	co-op housing units each and every year.
If we can get the real interest rate on a co-op mortgage down by just 1 per cent, we can increase by 20 per cent the number of co-op housing units that the same number of subsidy dollars will provide.
One of the problems with co-op housing with respect to the government's policies, the policy of targeting all of its funds to the core needy people, is that by definition co-op housing is not core needy people exclusively but is also a range of people so as not to ghettoize poor people all in one place. It does have a range of incomes, which means people with a range of incomes are benefiting from some form of government subsidization.
The program is up for review this year, it being the fifth year of the commitment, as the hon. member knows. Are the hon. member and his party fully committed and supportive of continuing a co-op housing program in this country?


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, of course our party is fully supportive of the co-op program. I would like to remind the minister that it was the Liberal Party which, some 22 years ago, introduced the whole concept of co-operative housing in this country.
I must remind government members that between 1980 and 1984, 30,000 co-operative units were built in this country-6,000 units a year for five years. We lived up to our commitment to the co-operative housing movement of some 30,000 units.
I can assure the minister that he will not have any difficulties from this side of the House when the budget comes down next year, hopefully, and co-op housing is very much a part of it. If he wants to commit 5,000 units on behalf of the government to the co-operative housing movement, he will not get any complaints from this side of the House. I am sure he will not get any complaints from the NDP either.
I should point out to him that I am happy to see that he is committed to co-op housing and that he is looking at ways to improve the ILM instrument so that in fact it can be the mechanism by which to provide those housing
June 6, 1990

units. However, if in fact it cannot be because of high interest rates, and if the real interest rates cannot be 4 per cent once inflation is taken into account, I hope that this minister will look at other ways of being able to come up with the money so that 5,000 co-op units can be built in the next five years.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I note that the motion would remove $1,883 billion and some odd from the Estimates for housing. I was wondering if the member did not understand that almost all that money, at least $1.7 billion, was spent before the Estimates were even filed by the government honouring its commitment to build some of those 6,000 units each year that the previous government built but did not pay for.
It was a great program-build houses and don't pay for them, put them on the cuff. For the next 30 years or 35 years we will have these houses on the cuff, paying interest on interest on interest.
Does he really think that was a good program? Does he really think that we should default on that obligation that is in the terms of his motion? Or, would he like to withdraw the motion completely because it makes no sense?
If he really believes in housing and really wants the minister to do something, surely he will withdraw his motion. What would happen if we told our creditors that we are not going to pay our bills? What does the hon. member think would happen? We would not build anything.
Surely the member wants to withdraw his motion.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the member should realize that there is no motion on the floor in which we have said that they have to scrap the $1.8 billion. What we have said is that it does not reflect the real needs of this country. It was the minister who moved the motion for $1,883 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, sir, notice is hereby given of opposition.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Yes, of course. I have already explained what our opposition is. It is that that figure does not reflect the true needs of the country.
Supply
I am sure the member for Mississauga South would like to relegate those poor people, those hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford their homes, to living under stairwells-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comment are now terminated.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House tonight to address a subject that concerns many Canadians who are waiting for government assistance.
I am referring to individuals, families and senior citizens who are looking for affordable housing, people who depend on government to provide them what many of us consider normal; people who, like us, want to live decently, with dignity; people who, without our assistance, will have to make incredible sacrifices to give their children a roof over their heads; people who without assistance may not even be able to make these sacrifices and thus will not have a home.
Every day, members rise in Parliament to announce that a given industry, province or city needs help. Every day, the government explains how it establishes priorities and what its strategy is. In many ways, the situation of a single mother who is looking for decent housing for her children is similar to that of someone who has lost her home or job.
There are also many analogies between senior citizens coping with rent increases and workers who earn little and are hard pressed to make both ends meet. These people have in common a need for a government that cares.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are concerned about what will happen to these people. We feel the need to give them a hand, and we do that, but not as often as we would like.
That makes us mad. Mad because in spite of all the resources this great country has to help the needy, the government-the government of all Canadian-must cut down its expenditures as a result of the ill-conceived programs and unpaid bills which the previous administration left behind when it was turfed out.
The government is prepared to lend a hand, but it has difficult decisions to make about the numerous demands

June 6, 1990
Supply
made on the public treasury. That is responsible government. Elad this kind of leadership prevailed earlier we would not find ourselves in the financial mess left after two decades of unsound budget management.
As I followed the proceedings of the Charest Commission I was deeply touched by the remarks of a witness who recalled his childhood as a Metis living in Saskatchewan, in a shed. Ele struck our heartfelt emotions as Canadians. Mr. Speaker, what that man had to say means more to me than all the learned arguments about the constitutional basis of federal spending powers. As I listened to him I came to understand that these powers were rooted not only in the law of the land but also in its heart. In its heart because as he was speaking I was saying to myself that never again should he and his children have to bear the cross of poverty and that Canada should continue to offer housing programs which give the less fortunate among us the opportunity to live in dignity and to become productive citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the measures which this government has been taking since my colleague, now Minister of National Defence, addressed this Elouse at the end of 1985 are aimed at those most in need of government assistance. The aim of the measures taken by the government when it revised its housing policy remains unchanged. The government is determined to pool the resources of all levels of government and community groups so they can be used to help the needy.
We are trying to find ways to respond more quickly to the needs of poor families and do a better job than the Liberal government that preceded us. And we are doing just that. During the past four years, since we announced our new policies we have managed to help 75,000 low-income households, while the Liberal government assisted only about 32,000 during the last four years of its term. Mr. Speaker, that is an improvement. It means
43,000	households more than the Liberal, over the same period of time. It means 43,000 households, families, single mothers, people on modest incomes, native people living on or off the reserve, handicapped Canadians and senior citizens.
Perhaps some of my colleagues, those who challenged this government's performance in the housing sector, are already aware of these developments but would rather not talk about them.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to ignore the government's performance in the housing sector. In fact, the important thing is not necessarily what the government has done but the fact that it did so at a time when so many other major issues tended to focus public concern.
There is a lot to be said about this government's achievements in the housing sector. As a start, I would like to mention a situation that tells us a lot about this government's leadership. I am thinking of families living in large urban centres like Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver and Winnipeg, as well as those living in smaller centres or rural regions; I am thinking of families with children, single-parent families, families on welfare and low-income families.
Mr. Speaker, these families now have increased access to subsidized housing. The present government, whose performance in the housing sector is being challenged, has used its influence to get provinces, municipalities and community groups to agree to focus more attention on the needs of the disadvantaged.
This government, which is being accused of lack of leadership, has managed to convince all parties concerned about easing the burdens of those who are in need to join forces and give these people access to more affordable and safe housing of the right size and quality. You won't read about this in the papers, but it's a fact. That is one example of the kind of leadership we provide.
Another example, Mr. Speaker, is native people. In many ways, they deserve our greatest attention. I was referring to them when I said that families should no longer have to live in poverty. As never before, these people have the attention of this government and its action in the field of social housing. Nearly half the housing provided in rural areas under the housing program for rural and native people is now used to meet the urgent needs of natives who live outside the reserves. That is an example of our commitment. Think of how successful the program for native people in urban areas is and of the money for natives living on reserves.
Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members do not want to hear about our successes. Neither do they want to hear that our government has shown enlightened leadership, a sign of effective and responsible management.
June 6, 1990

This commitment to work with native people, to offer them the best programs to meet their special needs, continues while the government holds wide-ranging consultations with native communities.
In the speech he gave to the House this evening, the Minister of State for Housing reiterated his commitment and this government's commitment to better housing for Canadians. The initiatives he has taken in the past and the energy he devotes to the housing portfolio clearly show his deep conviction that the government will find a solution to Canadians' housing problems.
But the minister does not boast about his achievements. In my opinion, that is the very essence of leadership. A leader does not spend his time recalling his successes and his accomplishments but he looks to the future, considers new challenges and shows the way.
There is no lack of challenges. In fact, the Minister of State for Housing has met them head on. Some examples are the exhaustive search for suitable housing for senior citizens; joint committees of all three levels of government set up by the minister across Canada, in order to take a collective approach to improving housing affordability; the new ACT program based on eliminating barriers and reducing delay in this area; the minister's efforts to release surplus federal land for housing purposes; his commitment to involving tenants in the management of subsidized housing; and his efforts to promote the tertiary sector. If we look at the facts, we have to admit that the poor have never been better served, and I really have trouble with claims that the government has failed to show leadership in the housing sector. I say that the people who make these claims have no idea of the meaning of the word leadership, and that they either do not know the facts, or, for obvious political reasons, prefer to ignore them.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech this evening, I pointed out that our government was committed to helping the needy but also had to balance its concerns because of the urgent need to control government spending and put the government back on a sound financial basis. I can already hear members accusing us
Supply
of every possible evil; of being guilty of fighting the deficit at the expense of the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Consider the amount we expect to spend on subsidized housing during the current fiscal year: nearly $1.8 billion, or $90 million more than last year. If an increase of this magnitude means reducing the deficit at the expense of the poor, perhaps my colleagues owe the House an explanation of their concept of mathematics.
But they might say that their real concern is that spending is not rising as fast as it should, but then how fast should it rise?
Mr. Speaker, that is not how to run a government. A responsible government balances its needs, takes into account its financial obligations and creates wealth that will make it possible to continue and, who knows, to improve the programs we will require.
We hear that the 15 per cent reduction in spending growth announced by the finance minister in his latest budget is not justified. But when will we hear them explain that in spite of this reduction, our government's ability to reach more needy families and seniors will continue to exceed the levels reached under the policies supported by the Official Opposition? We will not hear such comments, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. colleagues know that they would hurt their own cause.
Mr. Speaker, our government's housing record is beyond reproach and we have in front of us tangible proof that everything is being done to make the best use of the available financial resources.
Our country maintains noble and exciting principles but has come to recognize that to pursue these lofty goals effectively, it must have a sound economic foundation and forever vigorously ensure that it obtains good value from its programs.
That is precisely what our government set out to do in 1985 when it announced a new direction for social housing policy. This turned out to be the right choice and our government has shown beyond any doubt that these new policies are the surest and fastest way to serve those in greatest need and let them know that their government cares about them.

June 6, 1990
Supply


Alan Redway: On a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are three or four speakers we would like to get in before nine o'clock on the hon. minister's motion.
I will recognize the Minister of State for Housing on a short comment or question.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his comments. I know that he came to this House from his riding in the city of Montreal as a great advocate for housing and as one who is deeply and personally involved in making sure that social housing is built in Montreal.
The hon. member is aware that in the past few days we have launched a housing conference for senior citizens' housing in the city of Montreal. I was there yesterday.
As he is aware as well, we have assisted the University of McGill to develop the new Grow Home in Montreal, a very inexpensive kind of housing that can be built for some $65,000.
The hon. member knows as well that recently the CRESSOM program was announced for southwest Montreal which included a housing component of $6.5 million.
As the hon. member knows as well, I will be with him in a short time for the opening of several new co-op housing projects in Montreal in the Angus lands with which the hon. member is well associated.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he would give us a brief description of all that wonderful housing that he and the federal government have been responsible for on those Angus lands.


Allan Koury: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to give you an array of the accomplishments on that particular site.
Of course it all started back in 1975. But the realization of the program came into being in 1985. Thanks to this government 3,000 housing units are now almost completed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Koury: There is about 600 or 700 more units to go. We will have achieved a 15-year project within a six-year
span, as I said, thanks to this government which implicated itself to put in local and charitable housing, low-cost housing, the HLM co-ops and, of course, all the low-cost housing which houses something in the order of 1,400 or 1,500 families that are on the site and who are thankful to this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
On debate, the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a motion to delete $1,883,690,000 from the budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Obviously, it was a tongue-in-cheek motion put forward by the member for London East and his colleagues since they do not seriously expect that it would be possible for this government-nor would they want it-to default on its mortgage payments which constitute 90 per cent of that amount. Thus it will be necessary to vote in favour of the motion so as not to worry the banker friends of the Liberal and Tory Parties.
It is really difficult to defend the government's program. The fact is that under this government the housing program has declined, and the previous minister responsible for housing was quite explicit about it. When he called for consultation, he did not say about what, he just said: "Give me your views". People told what kind of housing they thought was needed and then he said, "Well, there is going to be less" and he started reducing the social housing program in particular.
At that time, the home builders' association said, "That's fine, just leave us alone. We don't want subsidy for profit housing." Of course, the government was glad to take it at its word. Now we are having the further word from the home builders' association, which I will touch on in a few minutes.
The fact is that this government has been, year by year, retreating from providing housing to people for whom the market does not provide. There simply is going to be no program at all very soon. The government has excused these retreats as being necessary in order to help the core need housing, housing for those who fit their criteria as being needy. However, the core need programs, this year, were cut by 15 per cent and there is
June 6, 1990

good reason to fear that there will be more cuts in the years to come.
The government also cut the rental RRAP program, the program for rehabilitating old housing that low-income people can afford. On the whole, this government has shown that it wants to hand over the responsibility for housing to the provincial and municipal levels of government and get out of it itself.
That is interesting because its alleged reason for doing that is a shortage of money. Even the minister admitted that he would have liked to have more social housing, but he suggested there was not enough money for it.
There is, of course, enough money to increase the military budget by well over $500 million dollars. There is enough money to increase the budget for the secret police, CSIS, by $33 million. When it is for guns for white men, there is money. When it is for housing, especially for lower-income women and children, all of a sudden we seem to be running out of money.
Even as it stands, there is still left, perhaps, $180 million to assist with needed housing. With the money that it is giving to the military budget instead, including the arms manufacturers, the high-profit industry, the government could have increased that by two or three times easily, but that is not the government's budget priority. In fact, the record of the government has been watched, through these years, by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. On February 21 it stated, and I quote:
Despite the budget papers assurance that funding for social housing has grown substantially over the last five years, average expenditures in social housing as a percentage of total federal housing expenditures actually fell by almost 20 per cent in the second half of the decade compared to the 1980-84 period.
The minister has referred to the problem of high real interest rates. If he really feels that is a problem, I wish he would consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance. We have been telling him all year to bring interest rates down. The comedy is that he gives the same answer as his predecessors gave. When I came to the House, in 1981, my first question was whether the government would bring the interest rates down. We were told the government was keeping the interest rates up in order to fight inflation. Nine years later, we get the same nonsense. Keeping the interest rates up in order to
Supply
fight inflation is like burning a house down in order to make room for housing. It just does not get you any housing.
The fact is that as the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association has said:
Now we are faced with increased pressure on provinces and
municipalities to come up with social housing assistance funds.
This is only one aspect of many programs on which the federal government is passing on its social responsibilities to the governments that have the lower ability to tax. This government prefers to fund the more high profit enterprises such as arms manufacture.
I mentioned that the Canadian Home Builders' Association has given us some figures on this matter in their brief entitled "A Crisis of Confidence". It is about the housing industry crisis. It points out that in Toronto, new home sales are collapsing. There are only 85,000 sales expected in 1990, which is down 80 per cent from the 40,869 sales recorded in the peak year of the current cycle, 1986. In fact, it is 63 per cent below the average annual sales during the entire decade of the 1990s.
There are people who do not live in Toronto who think everything is all right there. They should come and look at the people who are literally sleeping on the streets, in stairwells, in transit shelters, or in subways. Those are some of the people who have not left town.
A couple of years ago, the employees of Toronto Hydro went on strike and gave one fine reason for it. They wanted to be able to live in the town that they helped to build and maintain. They wanted to be paid enough for providing electric services to live in the city to which they provide the services. They were tired of commuting, perhaps an hour or two hours each way, in order to live in a cheaper place outside the city and come into it to work. The city would not allow them to live there because it would not pay them enough for housing.
The housing problem in Toronto is quite severe. The problem is not only in Toronto, of course, but it is most severe in Toronto of all Canada.
The majority of people in Toronto do not live in dwellings they own. The majority of people are tenants, so we could look at the rental field. CMHC did a survey and, in 14 out of 27 markets, it found that the vacancy rate is less than 3 per cent. That is getting pretty tight.

June 6, 1990
Supply
The government is doing nothing to help with rental housing.
I want to emphasize the point, because 3 per cent may sound very good in some places. In Toronto, the vacancy rate is 0.7 per cent; in Hamilton, 0.9 per cent; in St. Catharines, 1.9 per cent; in Kitchener, 1.3 per cent; and in Sudbury, not exactly a metropolis, but a hardworking town of miners and other producers of natural resources, people are having difficulty providing or finding housing. Sudbury has the lowest vacancy rate, 0.6 per cent. In Oshawa, it is 1.6 per cent. In Oshawa, a General Motors town, people cannot find enough housing to provide rental at a reasonable rate of turnover and a reasonable vacancy rate.
In Ottawa-Hull, the vacancy rate is 2.3 per cent; in Vancouver, 0.9 per cent; and in Victoria, 0.7 per cent. There simply is not enough rental housing available, not only in Ontario and not only in Toronto.
The problem is not only a shortage of decent housing for people to live in, it is also a shortage of employment.
The homebuilders' association pointed out that, at the peak of the recent housing cycle, 1987, there were
165,000	person-years of employment generated by housing in the Toronto area. But for 1990, it is barely half of that, with 88,000 fewer person-years of employment. In fact, that is a little less than half.
For this year, it is expecting less than half the jobs that there were three years ago directly and indirectly generated by housing. It would be the lowest year since the recession year of 1982. On the 1990 projected sales of only 8,500 units, it expects a good deal fewer jobs in 1991. One cannot get much tax revenue from people-whether it is income tax or the goods and services tax loaded more heavily on the low income-if they do not have income. When those housing jobs drop off, it is going to be felt in the revenues.
The homebuilders' association is quite explicit about what it thinks is the principle cause of this downturn. It is the interest rate policy of the government which is hurting the building industry. The association has been warning about it and their brief now gives fairly sharp figures.
It can be argued that there are other costs as well. Of course, land costs are something that both this government and the Ontario government are willing to allow to grow out of reason. They are not willing to impose a tax on speculation which was done for three years in the mid-seventies by the Ontario government and it was quite successful in cooling down land prices. Generally speaking, it is the cost of building a house that is becoming prohibitive.
The homebuilders' association points out in a chart that, when interest rates are at 8 per cent, 34 per cent of people can buy houses. When they jump to 10 per cent, only 24 per cent of the people can buy houses. At 12 per cent mortgage rates, only 16 per cent of people can buy houses. At 14 per cent-and we have gone beyond that now-only 10 per cent of the people can buy houses. When they go up to 16 per cent-and there is no reason to assure us that they will not go up-only 7 per cent will be able to buy houses.
The homebuilders have pointed out that this 14 per cent mortgage rate more than halves the number of potential first-time buyers able to afford a $150,000 home in the Toronto area. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there are not very many $150,000 homes in the Toronto area. That is a relatively cheap home in Toronto. Therefore, it is the government's policy of high interest rates which is the chief factor in reducing the supply of housing and the supply of housing employment.
The homebuilders' association points it out in a different way. It has a chart that is too small to display and, of course, displaying it would be contrary to the rules of the House. I will point out that in 1981 and 1982, when the interest rates were high, the new home sales were low. Then through 1983-84-85, the interest rates came down and new home sales went up. In 1986-87-88, the new home sales were fairly high while the interest rates stayed low, except for one dip in the middle of 1987.
Since 1988, the interest rates have been climbing and the new home sales are declining. Interest rates are up and home sales are down. That is the pattern shown very clearly on this chart. The future is not very bright either in this matter. Gordon Thompson, the President of the CHBA, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, has predicted:
- that what happened in Canada in the early 1980s could happen again.

June 6, 1990

He is referring, of course, to the recession which he maintains was caused partly by the high interest rates on housing, and I remember that. There happened to be a by-election in Spadina in 1981 and I was hearing daily about people who were forced out of their homes. When the interest rate jumps and a working person goes to renew the mortgage on a home and finds that the payments have jumped by one-third or one-half over what they were before, but his or her salary or wage has not jumped by one-third or one-half, it means that he or she loses, not only the home but all the money that was put into it.
Mr. Thompson goes on:
The decline in housing sales led to layoffs, many firms left the industry, and land development slowed to match the level of demand. When demand recovered in the second half of the 1980s, shortages of labor, materials and land all combined to produce a serious escalation in housing prices.
The minister has commented on rising costs that are not directly the matter of interest, but what Mr. Thompson is pointing out is that the wild fluctuations in the housing market that were generated in part by the interest rate, themselves were a cause of shortages of labour and material which then, in better times, produced higher housing prices, too high housing prices. Mr. Thompson goes on:
Sales of new housing have dropped in all parts of Canada in the first four months of 1990 -In Toronto and Vancouver sales of resale homes have fallen by 44 and 35 per cent respectively compared to last year.
His final point is:
- that all levels of government suffer from high interest rates
because they take substantial revenues from homebuilding.
He maintains that in 1987 the federal government alone collected $2.5 billion in revenues from new housing construction. It is very short-sighted of this government to be cutting back the money for new housing.
The hon. member from Etobicoke was very righteously saying that they had to pay for the housing that had been built by the previous government, that is to say, on mortgages with assistance from CMHC. There is something more short-sighted than building houses on mortgage money and that is, not building houses. That is what this government is bringing about with its high interest rate which, not only the housing industry but many others have pointed out is very likely to hasten a
Supply
recession, the very thing this government claims it is trying to avoid.
It will be necessary to vote for this money, for the payment of the debts on the existing housing built by CMHC. However, it is very sad that this government is slowly running its housing program into the ground. I hope that this year the government will begin to consider both that it should be bringing down the interest rates so that ordinary people can again consider buying homes or at least so that rental housing may be built, and second, that the government will recognize that it has an obligation to provide housing.
Housing is a necessity, at least in a northern climate. We do not live in the land of palms and sunshine. Housing is a necessity here; it is a right. It is not a privilege that should be given only to those who are well to do. The government has these two duties: to bring the interest rates down and to provide much more substantial assistance to the housing for low-income people.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Trinity- Spadina who I regard as being very sincere and conscientious.
He proclaimed that it would be of interest to everyone in Canada if the government were to unilaterally reduce interest rates, almost implying that that is a situation that is easily controlled. I want to convey to him a situation that I found myself in a few years ago. I wonder if he would care to comment, giving his observations with respect to it.
The situation was this. My wife and I had put our life savings together and bought a 12-suite apartment block. In that era, it was generally conceived that if one had a 25 per cent down payment on an investment like this, it would generally carry itself. As a result, we did not think it was a silly economic excursion. We thought it made some sense. Both of us worked on weekends and in the evenings to try to make things go. As well, we had to pay the city taxes for the facility out of our own pocket, because there just was not enough cash flow in it.
We bought the place with a 10 per cent interest rate. Shortly thereafter, we found that inflation had risen to 13.5 per cent. Also, we found that interest rates were being used in an attempt to bring inflation rates down. Interest rates caused themselves to take off. Interest rates on our property rose to 20 and 22 per cent. We

June 6, 1990
Supply
could no longer afford it. In fact, it was going to break us if we hung on to it, therefore we had to dump it.
It is interesting that we sold it to someone who could afford to make the cash payment and who was not burdened by the high interest rates at the time. The justification that that person had to go to the tenants to raise the rental rates on the property was the increased interest rate situation that we saw in the area.
Does the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina really feel that interest rates and inflation are not closely related? Does he not feel that one controls the other?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in part, I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Wascana.
Certainly interest rates and inflation are related, but the relationship is not simply in one direction. Inflation does not simply cause high interest rates. If that were the only cause, then the hon. member would not be able to account for the increasing spread of real interest rates.
The hon. member and I can remember when there were things like 6 and 7 per cent mortgages. The difference between the inflation rate and the interest rate was usually about 1 or 2 per cent. Now, it is 4, 5, 6 and 7 per cent.


An hon. member:: It is 10 per cent.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Somebody says it is 10 per cent. In other words, the gap between the inflation rate and the interest rate is not a clean take, but a pure take. It is a simple take by the money lenders. In fact, I think what the hon. member's experience that he recounted to us shows is that high interest rates benefit only those who have a great deal of money.
This is why it is so shameful that the government keeps promoting high interest rates. It blames them on inflation, but it keeps the interest rates far above inflation. That benefits the kind of person who is able to pick up the property that the hon. member and his wife had to drop. I think people who have had the experience that the hon. member recounts ought to consider that a interest rate of only 1 or 2 per cent above the rate of inflation is much healthier for most people in the
country than the kind of rate that the government is promoting at present.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would clarify to which of the three Etobicoke members he was referring.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is chairman of the finance committee.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's comments on the situation in housing in Toronto. I could not help but do almost a checklist of similar problems we face in Vancouver.
Recently the mayor of Vancouver led a delegation appealing to the minister for help and reinstatement of some of the federal government's past programs. They were particularly concerned about the cut to rental RRAP. I know in my community it would be a great advantage, not only to older people, but also in adapting affordable housing with rental suites.
The federal government has given up its responsibility for social housing. We got about 100 units last year in Vancouver. We do not know where to go for new developments. We have all the Expo lands waiting to be filled and certainly do not want them to be expensive downtown housing. We want some affordable housing. The federal government does not seem to be able to do anything about that.
I want to ask a couple of things of my colleague. Does he feel that there are federal lands not being used extensively for housing? I am thinking, for instance, of some of the DND-owned lands. Has he any ideas on CPR lands? I think the CPR should be investigated. They were given all kinds of potential wealth in lands by the people of Canada and now Marathon Realty is charging outrageous prices in areas where we need affordable housing.
Finally, I would like to ask him if Toronto, like Vancouver, is becoming a city of adults where children are not wanted and not made welcome because of the housing situation?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, on the last point, the planning statistics in Toronto do show that there are less children in the centre than in the rest of the city, less children in the city than in metro Toronto, that is less children per adult, and less children per adult in metro Toronto than
June 6, 1990

in the province of Ontario. It is clear that the pyramid housing prices in Toronto are forcing children out of the city.
As to government lands, the government did sell a little bit of DND land for housing a couple of years ago for people who could pay $700,000, $800,000 or $900,000. That did not do much for most of the people in Toronto.
The second most scandalous case was the railway lands in which the government recently declined to intervene to ensure that housing, if it were built for the 1996 Olympics, would then be turned over to low-income people in Toronto who need it. The government has the power to do that through the CNR with those lands and they refused to do it. The most scandalous case was the waterfront. This was bought by the previous government but its mismanagement was carried on vigorously by the present government. Land that should have been used, in part, for low-income and family housing was instead sold to developers who produced luxury housing and other facilities like that. In other words, the plan which the city of Toronto had made in the early 1980s for a mixed community with access to the water on government owned land was simply ripped up by the management of that land under federal government supervision.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to interest rates. I read recently in The Toronto Star comments by Mr. Jack McArthur on interest rates. He said the following:
There was no chance for substantially cheaper money until the heat went out of the housing prices and demand. They were a major cause of the inflationary dangers that shaped federal monetary policy and kept interest rates high.
Canadians should applaud the news of falling prices for housing.
High prices, often a result of huge increases in the late '80s, were creating trends that were highly disturbing. They couldn't continue for many years but the longer they did, the more shocking the eventual adjustment would be.
In particular, it threatened to victimize future generations with extremely heavy personal costs for accommodation.
I wonder if the hon. member would agree with those comments.
Supply


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, just two brief points. I certainly do not defend over-priced housing. When my wife and I sold the house that we had bought and lived in for 21 years, we sold it at a non-profit price so that it could be used for people who have very low incomes. We still got our full enjoyment out of that house. We do not need to follow the extortionate prices.
However, high interest rates are one of the prime causes of these extortionate prices, and interest rates that are 5 per cent or 10 per cent over inflation, which is what this government enforces, do nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Regina-Wascana.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of our government's continuing commitment to provide affordable housing. All too often I have heard misguided criticism of the government's efforts in the area of housing. I would like to take this opportunity to ensure that all hon. members are aware of the significant advances made in the delivery of social resources over the past few years.
Over all, Canada is a well housed nation. The quality of our housing stock is generally high and our home ownership rate is among the highest in the world. The housing market is working well in most areas of the country, although we recognize that actions need to be taken to promote more affordable housing. I maintain that this government is providing support in this area. This is a seemingly endless task.
I had occasion to visit Europe not too very long ago and while visiting Berlin, the downtown core of a fairly large city, I found that individual home ownership was a hopeless dream, if in fact a dream at all. As a matter of fact, the people we stayed with occupied an apartment in downtown Berlin, or at least the periphery to the core, and they told us that in order to acquire this apartment they had to virtually inherit it from the previous person. I was somewhat concerned with the condition of the apartment in that it seemed as though there were certain things that had to be maintained to make it acceptable to what I thought would be the standards that these people would accept. They said that they took this apartment "as is" from the deceased person's estate in a rental situation, and if they wanted any improvements to the property, they had to provide them themselves. I think

June 6, 1990
Supply
we take for granted something the major populations of Europe to whose standards we sometimes compare ours have long since forgotten.
However, there is one segment of our population who require assistance and we are going to give it to them as best we can. They require assistance in meeting their every day housing needs. Those are the households around the core housing areas, our seniors, the disabled, single parent households, low income families, and singles, generally. There are the native people living in difficult situations in Canada's north and the urban dwellers attempting to struggle with the cost of living in high cost urban environments.
As a member of Parliament, I have had a number of opportunities to visit with and discuss the most pressing issues of the day with a number of citizens over the past few years. Of particular significance in these discussions was the desire of our constituents for equitable social programs and policies and assurance that long term planning will continue to make Canada a well housed nation. Housing programs and initiatives introduced by this government have gone a long way in achieving this end.
More specifically, actions on the part of my colleague, the hon. Minister of State for Housing, and his predecessors have resulted in a number of bold, new housing initiatives introduced in the 1980s with many more areas of progress identified for the 1990s. These areas of innovation and change have resulted in housing dollars being more finely targeted to households in need, created a new sense of partnership between all players in the housing arena, and introduced a renewed commitment to social justice and social housing policies. It is for these reasons that I stand today in response to opposition criticism of the Main Estimates for housing.
With regard to the equitable targeting of federal housing resources, it was clear to all who assumed responsibility for the housing portfolio in 1984 that major changes were required to ensure that the best possible use of social housing dollars was occurring.
After extensive review and consultation, a number of significant housing policy changes were introduced to the federal Parliament which resulted in a more equitable
distribution of federal housing dollars to those households truly in housing need. These households, including the poor, the elderly and the disabled, are the clear housing priority of our federal government.
These consultations involved all of the interest groups in the field of housing, as well as all levels of government. There was broad support at that time that housing assistance should be targeted to the most needy in our society, those who were unable to help themselves. When housing dollars are limited as a result of the current federal deficit we are faced with, our debt situation, many Canadians are opposed to the federal government spending tax dollars on housing that is not fully targeted to the most needy.
The federal government has adhered to a number of basic principles in the development of social housing policies in the 1990s. These include social housing allocations being directed to clients in core housing need and, second, all client groups in the country must have equal access to federal assistance. This ensures that citizens of our far north and rural areas are equitably served.
In conjunction with these principles, the federal government has developed a mix of programs which effectively address all types and forms of housing needs in the country. Families with affordability problems, the disabled, the disabled who may require wheelchair access, all can find housing relief in the federal group of programs.
This government has taken a number of decisive actions to ensure that inefficiencies of past programs are not repeated nor interfere with the equitable targeting and delivery of social housing resources.
Having discussed the importance of effective targeting of our housing resources, I would like to say a few words briefly concerning the manner in which the government has proceeded to involve all players in the housing field in the consultation and delivery process, and of how this process has resulted in maximizing the number of households receiving assistance under the federal group of programs.
In 1986 the government entered into agreements with the provinces and territories to jointly fund, plan, deliver


and administer housing programs. These agreements have resulted in thousands of more units being delivered to needy households through cost-sharing forumulae and a reduction in the administrative duplication from competing social housing delivery networks. This means thousands more low-income families with a solid roof over their heads and thousands more children with a warm place to sleep at night.
In recognition of the specific needs of Canada's native peoples, the federal government has designed programs which involve native peoples in all aspects of the programs. Native organizations perform an important function in the delivery of rural social housing programs in that they provide a fee-for-service delivery for the programs. This feature of the rural programs ensures that the native population is directly involved in the determination of housing program planning and delivery in each of the provinces and territories.
But we cannot solely depend on the federal government alone to solve all the problems. Housing is complex, and shared objectives and co-ordinated actions are required.
Recently, my colleague the hon. Minister of State for Housing, initiated a series of local committees which consist of the federal, provincial and local governments to address problems of housing affordability at the local level. These committees, in a number of cities from coast to coast, are dealing with impediments to the supply of affordable housing in their own communities, ranging from land availability and servicing to development approvals, all of which should assist in keeping a lid on housing costs and allow for effective use of housing dollars.
Having been associated with a municipality, I have another observation that causes me to express tonight the hope that municipalities will recognize the ongoing need for inner-city housing. While we encourage them to make the necessary zoning changes to accommodate those needs, if required, I would like to encourage them this evening to recognize this long term need and ensure that they provide long term residential zoning to maintain the residential integrity of our city cores. All to often while a plan of this kind might come in place, it seems that with the increased value of downtown proper-
Supply
ties, we find that housing stock falls to the wrecker's ball and some office building is located in its stead.
If the cities were to recognize this long-term need, it would serve their cities well and would serve to protect the necessary social infrastructure that is required to be put in place to maintain these inner-city developments.
Co-operative and non-profit organizations, our third sector, are another major group which our government looks to in the area of housing. For many years, the vital component of the Canadian housing scene has been a principal actor in using federal funds to provide services to needy households. In recognition of this role, the government recently increased the fee schedule for resource groups in the third sector to ensure necessary financial returns for their work. I believe that with this initiative, these groups can continue to effectively contribute to the housing of the nation. With their knowledge of housing development and management, they have already been involved in work on non-profit co-op housing, in many areas across our country.
Up until this time, I have been focusing on the partnerships this government has built with other governments and third sector housing organizations. But first and foremost are the individuals to whom housing solutions are addressed. Our government is committed to the involvement of each and every citizen of the country in the determination of how their shelter needs will be addressed. In this regard, for example, regional forums are being conducted to allow for input by seniors into the development of future programs specifically designed to meet their housing needs. This government can be extremely proud of its record of open consultation on housing policies since 1985, much to the benefit of households across this land.
Another area of note in the ongoing consultation of this government with the citizens of Canada is the residential participation initiative for clients residing in our public housing stock. Every person seeks the opportunity to influence their environment, including their particular housing situation. No one wants to sit passively by while others shape their surroundings. This is as true for people living in public housing as for anyone. For low-income families, it is often doubly important that they have the scope to enhance their skills so that

June 6, 1990
Supply
they may reach beyond their circumstances and play a fuller role in the broader community.
The interest expressed by public housing tenants in becoming involved in the day-to-day operations of their housing was identified in a public housing evaluation conducted by CMHC. The hon. Minister of State for Housing recently announced a set of initiatives aimed at expanding the opportunities public housing residents have to get involved, to contribute in their own way to improving and maintaining their quality of life.
The mention of community involvement brings me to my last area of comment, and that is the importance of achieving a sense of social justice with all our social programs, including housing. It is in this regard that current housing initiatives are providing a cornerstone to our future.
Approval of housing budgets by this Parliament will allow for the further development of a number of important initiatives which affect the quality of life of a great many Canadians into the 21st century. Included in this package are policies and potential housing program designs which more effectively address senior citizens, single parents and native client group needs. In addition, research efforts are continuing on a number of fronts pertaining to housing and the environment, an important area that must be given immediate priority.
One example of forward planning and research is the ongoing investigation of indoor air quality, perhaps something we could use in this House of Commons. However, CMHC not being involved with the House of Commons as its area of jurisdiction, as you well know, has a long record of involvement in the particular area of indoor air quality in residential housing stocks. I thought I had better make that clear.
In recent years, investigations have focused on specific pollutants such as methane and radon gas which enter basements from the soil. The primary focus has been on finding ways to protect housing from hazards in the soil and ensuring that remedial measures do not adversely affect other aspects of the housing unit. Performance research of this nature must continue if we are to be able to assure our children of safe, secure living environments in the future.
I would ask Parliament's support in the approval of the plans for this government to implement its much needed housing policies. As mentioned earlier, current programs and delivery practices have been significantly improved from the early 1980s with a very clear focus being given to households experiencing the most severe housing needs.
In addition, an efficient and effective federal-provincial delivery network has been developed to allocate and manage our scarce resources. Housing funding for the 1990 period will also allow for the innovative work to continue to ensure our housing future into the 1990s and into the next century.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great care to the speakers on the government side for the last couple of hours defend their policy. In defence of the government policy on housing, they miss the point. The point is that since 1984 the federal government has totally withdrawn from urban Canada. That can be measured in many ways. Perhaps we could attack directly the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation because it is the signal to every Canadian that the government no longer cares about the price of their housing, the suitability of their accommodation or the availability of different types of housing stock.
I would like to speak directly about one particular city, Winnipeg, which is having a great deal of difficulty in dealing with the housing crisis as a result of the withdrawal of the federal government.
A lot of people look at the prices of houses in Winnipeg and say "You are very lucky to be from Winnipeg because it is one of the most affordable housing cities in this country". On the contrary, that is an illusion because the quality of the housing stock has dropped dramatically in that the federal government is no longer involved in programs.
For example, in Winnipeg North Centre, four out of ten families live below the poverty level, which is double the rate for the rest of the city. Within this context, at one time the federal government provided a great deal of housing through RRAP and the neighbourhood improvement program in the 1970s, and the infrastructure was built.
June 6, 1990

One of the neighbourhoods, North Point Douglas, was the most accomplished example of urban reform in North America. When Canadian government officials went elsewhere to talk about housing projects, they always pointed to North Point Douglas in Winnipeg as an example of how the three levels of governments could work together.
As a follow-up to the neighbourhood improvement programs, in 1980 Winnipeg entered the core area initiative with the two levels of government, again with this commitment to urban renewal.
I raise this in the context of the housing programs because when you are trying to do urban renewal you are trying to stabilize in part the housing structure. You are not only concerned with the construction of newer houses, which is very important for low-income families, for disabled persons and for the elderly, but you also have to take a look at the existing housing stock.
In cities again such as Winnipeg and Winnipeg North Centre where most people are renters, the quality of the house is not only dependent upon their own efforts, but also dependent upon the efforts of the landlords. Winnipeg used rental RRAP more extensively than any other city in the country.


Alan Redway: And Montreal.


David Walker: And Montreal. Of course those are the two cities which stood up to the government and asked that that program be continued. The silence of the minister on that issue last year is well remembered. Toronto has another set of problems. We are asking you to deal with the problems of Winnipeg tonight.
As the minister has taken an interest in this point, he will know that rental RRAP was very successful in downtown Winnipeg.
As Winnipeg housing stock continues to age, the fact that renewal has not taken place, the fact that there are no market dynamics which cause people to invest in housing in a substantial way, and the fact that there is no access to programming make it even more difficult for families and individuals to begin to redevelop those houses.
The reason this debate comes at a very crucial time is that the core area initiative, the second phase of it, is coming to a close next year. There have been no measures put on the table by the federal government to
Supply
renew that. Not only do we have Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on its own withdrawing from the city of Winnipeg, we now find that the federal government as a group-all the ministries whether it is employment, transport or the ERDA agreements-is withdrawing its support for the older neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.
As a result, people who are working in housing projects in North Winnipeg, those who are trying to see what they can do about North Point Douglas, those who are looking at the question of the homeless or North Main, and those who are trying to figure out ways of repairing homes in the Woolsley area are turning to their political leaders at all three levels of government and asking: "Why aren't you helping us this time?" Each level of government is turning to the other looking for a signal of support, looking for somebody who will stand up and say: "All right, let's begin to reconstruct these neighbourhoods".
It is a total package to make a neighbourhood work. It requires improved policing and streets. It requires the city to spend a lot of money on infrastructure. It requires the provincial government to make sure that its programming in areas such as welfare are in proper condition. It is also requires the federal government to step forward with the needed capital so that the individual units are also in good shape.
Of particular concern in downtown Winnipeg is the plight of our many aboriginal peoples. It is estimated that within my constituency alone there are more than 20,000 aboriginal people. One of the areas that this government has cut back the greatest amount of money is moneys available for aboriginal groups to develop housing projects in an urban environment. Because of that these groups are unable either to access capital, expertise, or land. None of the components needed for housing projects are available to them.
As the quality of housing and rental units continues to decline because of rental RRAP no longer being available, and as individual families because of lack of jobs cannot buy their own homes and begin to fix them up, the cycle of decline has been accentuated. People are turning to the government right now and saying: "Give us some hope. Give us some reason to expect that in the next couple of years we will see a renewal of the core

June 6, 1990
Supply
area initiative in Winnipeg and a redevelopment of our neighbourhoods".
Winnipeg in this respect is the best image for understanding the decline of urban Canada as affected by housing policy. In one extreme, a city like Toronto, where affordable housing escapes middle class and working class families-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Or is non-existent.


David Walker: "Or is non-existent", as a member from Toronto properly points out. Then Winnipeg is the opposite extreme on the continuum, having absolutely no access to capital to renovate those homes and rebuild the neighbourhoods.
We have asked the government to listen to these points today and to consider that it has a proper role. Over the years people have come to expect the federal government to understand the impact it has on our cities through its housing, employment, transportation, and regional development policies. It is part of the infrastructure, and because it is not contributing to the infrastructure it is contributing to the problems. As people get more anxious for support, they lose hope when they see the federal government refusing to intervene or get involved.
I ask the minister to reconsider the hardships he is creating for people in Winnipeg and to participate more fully in programs such as the core area initiative and other programs which will provide housing for all Canadians.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments, particularly his comment that since 1984 the federal government had been withdrawing from housing in urban Canada. I have to tell you and the hon. member that those comments are absolutely wrong. The fact is that since 1984 when this government came to office some 70,000 new units of social housing in urban Canada have been provided with assistance from this government.
In the previous corresponding period of time under the former government, supported by the hon. member, only some 36,000 units of housing were put in place for assistance.
When this government came to office the federal budget for housing was $1.4 billion. Today it is some $1.8 billion. At least I hope it will be that amount after tonight. The hon. member and his party have put a motion forward this evening, which if he and his party vote for it, could very well mean that there will be no
money for housing at the federal level this year as a result of that motion and that vote.
Does the hon. member intend to vote to support the motion that his party has put forward and to strike out all federal money for housing this year?


David Walker: Perhaps the minister, coming from municipal government, is unfamiliar with the House rules and how one proceeds to challenge the government. The purpose of our motion is to challenge the inadequacy of the programs. Of course I will make every effort to challenge the government and support my party in this challenge.
We spent the last year going across the country on a housing task force. Although the minister likes to pick up his pieces of paper and read off how many housing units he has provided and so forth, did we find any Canadians whatsoever coming to our task force and saying: "You guys are on the wrong track. I cannot believe how much money this government is providing. I cannot believe how they have made it easy to buy a house in Toronto. I cannot believe how easy it is to get an apartment fixed up". Nobody came.
This is typical of the comments we received. For example, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations stated: "The federal government has not adequately carried out its trust and fiscal responsibility regarding shelter for Indian people. The history of policy shifts and funding mechanisms leads one to believe that conditions will not change unless serious consideration is given to a long-term strategy with input on policy development by Indian people".
That is the testimony of one group. I could stand here like the minister would like us to do and read from documents and reports, but the spirit of commitment is not there. That is what people are telling us and that is what the people have asked us to express through this motion in the House. They want us to make the government aware that although it might be content and might want to think that it is doing a lot, the reality is that it is not doing anywhere near enough to help out the people of Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my colleague. I was behind the curtain a few moments ago when he made an excellent speech to all of us, which we fully appreciated, including the minister across the way. I know the minister, being as partisan as he is, cannot compliment my colleague the way he should, so I will do so on his behalf and on behalf of all of members
June 6, 1990

here tonight in the truly objective way in which you would want me to, of course.
I want to ask my colleague about the effects of the goods and services tax on housing. My colleague, who is very knowledgeable in the area of housing, will know that the goods and services tax will add approximately $2,000 to $3,000 to the cost of an average home. This is according to the Canadian Elome Builders Association. Depending on the actual cost of the home, it could even be significantly more as other groups have intimated. My very distinguished and learned colleague from Thunder Bay indicates to me that it could actually be in the area of $5,000.
The question that I want to ask my colleague who spoke previously is the following one. The minister says through the propaganda-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, not through the propaganda; that was a slip of the tongue and I apologize for it. Ele says through the information leaflets that have been sent out by his government that there will be no impact on housing affordability.
I ask my colleague whom he thinks we should believe: the Canadian Home Builders Association that knows what it is talking about, or the government across the way with its propaganda?


David Walker: That question gets to the heart of the matter and the difference in the strategies developed by this party over the years as compared to the government.
For example, in the early 1980s when we were faced with inflationary pressures we developed what we called the six and five strategy. The member here remembers that strategy very well and we very quickly got the situation under control.
The strategy here is what I call the 14-7 strategy; 14 per cent mortgage rates, 7 per cent GST. If that is their response to inflationary pressures it will in fact ruin the housing market even more than it is.
For the average family trying desperately to accumulate savings from perhaps two people working together, trying to save $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to get started and trying to maintain monthly payments, it is going to be an incredible expense to them. I cannot imagine a more difficult situation than trying to counsel a young
Supply
family of 25-year-olds to 30-year-olds with a couple of children trying to figure out how to put together a house. I would be almost remiss if I could give them any sense of hope with this government in place. I think I would be telling them a falsehood to say that it would be possible for them to do it. They will have to wait until there is a change of heart, and I think a change of heart will only come when there is a change of government.


Don Boudria: Let's do it now.


David Walker: The sooner the better. Perhaps this vote tonight will be an opportunity for Canadians to indicate to this government just how angry and how frustrated they are. People deserve housing. They deserve food. They deserve to be looked after. They deserve a government that wants to look after them. I do not see it. I do not think any member on this side sees any willingness on the part of the government to look after people. I look forward to seeing a change.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively tonight as we started with the Minister of State for Housing. He made remarks on how he has travelled across the country and listened to single parents, natives, young couples, and seniors. He recognized that there are difficulties. As I listened to his speech I got the feeling that he did not really understand that it is one thing to listen to these people but what are we going to do about the crisis that we are involved with right now in housing?
The member knows that there is a crisis because if you come from Toronto you cannot help but feel the pain, the frustration and the worry. In the city of Toronto today the price for an average home is around $275,000. Young people today are almost ready to throw away the thought of ever owning a home. We do not measure the social costs of this frustration that is building up within our community.
Our caucus, led by the member for London East, met with the Toronto Home Builders Association because we knew we would be having this debate in the House tonight and we wanted to speak directly to those in the community who were involved directly with the home building situation. We can listen to just our own constitu-

Supply
ents but then we get a view from only one particular part of the community.
We met today with the leaders of that industry. The fact of the matter is that the housing industry in the greater metropolitan Toronto area has almost totally collapsed. One of the most revealing facts we heard from them today was that Canada Mortgage and Housing statistics are about six to eight months behind. The minister talked about a projection of 200,000 units, but these senior officials today from the Toronto Home Builders Association said that it was more like 100,000.
We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada bases his interest rate policy on numbers he gets from various departments of government, including Statistics Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing, from which he develops his models. So the whole premise upon which this government is setting its interest rates is based upon a false set of numbers.
The next thing we know, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is saying that the problem is not as bad as we on this side of the House are saying, so the government continues with its financial plan and the Governor continues with his. In the meantime, something different is really happening.
Right now the situation in the city of Toronto is such that 75 per cent of the people in the home building industry, trades and sub-trades, have not hired any new employees in the last six months. In fact, almost 90 per cent of these people are laying off. They said to us today that the housing crisis is far worse today than it was in 1981-82.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this will not affect only the home building industry. This will ultimately affect the furniture industry and have a chain effect all the way through the system. Every sector of our economy is affected by the home building industry.
Another affect of the crisis in Toronto today is that many of the fabulous craftsmen who are building beautiful homes go into other sectors when an industry collapses like this. They go into the service sector. When the market recovers, we no longer have those skilled craftsmen. As a result we have to retrain at a tremendous cost. That tremendous cost will again be added on to the cost of our housing.
I know that our time is short here tonight. The bottom line is that this government should not be patting itself
on the back for the current housing program that it is unveiling. I know this Minister of Housing is sincere but, as he mentioned in his speech, beyond the economic responsibility this a social responsibility to which we have to attend. This minister has to go back to his cabinet colleagues and be a lot more forceful in terms of his requirements.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not meant to be a passive operator. Right now it is virtually an organization in mothballs. It needs to be taken out of mothballs. It needs to be much more aggressive. The minister said in his speech that there are municipalities where single by-laws are holding up some of the good intentions and goodwill that he wants to put forward. The national government has many instruments to activate municipalities to move more quickly if the national will of this government is to make sure that affordable housing is available.
Another problem that we have in this country, especially in the greater metropolitan area, is the lack of serviced land. We need to give our municipalities much more help in terms of infrastructure so that serviced land is made available.
I do not shy away from the responsibility of deficit and debt, but at the same time, having people out of work is going to put a tremendous strain on the support systems of this government. That is not going to allow it to keep to its financial plan. The Minister of Housing knows that the best way to get the financial plan of this government in order is to make sure that everybody is working, and he should start with the housing industry.
The Minister of Finance talked today about unit labour costs. His theme this week is unit labour costs. He is really worried about the fact that our unit labour costs are going up. Of course they are going up. If there is no sense of fairness, if one does not get a sense that the job is going to be there for a long time, productivity falls off. The Minister of Finance has stopped listening to the grassroots people in this country. He is not only listening to the technocrats in his own department, he is following those models that are being built in the office of the Governor of the Bank of Canada which are 20 years outdated.
They say that there is not a problem in Toronto. I can tell you that there are bankers who are scared silly because of people who are walking away from deposits on homes. Some are walking away from deposits of as much as $40,000 and $50,000. If we do not put a tighter
June 6, 1990

focus on this housing crisis, we are going to lose two or three trust companies.
I am not suggesting for a minute that this is an easy problem to solve. However, I am suggesting that this is a problem that needs almost as much attention as we are putting into the other problem being discussed over at the Conference Centre tonight. We should make sure that we never let this issue be taken off the front burner until we get our interest rates back down to around 11 per cent, so that we can make sure that we have affordable housing and full time jobs are back again.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the home building industry and his meeting today with its representatives. I was most interested as well in his comments with respect to interest rates.
Recently a writer in The Toronto Star-a. newspaper which I am sure the hon. member reads on a regular basis-Mr. Warren Potter, had some comments with respect to that. I would like to have the hon. member's comments with respect to Mr. Potter's thoughts on the issue. He said:
It's easy to guess why serious buyers are holding back. They use the high mortgage interest rates as a rationale, but they are really hoping that the falling house prices will tumble even further.
Builders are crying the blues, but some of them have only themselves to blame.
They've misjudged the market. They've kept on building these monster homes for the Yuppies.
The builders who are really hurting are those who, like the sellers of resale homes, refused to believe that the housing boom would end.
I wonder if the hon. member has some thoughts and comments with respect to that point of view on the housing situation.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell the hon. minister that I do not read The Toronto Star regularly. I am not familiar with the specific article to which he refers, but I think that Warren Potter is correct to the extent that the province and the municipalities have made a mistake in the plan of subdivisions they
Supply
have been approving in the last three or four years in the greater metropolitan Toronto area.
When I drive up Bayview Avenue in Richmond Hill just south of the Aurora area I see homes that cost $700,000 or $800,000 and yet I hear of projects like Queensville Properties north of Queensville where they are trying to produce close to 5,000 affordable units at $150,000 apiece but are having problems getting their sewage allocation and zoning. I think there is something wrong with that.
My point is that the national government, with its levers, its resources and its access to various instruments, should come in and correct those situations. It can control the cash to the provinces and to the municipalities. It can use all those instruments. That is how Canada Mortgage and Housing came into being.
I have no problem with cutting back on some of those $700,000 and $800,000 units in Toronto because they are not serving anyone.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, this may be the single most important debate that the people in Canada who are watching this debate this evening and thinking of purchasing a home will view this year and for years to come.
I want to compliment my friend and colleague from London East who moved the motion today in order that we could get into a debate on the vital area of housing and the crisis of housing in Canada.
I looked several times towards the Chair as members on this side of the House were speaking, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you were as impressed as I was with the wealth of knowledge and depth of information that the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for Broadview-Greenwood have on this vital issue and the crisis in which we find ourselves in the housing situation and the housing industry in Canada today. I am sure that after my short intervention you will be as impressed with our member for Eglinton-Lawrence who has some very important words on this issue.
We have heard a lot about the problems that have faced our housing industry since 1984.1 want to reiterate some of the things I have heard in this House since this debate began which really show the crisis we face. One point three million Canadians are paying well over 30 per cent of their combined incomes for shelter. As you know,

June 6, 1990
Supply
30 per cent is the maximum they should be paying and they are paying 40 per cent, 50 per cent and sometimes 60 per cent just to provide shelter for themselves and their families.
Forty per cent of single parents are living in accommodation which is below the minimum standards acceptable in the country.
We have talked about caring for our seniors. Forty per cent of our single seniors spend their final years spending in excess of 50 per cent of their income just for accommodation.
In Ontario alone, as the member for Broadwood- Greenwood stated, 54,000 families in Ontario are waiting to find some form of affordable housing. Today, with the economy that the government has created, the interest rate is soaring to such a rate that the rate on a one-year mortgage exceeds 15 per cent. That takes so many people out of the market. Their dream of owning a home has to be set aside for the next few years until the Liberals take power and bring in a more acceptable program for affordable housing so that our young people can afford to realize their national dream.
Those are just some of the issues that I am sure you are interested in hearing, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had more time to expand on them.
Let me close my few remarks by talking about what I consider to be the national dream for all young Canadian families, young couples who are married with children. Their dream is to own a home. In the economy that has been created by the government since 1984, there is not a chance that they can own a home, given that the average three-bedroom bungalow now costs about $140,000 and interest rates exceed 15 per cent. When most of us buy a home, we have to mortgage it. The payments far exceed that young couple's combined income.
Your generation and mine, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps some of the other generations in the House, have created an economy that requires two incomes in order to purchase a home. This government has failed to provide proper daycare services to enable both husband and wife to go out to work so that they can afford a home.
These are the issues that are facing our country today that are so vital to young married couples in our
communities with young children who require, not a home, but basic shelter so that they can live in comfort and dignity, as all Canadians should, and realize their Canadian dream. It is the actions of the government that are depriving them of this dream.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to the way his party hopes that it would have the opportunity to manage the economy in the coming years.
I think back to the days prior to the 1984 election and the inspiration that brought me to run for office federally. I remember, for instance, under the former Liberal government, astronomical inflation shooting through the roof, followed by astronomical interest rates with mortgage interest rates reaching 23 per cent. This was followed by devastating bankruptcies and double digit unemployment. That is compared to the unemployment rate that we have today which is very low, one of the lowest in years.
Is this the kind of management of the economy that the hon. member would like to bring back to the country?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. minister's question. It really zeroes in on exactly what I said earlier in my remarks.
What the hon. minister was talking about in the early 1980s was a world economy. What was happening in Canada was being paralleled in every other country in the world. Canada was not alone. The United States was experiencing the inflationary trend and the high interest trend. England was going through the same type of economic revolution. Every free country in the world was going through the same situation.
The difference today, in answer to my friend, is that Canada is going through this terrible period of high inflation, high prices, and high interest rates, but our friends in other parts of the world are not experiencing this. That is the big difference. That is where the mismanagement of this economy comes in.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my voice to those of my hon. colleagues who have spoken most eloquently about the deficiency in the housing market in Canada, and most especially in the Toronto area.
June 6, 1990

I want to compliment my colleague from Broadview- Greenwood who highlighted a very serious problem in the city of Toronto and southern Ontario.
It is no wonder that the problem is as serious as it is when we look at the government's record of cutbacks in CMHC and funds available for the stimulation and development of the housing market. We have inventory of some 200,000 first-time buyers in Canada. In Ontario, we have a prediction of only 52,000 new homes for this year when the Treasurer of Ontario had predicted at least 29,000 more.
This is a very serious problem, most especially in the Toronto area. When one looks at some of the figures and the incomes, one is tempted to say that this is fat-cat city, that people are well-off, and that there is not a problem. However, in Toronto, the average mortgage and taxes for a typical family amount to some $31,829 per annum, when the Canadian average is only somewhere around $17,500. In Toronto, the average percentage of income for financing a house is 49.8 this year, compared to the Canadian average of 35.3 per cent. In 1981, in Toronto that percentage was only 33.1. There has been an increase of well over 15 per cent. In Canada, that average has been maintained at about 34 per cent.
The average family in Toronto can only afford a house in the vicinity of $159,000, yet the average price is well over $100,000 more than that. There are over 500,000 tenant households in metro Toronto, with 372,000 of them considered potential first-time buyers. Yet, there will be 29,000 fewer new homes than predicted by the Treasurer of Ontario.
There is a dual problem with that. The dual problem is that the lethargy in the construction industry has spinoffs, all of them negative, for what is happening in industry as whole.
Of Ontario's workforce, 12 per cent, or some 552,000 men and women, in 1989 were employed in the construction industry. That industry is expected to grow by only 1.3 per cent in this coming year. That is well below the growth rate of all other industries. In the Toronto area,
35,000	workers, as my colleague pointed out, have lost their jobs and many more will join them. This is 35,000 in the construction industry, in skilled trades, where the average salary is somewhere between $25 and $29 per hour.
Supply
I know that the minister will agree with me that the big problem stems from the government's financial and interest rates policies. In fact, every increase of 1 per cent in interest rates between 9 and 14 per cent-and we are well in that range-eliminates 100,000 potential first-time home buyers. Every increase of one per cent in interest rates decreases the construction industry's output by 2.5 to 3 per cent and results in the loss of some
40,000	jobs. We are well in that range already.
This government has got to change its policies.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is short, but I am pleased to address this House tonight on a matter which concerns a large number of our fellow Canadians who look to their government for help.
I refer to the individuals, families, and seniors in search of affordable housing: people who look to their government for what most of us in this House take for granted, people who like all of us aspire to live decently and in dignity, people who without help will need to make untold sacrifices so that their children do not go without a roof over their heads, people who without help may not even be able to make these sacrifices and will go without a place they can call their home.
Every day this House hears about the need to assist this industry, that province, or this other town. Every day this government explains how the competing needs of the people of this land are weighted and the strategies that are in place. In many ways there are several analogies to be made between the single mother seeking a decent home for her children and the person who lost a job, between the senior facing rising rents and a low income worker unable to make ends meet. The common thread between these people is the need for a caring government.
My colleagues and I feel for these people. We feel a need to reach out to them and we do, but not to the extent we would like to. This is when we become angry because with all the resources that this country should be able to draw on to help those experiencing hard times, the government of all Canadians must at the same time practise fiscal restraint because the legacy of the previous government has been a series of ill-conceived programs and unpaid expenditures.

June 6, 1990
Supply
The government reaches out but must play the delicate balancing act between competing demands on the public purse. This is responsible government, the type of government which if it had been in place earlier would have avoided the financial mess bequeathed by over two decades of mismanagement.
When I watched the proceedings of the Charest Commission I was touched by the words of Mr. Jim Sinclair when he recalled his childhood as a Metis in Saskatchewan living in a barracks. He touched the fibre of what being a Canadian means to most of us. What Mr. Sinclair related meant more to me than any of the learned dissertations about the constitutional basis for the use of federal spending powers. When he spoke I understood that the powers were not only rooted in the law of the land but also in his heart and the country's heart. When he spoke I told myself that neither he nor his children should again experience the violence of poverty and that Canada should continue to offer the type of housing programs which offer the poor and less fortunate among us a chance to live in dignity and to become productive citizens.
The measures that this government has taken since my colleague the present Minister of National Defence stood in this House late in 1985 were and continue to be measures to serve those who need the government's help most.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) and order made Thursday, May 31, 1990, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The House will now proceed to the deferred division on Mr. Gardiner's amendment to Motion No. 2.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of Mr. de Cotret. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Boudria
Boyer
Browes
Callbeck
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Chadwick
Clancy
Clifford
Collins
Cook
Corbeil
Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Danis
DeBlois
Desjardins
Dionne
Domm
Du ham el
Edwards
Fee
Ferguson
Finestone
Fontaine
Foster
Gaffney
Gauthier
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Campbell (South West Nova)
Cardiff
Catterall
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Comuzzi
Cooper
Cote
Crawford
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Dobbie
Dorin
Duplessis
Epp
Feltham
Ferland
Flis
Fontana
Friesen
Gagliano
Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks Hogue Hopkins Hudon James Johnson Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Littlechild MacAulay
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacLeQan Malone Marin
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight Merrithew Milliken Monteith
Guilbault
Harvard
Hawkes
Hoc kin
Holtmann
Horning
Hughes
Jelinek
Jordan
Kempling
Koury
Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLaren
Maheu
Manley
Marleau
Masse
Mazankowski
McDermid
McGuire
McLean
Mifflin
Mills
Moore
And	more than five members having risen:	Nicholson O'Kurley	Nowlan Parent
		Peterson	Phinney


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the	Plamondon Porter	Plourde Pronovostringing	of the bells?	Proud	Prud'hommeRedway	Reid


Some hon. members:: Agreed.	Ricard Rideout	Richardson RobichaudThe House divided on the motion, which was agreed to	Saint-Julien Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Schneider Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)on the following division:	Siddon Sparrow	Soetens Speller{Division No. 277)	Stevenson Tardif	Stewart TetreaultYEAS	Thacker	ThompsonThorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)Members	Thrner (Halton-Peel)	ValcourtAllmand	Anderson	Vanclief	Van de WalleAndre	Atkinson	Vankoughnet	VezinaBaker	Bellemare	Vien	VincentBelsher	Berger	Volpe	WalkerBernier	Bertrand	White	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple CreekBird	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Assiniboia)	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)Blais	Blenkam	Winegard	WorthyBosley	Bouchard (Roberval)	Young (Gloucester)-182	
June 6, 1990
Alt house Blackburn (Brant)
Brewin Gardiner Hunter
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Mitchell Nystrom Riis
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stupich Whittaker-23


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. {Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 3 (Mr. de Cotret). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES
Harvie Andre: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1991, laid upon the table, Thursday February 22, 1990, except the
items disposed of earlier this day and less the amounts voted in
Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Dispense.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [English]


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1990-91
Harvie Andre: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1991, laid upon the Table Tliesday, May 22, 1990, be
concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: On division.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we are not passing this on division. We would like to force a vote on this motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: May I dispense with the yeas, the nays, and the ringing of the bells?
Point of order, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the House might save some time. It is my understanding that the majority of the members of the House will be voting for this motion on Supplementary Estimates. Is that correct?
I wonder if we were to give an opportunity for anybody who wanted to vote against it to be recorded and the balance of the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting in favour. That might save the House some time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary West.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I believe there are 13 more supply votes. I wonder if you would not find unanimous consent to deem it that we have leave to introduce, that we have first reading of the supply bill, that we have second reading of the supply bill, that we go into committee of the whole and have eight votes. Then we report the bill with no amendment and that we deem it to have been concurred in, we deem it to have been read for the third time and we apply the same vote as we applied on the main concurrence motion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, that is acceptable to members on the government side.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Same thing here but get it in writing, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Let me see if I get it right. Accordingly Bill C-75, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, is deemed read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed reported back to the House without amendment, deemed con-
Supply
curred in at the report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.


Harvie Andre: that Bill C-75, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, be read the first time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time.
Bosley
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cook
Corbeil
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Domm
Duplessis
Epp
Felthara
Fontaine
Gibeau
Greene
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Hudon
James
Johnson
Koury
Layton
Lewis
Lopez
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Richardson
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont) Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vien
White
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Mr. Andre (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time.
Accordingly, the bill was deemed considered in Committee of the Whole and reported back without amendment.


Harvie Andre: that the bill be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I think this is the first time in the history of Parliament that we have obtained something, which I wish to point out to my colleagues, especially those whose language is French. I see big smiles on those who do not know exactly what I am going to say. I think that we should congratulate the Clerk and the House for having kindly agreed to a proposal that I have been making for years and that I repeated twice publicly: finally in the appendix we have "Alphabetical" in English on one side and "Alphabeti-que" in French on the other for items in alphabetical order. That was never done before. We had been told
June 6, 1990

that it was totally impossible. And for those who want to follow, and some here may be interested in following what happens occasionally, we finally have a working document that makes sense and is understandable. The only suggestion I would make is that the items under each heading could also be in alphabetical order. But I want to say that for the first time we can work in either language.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis who for many years, I know, has
Supply
made this request in the House. I also want to congratulate him for pointing out that it has finally been done. We are all very proud of it.
It being 11.12 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 7, 1990