1972-06-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Forget.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. lack Davis (Minister oi the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, next week the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment is convening in Stockholm. I would like, briefly, to outline the position which Canada will be taking at this important gathering.
Canadians have already had a large input. We are responsible in large measure for the resolution within the draft Declaration on the Human Environment which states, in effect, that no nation should pollute the environment of its neighbour or contaminate the world's oceans or the atmosphere.
Our proposal met some resistance at the outset. But most U.N. member countries now agree that this principle is fundamental to the development of a body of international law which can deal with pollution on a global scale.
We have a big stake in international arrangements of this kind. As a nation with a vast territory, with the largest continental shelf and one of the longest coastlines in the world, we have much to gain from the enunciation
of a universal good neighbour policy-a global environmental ethic-by the United Nations.


Mr. Stanfield:: What about governmental pollution.


John (Jack) Davis: There are those who argue that international standards are undesirable. We do not agree. We say that nature's laws, themselves, are universal. They are allembracing. Man breaks them at his peril. He breaks them and succeeding generations are the poorer for his lack of foresight, his lack of sensitivity, his lack of discipline on the biological front.
Biology, as a science, is still in its infancy. But we already know enough about nature to lay down certain tests. These tests involve life itself. We must not kill fish, destroy vegetation or wipe out wildlife. The preservation of a healthy environment for wild living things, in other words, is a prior condition to a high quality of life for us all. These simple biological tests, these simple standards, should not be confined to any one country. They are valid everywhere. They should be applied the world over, not in Canada, or in Canada and the United States, alone.
There will be frequent reference at the Stockholm conference, I expect, to economic growth and the impact which it is likely to have on all living things. I believe we can have both economic growth and a clean environment too. But having both calls for economic statesmanship of the highest order. We have to look ahead-a long way ahead. We have to operate our forest industries and our fisheries on a sustained yield basis. We will have to plan our cities better, arrange for industry to recycle its wastes, use the right kinds of energy, and so on.
There are many facets to the question of environmental control. We will be touching on at least 30 of them at Stockholm. Here are a few commitments which we are prepared to make now: Construct three out of ten of the world's base line stations for determining the quality of the atmosphere; improve the quality of our rivers discharging into the sea; sponsor a world-wide conference on the conservation of the living resources of the sea in Vancouver in February of next year; oppose ocean dumping of pollutants; propose that big tankers be confined to routes which avoid ecologically sensitive areas not only along our own coasts but the world over; and step up our research in the field of marine science.
[DOT] a lio)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that one of the steps the minister would announce as being taken within Canada would be the reduction of pollution by the government of Canada.
There is no question that this conference is important. I agree with the minister it is important that we try to achieve international standards and an international

June 2, 1972
Canadian Position on Environment approach to preserving a healthy and proper environment for living creatures.
The international aspects of this problem are very clear. For example, Canada is faced with the problem of pollution of the Great Lakes and the Pacific, while to people living in Europe the need for cleaning up the Rhine River is obvious. This presumably explains the interest NATO has been taking in recent times in problems of the environment. It is obvious that the concern is world-wide. It is not only confined to our relations with our neighbours, to our polluting our neighbours or our neighbours polluting us. It is obviously a world-wide problem.
The minister did not say anything about what he hopes will come out of the conference by way of an ongoing institution, if anything. Will this conference be the end of the matter so far as a global effort is concerned, or does the government of Canada have some other expectation? Is Canada going to push for a continuing institutional arrangement? The minister did not mention this.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You tell us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all due respect to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), I have not yet got myself into the position where I can speak for the government, although I expect to be able to do so very shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Are you planning on crossing the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I promise you I will not touch on any other sensitive areas. The minister did not say anything about the make-up of the Canadian delegation. I have heard reports about this. I will be disappointed if the Canadian delegation does not contain some representatives of the various parties in the House. I think it is of considerable importance that the Canadian delegation include some all-party representation.
The minister expressed hope that we can achieve both economic growth and preservation of our environment. I accept that. I believe we must have both if we are going to make any meaningful attack on poverty in our country and in the rest of the world. It does not really take us very far simply to say this because, as the years go by, we will have to ask ourselves increasingly how much growth there should be and what balance we want to have.
The minister mentioned some problems that are difficult enough themselves but are relatively simple, such as the management of forests on the basis of continuing yield and so on. These are goals which we have not yet achieved. They are important but relatively they are child's play compared with some of the world-wide problems relating to economic growth and preservation of the environment that we will have to face more and more in the future.
There have been suggestions that the conference in Stockholm may be disrupted, either by some of those in

attendance or by others visiting Stockholm at the time. I express the hope that this will not take place and that the conference will proceed in a very constructive way.
In addition to expressing the hope, as the minister has, and that we can make progress in achieving international standards, it is important we recognize what we can do on our own by way of setting standards. In this respect I think we might make a much more determined effort than the government has made to achieve, determine and announce national standards with regard to air and water in our own country. When we do that our words will carry a little more conviction when we talk about international standards.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, having read the minister's statement at about the same time as he was making it here, I came to the immediate conclusion that the hon. gentleman, representing the government of Canada, is really engaged in the practice of establishing double standards in relation to the environment. He talks in glowing terms about hopes for the future, but when one weighs these words against the abysmal record of his own department in its activities here in Canada, they sound pretty hollow.
I am sure we all hope that valuable results will flow from the Stockholm conference next week. I do not decry it in any way. But I point out that concern about the environment is not the monopoly of any one group in this House, and some provision should be made for representatives from all parties in this chamber to attend, if not as participants, then as observers at that conference.
Regrettably, in Canada-this is why the minister's words ring hollow-we approach this subject on the basis of how much pollution the environment can stand instead of determining to control and restrict pollution to as great an extent as possible. The government establishes standards, to the extent it has established them, and then says: let us pollute as much as we possibly can up to that limit.


John (Jack) Davis: That is not our approach.


Frank Howard: During the question period the minister can ask me questions about anything I have to say and I will be glad reply to him.
The minister says it is necessary to argue strongly in favour of international standards while at the same time rejecting the concept of national standards within Canada, as he did vehemently when, for example, the Canada Water Act was being debated in the House. He says, for example, that we must not kill fish or destroy vegetation or wildlife. That is good propaganda. But on November 3 of last year the same minister put into effect pulp and paper mill effluent regulations which permit a kill of fish in waters into which pulp mills pump their effluent up to 20 per cent. How can one hold such a concept here at home while expecting people on the international scene to endorse the programs the minister is advocating?


An hon. Member:: Stick to the facts.


Frank Howard: Hon. members may not like what I am saying, but please listen. I am trying to reflect the
June 2, 1972

concern of many Canadians about the environment, a concern which seems to escape hon. gentlemen opposite.
The minister talks of economic growth and environmental control at the same time; yet a very different attitude has been taken by the government toward the James Bay project and the pipelines which are to run down the Mackenzie Valley. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said he would be glad to accept applications to construct pipelines in that valley before the environmental studies had been completed. Again, this is evidence of a double standard.
The minister spoke of two or three things he hopes to do. One of them is the sponsoring of a conference on the conservation of the living resources of the sea in Vancouver in February of next year. I submit that the government should be moving in this direction right now, without waiting for a conference, by extending the provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to cover the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Even beyond that, I suggest that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which this Parliament passed two or three years ago but which the government has not seen fit to proclaim, be implemented.
Further, it is proposed that big tankers be confined to routes which avoid ecologically sensitive areas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind all hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Skeena who now has the floor, that under the Standing Order comments made at this time are to be brief. The Standing Order specifically provides that comments are to be brief. Hon. members are required not to make comments of a nature that would provoke debate; they should be limited specifically and clearly to the statement made by the minister. I am particularly referring to the requirement that comments be brief. When a three-minute statement is made by the minister and ten-minute comments are made by members representing parties in opposition, I think that is perhaps not respecting the spirit of the Standing Order. I hope the hon. member for Skeena and other hon. members will keep that in mind.


Frank Howard: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to you and to the House for having gone a little beyond the prescription of the rule. But so much is inaccurate in what is contained in the statement that it necessitated that sort of commentary.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wanted to congratulate the hon. minister for having supplied us this time with a good French text of his statement.
I also congratulate the hon. minister on the colour of the tie he is wearing this morning, which will certainly contribute to improve the environment in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has informed us of the position Canada is to adopt at the United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm next week.
Grain Sales to China
Actually, in the second paragraph, he says:
-no nation should pollute the environment or its neighbour or contaminate the world's ocean or the atmosphere.
We are 100 per cent in agreement with this principle but on the other hand it should also be applied in Canada. We should, in fact, be able to say that no one should pollute his neighbour's environment or knowingly contaminate the atmosphere.
If this principle is valid on the international scene, it should first of all be applied in our own country, because we cannot require that other nations, do what we do not do in our country.
The hon. minister would definitely have more authority at the Stockholm conference if he could say this principle has been applied in Canada for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated, at page 2 of his statement, and I quote:
-We must not kill fish, destroy vegetation or wipe out wildlife.
Once again, these are good wishes, and we congratulate the minister for that. However, we should have preferred hearing him announce a new measure not only to prevent the killing of fish but to protect the environment.
We know quite well that the minister is aware of all the problems of pollution but that lack of funds cripple the efforts we could make to fight them.
In fact, improving the environment would cost billions of dollars, funds which the government lacks.
For many, many years, we have been denouncing the worst pollution there is in Canada, namely the financial pollution which prevents the minister from carrying out his projects. By way of a conclusion, may I say that finance has corrupted the economic atmosphere in Canada and, therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL SALE OF WHEAT TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted at the earliest possible moment to bring some information of interest to the House. I say that because I was only able to put draft copies of an announcement into the hands of hon. members opposite.
The House has shown its interest recently in the use of hopper cars for the movement of grain, and also in the matter of the movement of grain out of the west coast. I am happy to inform the House that this morning the Canadian Wheat Board is announcing another sale of wheat to China in the amount of up to 58.8 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this indicates an acceleration rather than a delay in shipments of wheat to China, and beginning in July there will be an accelerated movement
2794

June 2, 1972
Grain Sales to China
because of this new sale. About half of the grain involved is expected to be shipped to China in the calendar year 1972, for which a contract was announced previously. With this sale, the total amount of wheat going to China in 1972 will reach about 145 million bushels which, of course, will be an all-time high.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The sale is in the usual terms in cases of sales to China, with 25 per cent cash at the time of loading and the balance on credit in 18 months. As the Wheat Board release indicates, the credit terms are made possible under a guarantee to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal government.
At this time I should like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the Wheat Board commissioners, particularly the ones who negotiated this contract but to all of them as well, and a tribute to their staff who do a tremendous amount of work both in the selling of grain and assuring it moves to market on time, as well as assuring that so far as possible there is equity of opportunity for delivery among farmers in the region. We sometimes neglect to pay attention to the hard work done by people within a board like this, the commissioners and their staffs, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very conscious about your admonition about being brief, although a lot of platitudinous pap comes from the other side. I will simply say we are very glad to note this sale and to see that the government, prodded and pushed by the opposition over the past two or three years, has finally come to realize what can be done and should have been done. If the government will listen to us more often it will be a better government.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, one thing the minister will not lack is advice. We are pleased that sales are being made. This announcement indicates that the policy of formally recognizing China has been well worth while. This party was in the forefront in suggesting we ought to take a realistic attitude toward that country.
I am happy to hear the minister say he is confident our transportation facilities will be able to deliver the product. As to the hopper cars mentioned by the minister, I understand from his own statement that they are still at the order stage. As someone has said, the youngster is so far only a gleam in the eye.
The minister has said that the Wheat Board has finally proven to him and to his party that it is an efficient sales organization. He will have an opportunity when a bill comes before the House in a few days to include under the operations of the Wheat Board the other grains that western farmers are marketing. I say to the minister-and I think he must recognize it-that sales of the grains the Wheat Board has not marketed have not been as good. So I urge the minister to give the farmers a break by taking

advantage of the opportunity to bring other grains within the ambit of the board.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself are also pleased to hear the minister say that a new wheat sale contract has been passed between China and Canada. This sale will certainly help the wheat producers of western Canada.
The minister announced that this sale of 1.5 million tons of wheat has been negotiated according to the following terms: 25 per cent cash and the balance to be paid in 18 months, the credit being guaranteed by the federal government to the Wheat Board. I would have liked to hear the minister say, for example, at which interest rate the sale has been made and with what money the Republic of China will pay the 25 per cent cash.
Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that the federal government will guarantee this loan or this credit to the Canadian Wheat Board. This is another occasion where Canadians provide nearly everything, but there is a lack of information. Canadians are deeply interested in the interest rate and in the amount which will be paid cash, and I feel that China will certainly not pay us with Canadian money because she has none. Will she pay us with American money? We do not know.
At all events, there was a wheat sale. The farmers of western Canada want to sell their wheat and we must sell it, but on terms that it will not be a burden for the Canadian people who, I think, bear enough at present in all fields of economic activity.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. The Ottawa Journal of June 1 carries an account of a speech by the chairman of the Public Service Commission in which he is reported as describing some public servants as being "corruptible slobs". I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the subject matter of the chairman's speech be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which yesterday had referred to it the annual report of the Public Service Commission for 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 2, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


Mr. Bell:: The ' 'no" was on the government side. Let that be recorded in Hansard.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the motion speaks for itself I do not think I need take any time to explain it. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should use the powers it has under section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act to rescind immediately the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission granting a rate increase to Bell Canada since such increase is not justified and is really a tax on the consumers by the corporation to provide it with interest-free capital for expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion moved under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
May 31, 1972-The President of the Privy Council: That the annual and supplementary reports of the Canadian Wheat Board for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 and the annual report for the year 1970-71 be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister concerning comments attributed in the press to the chairman of the Public Service Commission and the alleged reference by the chairman to members of the public service as "corruptible slobs". Will the Acting Prime Minister say whether he has made any inquiries or checked into these comments in order to ascertain whether Mr. Carson has any explanation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer that question. The alleged remark apparently occurred during the course of a speech made to members of the personnel association yesterday. I understand Mr. Carson has protested to the editor of the newspaper that carried the report and has provided an explanation of the context in which certain words were used. A motion has just been made to refer the subject matter of this particular speech to the committee. It is my understanding that Mr. Carson will appear as a witness before this committee shortly and perhaps that occasion might be used to clarify this matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that this is quite a different subject matter from the annual report of the commission which was referred to the committee yesterday, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether it is not the view of the government that an alleged statement of this sort is sufficiently serious that the government, in this case perhaps the President of the Treasury Board, ought to conduct an inquiry to satisfy itself concerning the nature of these remarks in view of their effect upon the public service and its morale?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman that the chairman of the Public Service Commission should have an opportunity to explain the circumstances about which the report has arisen. Hopefully this could be done on the occasion of his appearance before the committee.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Can we,
therefore, be assured that the terms of reference which were agreed to yesterday by the House in regard to the Public Service Commission's annual report are sufficiently broad to permit us to question the chairman on the remarks he has made about corruptible slobs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not want to speak for the chairman of the committee, but I will undertake to have a word with him to make sure that the assumption the hon. gentleman has just made is in fact verified.
25316-53}

Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED REFERENCE BY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN TO SOME EMPLOYEES AS BEING CORRUPTIBLE SLOBS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it may be a few days before that committee meets, will the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the government disown forthwith this reference to public servants as corruptible slobs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that it is not the view of the government that the public service is composed of corruptible slobs.


Gerald William Baldwin: We had better stop him from reading the Prime Minister's speeches.


An hon. Member:: How about the minister being one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: I do not have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, who has a supplementary question, might be given the floor now and then I will recognize the hon. member for York South.



REPORTED REFERENCE BY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN TO SOME EMPLOYEES AS BEING CORRUPTIBLE SLOBS-   REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE INHIBITED

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister assure the House that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates will be free of the interference and inhibition implied yesterday by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to have been the case last year in regard to that committee?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think that the assumption on which the question is based is not justified; consequently the question becomes hypothetical.



COMMUNICATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications on a subject on which I have asked him questions formerly. In view of the fact that the increase in Bell Telephone rates came into force today, I want to ask the minister whether he has completed the study of this matter which was considered by the Canadian Transport Commission-he said he was making a study some time ago-and whether he has made a report to the cabinet asking for action to be

taken to stop this totally unjustified gouging of the public?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I could not reach a conclusion as readily as the hon. member seems to be able to. I am still awaiting the report to which he refers. He may have heard the same news report as I did, that a citizen has apparently taken steps to obtain a judicial review of this decision, as is the right of any citizen, including the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Or the responsibility of the government.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a citizen taking an appeal to a court, with all the steps and all the financial costs that are involved, is not likely to end this unfair increase for a long time, may I ask the minister whether he would undertake to give serious consideration to acting on his own motion or to the government acting on its own motion, as it has the authority to do under a section of the National Transportation Act, to rescind the decision of the commission?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have said that I am doing exactly that, but I will not jump to a conclusion without analysis as the hon. member has.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was as concerned about the customers of Bell as he is to be smart he would do something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: I have analysed the situation.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I hope I will have the opportunity to be as smart as the hon. member after the study has been completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am hoping that both the minister and the hon. member will return to questions and answers.



BELL CANADA RATE INCREASES-REQUEST THAT APPELLANT, DR. LLOYD BROWN-JOHN, BE PROVIDED WITH COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Communications a question arising out of the fact that Dr. Lloyd Brown-John of the University of Windsor has in fact taken an appeal which has already cost him personally $250 to launch. Would the minister consider obtaining for Dr. Brown-John a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the commission which would otherwise cost him $1,750?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: will be glad to give consideration to that. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that this Parliament has provided procedures for the consideration of appropriate rates, and I do not think that a minister should abruptly come to a conclusion to interfere with the decisions of the commission without thorough consideration. I am quite willing to consider all the suggestions the hon. member has made, and I will be in a position to make a statement about the matter shortly.
June 2, 1972


David Lewis: I would remind the minister that Parliament has given him the authority to rescind the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South has had his turn. It is now the turn of the hon. member for Temiscamingue.



WHEAT-INQUIRY RESPECTING INTEREST RATE TO BE PAID BY CHINA ON ADDITIONAL PURCHASE

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Would he tell this House what interest rate China will be paying on its recent purchase of wheat from Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, both the price and the interest rate in a contract like this are confidential commercial matters between the buyer and the Wheat Board, but I would emphasize that the question of the interest rate is relevant really to the Wheat Board and to the farmers and not to the government because the government is not assisting in connection with the interest.



ALLEGED RESTRICTION ON USE OF ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY BY VESSELS OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question with respect to grain shipment is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It is my understanding that vessels of the People's Republic of China are prevented from using the facilities of the St. Lawrence Seaway because of United States law. Is this the case and, if so, in order to speed future grain shipments to that country is the government considering making representations to the United States to alter that law?


Otto Emil Lang: I have never heard of any impediment of that sort to the movement of our grain out of eastern ports; I know that some of the Chinese wheat does in fact move out of eastern ports.



ADDITIONAL SALE OF WHEAT TO CHINA-EFFORTS TO RE-ESTABLISH PRICING UNDER INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the price which was achieved for this sale to China, is the minister making renewed efforts to re-establish pricing under the International Grains Arrangement?


Otto Emil Lang: Our efforts in that regard are constantly going forward.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGREEMENT BETWEEN U.S. CONSORTIUM AND NOVA SCOTIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR PLANT- DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. An announcement has been made in Halifax that an American consortium has reached broad agreement with the provincial government of Nova Scotia for the establishment of a giant nuclear power plant in that province on Stoddart Island near Barrington Passage costing about $200 million for the purpose of distributing power to the northwestern United States by means of an undersea cable. Since this will be a large development, will the minister inform the House whether negotiations or discussions have been held between the federal government and the provincial government of Nova Scotia on this matter and, if so, when we can anticipate a report in the House on this development?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this in the past. I think that the best thing would be to get a comprehensive report and give it to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary to the previous question.



SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF OTHER GRAINS UNDER JURISDICTION OF WHEAT BOARD

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the very good record of the Wheat Board in marketing the grains under its jurisdiction and the difficulty we are having at present in marketing the volume of rapeseed we produce, would the minister consider bringing the marketing of other grains, or giving the producers an opportunity to do so, under the jurisdiction of the board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from many exchanges in the past, I am prepared at a reasonable time to have a full assessment of the opinion of producers about the appropriate method of marketing such grains as rapeseed and to act upon the wishes of the producers.



ADDITIONAL SALE OF WHEAT TO CHINA-ASSURANCE BY RAILWAYS OF ABILITY TO MOVE PRODUCT-AVAILABILITY OF NEW HOPPER CARS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the questions asked about the sale of wheat to China. Can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board inform the House what assurances the railways have given about the movement of grain to the west coast

June 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
in order to fill the new wheat order by China? Can he also indicate whether any of the hopper cars which are to be ordered for grain movement will be in service in time to assist in this movement of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is yes. It is our hope that all the hopper cars will be in service before the end of 1972 and therefore they will clearly be available to help with the movement of this grain. The Wheat Board and the railways are in conversation from time to time about maximum capacities, both west and east, and I know that the Wheat Board is confident that this movement of grain can be accomplished.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the House will probably be involved in a debate on the question of capital punishment before the end of the year, would the minister take steps to revise and bring up to date the very useful and objective booklet which a former minister of justice, the late Guy Favreau, put out with the assistance of an all-party group in the House and which contained statistical and philosophical memoranda in both directions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has work hand in hand along these lines and he may well have information available for hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister discuss with his colleague the use of the practice that was followed last time when the booklet was exposed to members of all parties and was made available as soon as it was completed?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask my question either of the Minister of Transport or the government House leader but as neither is present I shall ask it of the acting House leader. The question concerns item No. 25 on the order paper which stands in the name of the Minister of Transport. On behalf of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and in view of the fact that this sizeable group of loyal Canadian citizens is being denied equal rights in matters of education with other religious denominations, may I ask the acting government House leader when item No. 25 on the order paper, a measure to amend the British North America Act, will be brought before the House for consideration?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport will be in the House on Monday, and I shall bring this matter to his attention.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the House whether the 1968 Calura report was destroyed after it had been prepared for tabling in Parliament and then reprinted in order to delete critical references to international unions, as is alleged in a newspaper called New Canada dated May, 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply to this question briefly but in the way it is phrased the hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny a report. If the question had been asked directly it would have been more in order. Perhaps we might assume it has been asked directly.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated this question and I sought the views of the statistician for Canada. He says that the allegation is false. No report was reprinted or altered due to pressures from international unions. The report on labour unions prepared under Calura is not designed to suit special interests and remains the responsibility of the Chief Statistician of Canada. One more line, Mr. Speaker please.
I am informed by Statistics Canada that in an effort to improve timeliness, the draft report was printed without the approval of the Chief Statistician who was out of the country for an extended period. His judgment upon review of the report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister's lines are always long lines.



HOUSING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and arises out of his announcement to the annual meeting of mayors and municipalities in Quebec City last week that he would be resuming urban renewal grants. Can the minister inform the House when this program will be resumed and can he also confirm that applications pending will be given priority consideration?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I announced. What I said was that we will be introducing legislation at a very early

June 2, 1972

date to replace the present urban renewal sections of the National Housing Act. Of course the debate in the House today will be related to housing and we will be dealing with the government's progressive and forward-looking housing policy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the minister confirm whether there has been consultation with communities that have had applications pending since 1968 before making his final decision on a suitable program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the suggested amendments that we have been considering within the government, the policies have been outlined to provincial ministers and, at my suggestion, in most cases municipalities have been involved in these discussions.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact a freight rate increase on potash went into effect yesterday and in view of the fact the minister is involved in that area, is it his intention to appeal the rate increase and ask the railways to rescind it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that as notice.



TRADING ACCOUNT FIGURES-PLANS TO ASSIST EXPORT INDUSTRIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of the deficit on trading account for the month of April because of the lack of exports and rising imports. I should like to ask the minister whether his policy planning with regard to Canadian industry in his department is based on the expectation that this will be a continuing situation or that this trade deficit is purely a temporary condition confined to one month?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the information provided in this morning's paper is wrong. It refers to a deficit of $35 million and it should be a surplus of $2.2 million.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was what?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It refers to a deficit of $35 million and it should have been a surplus of $2.2 million for the month of April. The difference is that they did not include reexports in the export figures. The real figure is a surplus
Inquiries of the Ministry
of $2.2 million. On the basis of the first four months of 1972 the seasonalized annual rate at the moment is about $600 million surplus in the trade balance for the full year. If you look at the last three months it is $900 million. That is the picture.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope this does not reflect any complacency on the part of the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, far from it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is not a deficit-it is not heavy water.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the minister whether the government has any specific plans in mind to assist Canadian export industries which are not making any significant profits and are therefore not being helped by the budget. Has the minister any specific plans to help other Canadian exports which are suffering difficulties as a result of the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, for example, about which the former minister of finance took a rather complacent attitude several months ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister any specific plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to the question. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is inviting the minister to make a statement which normally ought to be made on motions. He is inviting the minister to indicate what specific plans his department or the government may have under consideration in view of certain circumstances. That information should be given on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the length of my question, which was almost as long as the minister's answers. May I ask the minister whether he has any specific plans or whether he will make a statement at an early date, with regard to any specific plans to help industries that are not being helped by the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I keep pouring out communiques; unfortunately, my hon. friend does not seem to read them. In the last four months we have created, in my department, four new ways of helping Canadian exporters. We are contributing 50 per cent of the cost of bidding abroad on capital projects; we contribute 50 per cent toward bringing potential buyers to Canada; we are contributing 50 per cent toward market analysis round the world and we are contributing 50 per cent toward participation in international fairs. We brought in a number of people from big trading companies in Japan to buy in Canada. Three of them have already bought more than $70 million worth of goods in Canada. We keep pouring these communiques out every day. I regret that the hon. member does not read them.

June 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry ENERGY



PROPOSED GAS PIPELINES FROM ARCTIC TO HAMILTON AND MONTREAL-ABILITY OF INDUSTRY TO SUPPLY PIPE

['Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.']
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the new gas strike in the Arctic and in view of the suggestion regarding pipeline routes to Hamilton and Montreal, would the minister say if studies are being made to determine whether Canada's pipeline manufacturing capacity will be adequate to supply pipe for any such lines?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that question on the spur of the moment. I will look into it and try to provide an analysis.



Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he say briefly in what manner his department is involved in the reconnaissance study that is being carried out, what efforts will be made to undertake ecological studies and what other involvement there will be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that it is Panarctic that is involved in this matter and it falls under the responsibility of my colleague. the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who also has responsibility north of the 60th degree of latitude for the area over which the pipeline would pass. I suggest that the hon. member might direct this question to the minister when he returns to the House next week.


FISHERIES
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. As the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is to conclude today, is the minister able to tell the House what success Canada has had in getting its position adopted? If not, can the minister tell the House when he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable success in Washington. We have managed to get the principle of sustained yield management endorsed by all 15 nations. Quotas are being established. Canada's special coastal state position will also be recognized. The details will be announced this afternoon,

I expect, in Washington at the conclusion of the annual meeting of ICNAF.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister say what happened to our proposal to ban salmon fishing on the high seas?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we were unable to obtain the necessary 10 votes out of 15. We will, of course, continue to press for our policy involving a total ban on the high seas fishing for salmon.


POSSIBILITY OF LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE IN 1973 AND RESOLUTION OF DIFFICULTY RESPECTING ATLANTIC SALMON
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Since persistent, deep differences among some 91 nations preparing for a 1973 Conference on the Law of the Sea to rewrite imprecise and outmoded laws has threatened to delay action that is urgently needed to prevent serious international conflict over the uses of the ocean and the ocean floor, has any indication emanated from the recent conference, or from any discussion in which the minister may have taken part, that there will be a Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973 to help to resolve these difficulties and, hopefully, to encourage the Danes to realize that conservation measures must be adopted to preserve our Atlantic salmon?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Law of the Sea Conference is still scheduled to be held in 1973. I hope it will be held next year. In preparation for this conference we are hosting an international conference of all those nations interested in conserving the living resources of the sea in Vancouver next February to help reinforce Canada's position by explaining it to other fishing nations which we hope adopt our policy for the Law of the Sea conference itself.


REQUEST THAT BAN ON ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY BE REMOVED IN LIGHT OF INABILITY TO ACHIEVE AGREEMENT WITH DENMARK
James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of our inability to achieve a ban on salmon fishing on the high seas, is the minister now prepared to end what amounts to discrimination against Canadian commercial salmon fishermen and permit them to catch salmon until the Danes are prepared to cease catching salmon on the high seas?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. I think that would be suicidal so far as the large salmon are concerned. We are offering our fishermen a formula, which most have already accepted, under which they will enjoy an income equivalent to that of their three best years in the 60's. Remember also that they will not have the expenses of going out to fish.
June 2, 1972


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday, as recorded on page 2592 of Hansard, I asked about the excessive markup on imported scotch whisky sold in Canada and whether this constituted a possible infringement of GATT. Has the minister any information for us, before we buy our bottle for the weekend.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, some countries of the world have protested to GATT that we in Canada, have a higher markup on imported whiskey than on Canadian-made whiskey. The government will be taking the matter up with the provinces concerned as part of the preparations for the general round of trade negotiations to be held under GATT auspices in 1973.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister suggest that we switch to rum for the time being?


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-SUBMISSION OF HOWARD PAISH STUDY TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Now that Secretary of the Interior, Rogers Morton, has approved the trans-Alaska pipeline system involving the shipment of oil from Valdez to Cherry Point by tanker, may I ask whether or not the report of Howard Paish and Associates, which was prepared for the government under contract, has been given to Mr. Morton and his department in order that they might study the recommendations made therein to deal with this situation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. We are also hopeful that interested parties on the United States side, particularly in the Puget Sound area, will recognize the danger to recreation, real estate values and tourism in that area and join forces with Canadians in order to bring this threat to an end.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-DISCUSSION OF PAISH REPORT WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement today that Mr. Richard Nehring, economic analyst for the Department of the Interior of the United States, has resigned because the investigation into the ecological effects of the proposed route has been completely inadequate, may I ask if the minister is planning any meetings with Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton, or if any officials of the minis-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ters's department are holding meetings, with a view to discussing the recommendations of the Paish report?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are currently engaged in meetings at the official level relative to the problem of tankers entering the Puget Sound area. Hopefully, these discussions at the official level will lead to fruitful discussions at the cabinet level.


PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT CONTINGENCY PLANS
Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the pipeline-tanker route is implemented, has the minister any contingency plans for dealing with this, if all else fails?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, contingency plans are being developed, with the Department of Transport playing the leading role. These are necessary, in any case, because there are shipments of chemical and oil products in that area now. It is our expectation, of course, that if the trans-Alaska pipeline is built, 80 per cent or more of the oil will go direct by tanker to California. It is not essential that the oil be brought into the Puget Sound area even if the Alaskan pipeline is built, because Washington State refineries can be supplied by pipeline from Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must make headway. I will return to the hon. member for Skeena in a moment, In the meantime the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


TAXATION
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister investigate and report to the House why income tax refunds to individual taxpayers whose returns are simple and uncomplicated are in many cases taking three months or longer to process?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into that question for the hon. member.


SALES TAX-POSSIBLE ELIMINATION ON ARTICLES MANUFACTURED BY THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may i direct my question to the Minister of State. Can he advise the House if any consideration is being given to extending the elimination of the federal sales tax to articles manufactured in institutions employing physically handicapped persons, in addition to the elimination provided in the budget, which affects articles manufactured by the deaf, mentally retarded, and so on?
2802

June 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the sales tax on articles manufactured by deaf and blind people was provided for in the recent budget. Representations to the effect that this should be extended to the physically handicapped have been received. Any indication of a decision by the government will, of course, be a budgetary matter, and the hon. member will have to wait for a budget statement.


TOBACCO-PROMOTION OF EXPORTS-STUDY OF UNITED STATES PLAN
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to an answer given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wherein he recited several ways in which Canadian exports are being promoted. Has the government studied the plan of the United States government to promote sales of tobacco abroad with a view to applying it to assist in the export of Canadian leaf tobacco?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you will find many people in the tobacco industry in Canada who will say that they have not been fully supported by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The recent sale to China which I announced was a direct result of the efforts of the department. If my friend knows of other ways in which we can support the tobacco industry, I will be glad to look into them.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I
specifically asked the minister if he will study the means by which the United States government supports their tobacco industry with subsidies and still gets around the GATT-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a suggestion by the hon. member.


POLLUTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries.
Since the minister stated a moment ago that town planning methods will have to be improved and that industry will have to recycle its waste, does he intend to bring in some amendments to Bill C-144 under which action could be taken against the polluters of our lakes and rivers?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation already on the statute

books of Canada is sufficient to carry out the federal obligation in this connection.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned from high level meetings of the NATO alliance but has not deigned to come into the House and report on these deliberations, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if this casual attitude reveals a further dimunition of this government's interest in NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Although he may already be aware of it, I draw to his attention the deportation order which was upheld by the Immigration Appeal Board involving Tuan Vu, a South Vietnamese deserter, and the fact that if the deportation order is carried out he will almost certainly be executed on his return to Viet Nam. Will the minister give consideration to appearing as an amicus curiae, I believe it is called, a friend of the court, in any action in a federal court to have this deportation order set aside?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in any action which is taken in connection with deportation orders it is the function of the Minister of Justice to act for his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, not for other parties to the proceedings. The Immigration Appeal Board, of course, takes into consideration fully all factors of possible danger to persons involved before arriving at conclusions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the members of the Immigration Appeal Board have hearts of stone, may I ask the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Will the Minister of Justice use his good offices to advise the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that a deserter from another country such as South Viet Nam should surely have just as much right as a deserter from the United States? In dealing with this situation there is some element-
June 2, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation rather than asking a question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Is the government going to respond to the plea of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for more financial assistance to legal aid programs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it may not have been brought to the attention of the Civil Liberties Association but I thought it would have come to the attention of the hon. member that in the Speech from the Throne we indicated our intention to take certain steps to assist in the development of legal aid programs in Canada.



ALLEGED NEED FOR POLICE WARNING OF ACCUSED ON RIGHT TO SILENCE AND TO COUNSEL-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Sylvester Perry Ryan: I have a supplementary question with regard to another request from the association. Is the association's request that police be required to inform an accused of his right to silence, counsel or subsidized legal aid going to be granted and, if so, when may we expect legislation to be introduced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I answered to a very similar question in the House yesterday, the question of any changes in our criminal procedures is one which is being examined by the Law Reform Commission as well as within the Department of Justice. I foresee changes in the criminal law on a fairly frequent basis in the future. As I indicated to the House, questions like this will be considered by the commission, the department and the government.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister again look into the question whether the sailors memorial in south-end Halifax can be considered a national monument and given national financing since that memorial represents the sacrifice of a country rather than the sacrifice of a community?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, these monuments are not the responsibility of my department, but I will certainly take the hon. member's representations into account.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE INCREASE IN DISABILITY PENSIONS- REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to a question which I directed to his parliamentary secretary yesterday. It is recorded on page 2754 of yesterday's Hansard. Can the minister give me an answer before the question period is over?



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture has introduced a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act which will increase the limit on loans, can the minister inform the House whether he will be proposing any amendments or changes to the Veterans Land Act?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there has been a disinclination on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs to extend and expand the opportunity for veterans to go into farming. It has been regarded as a phase-out operation. If there are amendments to the Farm Credit Act, there will probably be some parallel legislation required in our field.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the response I received from the minister responsible for the wheat board to my earlier question. In relation to that, I wish to refer to the reply to order paper question No. 397 of the last session of Parliament, dated November 9, 1970. In answer to a similar question I received the following answer from the Department of Transport:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (specifically Section 207.441 of Title 33) covering security regulations for the St. Marys Falls canal and locks prohibits passage of "vessels of the Sino-Soviet block countries" through the Soo locks. This would appear to prevent passages of vessels from these countries via U.S. waters to all Canadian ports on Lake Superior.
In light of that response, I think the minister should reconsider his reply.


Mr. Speaker:: That is possible, but it cannot be brought to the attention of the House by way of a question of privilege. Is the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Marshall:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs was aware of the question asked by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) in connection with basic rates of pension. I wonder why he did not answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has ended. I assume that the question can be asked again and answered at the beginning of next week.
25316-54}

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Jardine McCleave: This House regrets that the government has failed to take measures which would provide all citizens with decent housing at reasonable prices.
He said: Mr. Speaker, housing debates always offer members an opportunity to quote statistics, and I shall begin by citing one which I think illustrates the housing problem as well as any. The average family head buying a house this year will be approximately 72 years old before he has paid for his $30,000 bungalow. At the age of 72 he will have actually paid $103,939.20 for that bungalow if he has been able to arrange his payments at a rate of 81 per cent over 40 years. He would undoubtedly be able to arrange a direct mortgage over that length of time, but 8) per cent is an interest rate which belongs to a more golden age.
The figures show the staggering totality of the difficulty Canadians are up against in providing themselves with one of the elementary needs of living. I shall not try to cover all the aspects of housing in my speech. It would not be possible in 30 minutes. Anyway, my hon. friends will be making points in addition to those I make. Before I get into the burden of my speech, I should like to thank the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) for his courtesy. I advised him yesterday I would be proposing this motion today. He did have a meeting actually scheduled today on the west coast, but this he cancelled in order that he might be here for the debate. Perhaps we could work out a procedure whereby longer notice is given to the spokesmen for the ministry and for the other parties. This is something to which I would certainly give attention. I do thank the minister for his courtesy in this direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: This having been said, I would hope that the minister, when his turn comes to take part in the debate, will state the objectives of any changes in the National Housing Act affecting the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which will be proposed before the House rises for the summer recess. There has been considerable talk about legislation being just around the corner, but some of us expect that this corner may be at the end of a complicated maze and that we are not likely to see anything except the act which is currently before us and which will be before us some time next week concerning the details of the mechanism of mortgage finance. In particular, I hope the minister will state his objectives with respect to the housing of people in the low income groups, a largely neglected part of the population when it comes to housing.
We should also be given a clear indication by the minister of any measures designed to deal with the rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods. At one time it was fashion-

able to uproot them and substitute expensive urban renewal. We may have lost sight of the fact that much of the housing in Canada is old, and that a good deal of this old housing is occupied by the poor. By uprooting the poor we do not necessarily solve our problems; we may be substituting new ones. The rehabilitation of old housing is one of the priorities to which any government or parliament should pay attention.
In making some recommendations and setting forth a few suggestions for solving some of our present housing problems, I should like to begin with one we have sought to hammer home from time to time, and will continue to do so until the present situation is corrected. I refer to the sales tax on building materials. We have urged, sometimes by motion, and invariably during these debates on housing, that this tax is iniquitous, that it bears no relevancy to proper aspects of taxation and that it should be removed.
I should like to follow a somewhat different approach in presenting this argument today. A study by the technical research committee of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada estimated that on-site labour now represents 24 per cent of the cost of construction, whereas 15 years ago it represented 45 per cent of the cost of construction of a home. Building materials represent 74 per cent of the cost of a home-perhaps more, now, since those figures were compiled a number of years ago, and presumably the trend upwards has continued. Equipment rental accounts for 2 per cent. So, 76 per cent of the cost of the construction of a home involves building materials or equipment rental, both subject to the sales tax I have mentioned. The remainder is made up of labour costs. If we take between 6 and 7 per cent off that figure of 76 per cent, substantial savings can be achieved. For example, on the cost of a $30,000 home one could achieve savings in the neighbourhood of $1,000. This is not pin money; it is a substantial part of the cost of that house. This reinforces the argument which has been made in many other ways that the sales tax on building materials simply has to go. In the name of equity, common sense, and as a substantial way of getting housing costs within the reach of those for whom housing costs are just beyond reach at the present time, this is nothing short of a necessity.
The second point I should like to make has to do with land costs. These are particularly high around Toronto. Part of the difficulty is that the servicing of land by the municipalities always tends to lag behind the need for that land. There are always customers ready to buy serviced land. They have to wait their turn, and while doing so they keep bidding each other up. In the course of another study, made by the same HUDAC group in April, 1969, it was estimated that the cost of land of a 50 ft. lot in Toronto was in the neighbourhood of $13,000. This was the most substantial raw land cost of the cities surveyed. The other cities were Halifax, Montreal, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. It was so substantially different that it was obvious the Toronto area and that part of Ontario was being subjected to processes of urbanization that were much more advanced than those in any other part of Canada.
I have referred to this process before. I think this is about the fourth time I have told the House that the
June 2, 1972

megalopolis is coming to this area of Canada along the St. Lawrence system between Montreal stretching down to Windsor, into Detroit and going into the United States as far as Milwaukee. All the expert studies conducted by the Doxiadis group, one of the world's leading authorities in this field, have shown that that area's population is developing at a faster rate than any other area in North America. The population growth will be greater than the population growth in the existing megalopolis on the eastern seaboard between Boston and Baltimore. We all know the severe problems that have been created along this particular corridor, such as transportation, pollution, socioeconomic problems, crime and so on, by this one continuous strip of humanity. That is bad enough, but it can not only happen here, it is going to happen here. Many Members of Parliament, particularly the younger members, are going to be seized of this problem and perhaps overwhelmed by it unless something is done about it now.
In any event, I suggest this illustrates that land costs in Toronto are under particular pressure since Toronto is at the heart of this megalopitan development to which I have referred. It illustrates to me that several things are involved in land development and land costs. First of all, there is a need for an urgency in planning, certainly a much greater urgency than that shown at the present time. We need a planning that involves the cities and the metropolis of Toronto, the governments of Ontario and Quebec and every municipality in this particular corridor. Planning must also involve the new airport near Toronto, for example. Since three levels of government are desperately involved-and I use the word "desperately" advisedly-all the more reason for those governments to get together and tackle the problem of the St. Lawrence megalopolis. If this problem is not tackled now, then this generation which can see the problem coming will forever be reviled for having done very little about it. Therefore, it would be Conservative party policy to establish a national urban council of Canada representative of all levels of government to tackle this and the general problem of growing urbanization in Canada.
Another way to deal with land costs is to adopt the land bank proposal presented, and presented vigorously, by my leader. I suggest that in addition one consider the early provision of local services, sewage and water systems, for developments. The quicker these are tackled, particularly in high cost areas, the more the chance of keeping down costs. It is the land that lies dormant that attracts the high interest rates which are paid to the banks by the owner of the land, and we all know that the burden of these high interest rates ultimately falls upon the purchaser of the land. So there are at least three suggestions for dealing with some of the very aggravated problems that now exist, particularly in Toronto and in other parts of Canada.
Another point I should like to make flows out of a recent study presented by the Canadian Council on Social Development in Ottawa. This study has gone to every M.P.'s desk and I should like to deal with a point made at page 69 and with a recommendation that appears at page 74 which commend themselves to me. In talking of studies of housing requirements the report says:
On the whole, studies tend to be more concerned with housing demand (as a classical economic concept) than with determining
Housing Prices
the dimensions of effective demand and unmet housing needs and spelling these out in terms of both subsidized and unsubsidized new construction and rehabilitation goals.
This is the recommendation to be found at page 74:
We consider the development of as accurate estimates as possible of future housing requirements to be a prerequisite for an intelligent and purposeful deployment of resources in the housing field. Without a better appreciation of the dimensions of future effective and non-effective demand for housing, public interventions in the housing market can be likened to building a dam across a river without taking the trouble to measure the water's depth. It is unlikely we will ever devise comprehensive policies capable of providing decent and reasonably priced housing for all Canadians as a right until we learn a great deal more about the extent of our present housing shortcomings and the likely effect of future social and economic trends.
I should now like to go to a point that I made on March 13 when housing was being considered by this House. As reported at page 783 of Hansard I had this to say on the subject of housing for people of low income, and I think it illustrates the problem we are facing:
In 1968, the lower income third of the population of this country took 6.5 per cent of the money available for housing, the middle income third took 49.4 per cent and the upper income third took 44.1 per cent. Two years later the figures in those three respective categories were 5.3 per cent, 54.2 per cent and 40.5 per cent.
If you want to show how rapidly the position of lower income Canadians has deteriorated in almost the last decade, note that in 1965 the lower income third share of the borrowings was 17.9 per cent, which shrunk to 5.4 per cent in 1970-an almost incredible statistic-
Yes, an almost incredible statistic that shows a deficiency in government planning but, even more than that, an almost incredible indictment of the so-called just society. As the columnist Dian Cohen wrote in the Toronto Star, in a paragraph headed "Pitifully inadequate":
In the past 25 years, CMHC programs have produced about 250,000 housing units for the estimated 1,500,000 low income families in Canada. Simple arithmetic shows this number to be pitifully inadequate.
In the same article she went on to say:
The Charney report to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on low cost housing states that "the housing available at present for low income families is found for the most part in older existing stock. While only 41.3 per cent of the Canadian population lives in accommodations that were constructed prior to 1940, on the average 54.4 per cent of those with incomes less than $5,000 occupy such dwellings-in the Atlantic provinces and in Ontario the figures are 61.4 per cent and 60.0 per cent respectively.
I think we should investigate ways to permit low and middle income families to borrow up to 100 per cent of their property costs. At one time this would be considered heresy, but we have helped in other directions; industry has been helped in many ways, and this would have been unbelievable to Members of Parliament 30 or 40 years ago. I suggest these low and middle income families should be subsidized by the government to help pay for their homes. If we did this through the medium of public housing, which has to be subsidized as far as rental payments are concerned, we could somehow extend the concept and give the man or woman of humble means the ability to own a piece of the action in Canada. I find nothing distasteful in that kind of an approach. By low income, I do not mean only families or five or six living on

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
$4,000 to $7,000 a year, I also mean families of 10 living on an income of $10,000 a year, because I think that such a family can also be considered to be low income.
Under Sections 15 and 40 of the National Housing Act, money is available to non-profit groups and municipalities to purchase existing property and to rehabilitate them for renting or selling. In my opinion this section of the act has not gone far enough. My party recommends that the federal government extend the National Housing Act provision to make federal grants and loans available for rehabilitation of existing dwellings. Financial assistance should be on the basis of individual need. There are 250,000 homes in Canada in serious disrepair, and about one million substandard homes. Something should be done in this regard. I suppose the difference between the minister and myself is that I would get these things done, and I am wondering when he is going to try to do something.
Another problem in the cost of residential rehabilitation results from-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister may ask a question if the hon. member consents.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was wondering whether the hon. member would permit a question? Does his last remark mean that he is calling for an immediate introduction of amendments to the National Housing Act?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes. Another problem in the cost of residential rehabilitation results from the high proportion of elderly people who find themselves in this particular situation. Toronto studies have revealed that a high proportion of residents, living in housing which does not meet minimum city standards, are over the age of 65. Of the 1.7 million Canadians over 65, the income of one million of them consists only of the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. In their declining years our elderly citizens living on fixed incomes have enough difficulty maintaining a subsistent way of life without contemplating unbearable costs in the form of shelter maintenance.
I know, as I am sure other Members of Parliament do, of many families of old people who are scrimping on their diets and on almost everything in order to somehow scrape together enough money for taxes, heat and light bills and the like, simply to keep that house over their heads in which they have lived for so long.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government is giving them almost 10 cents a day more.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I point out that the Dennis Task Force on Low-Income Housing in 1971 recommended that the federal government should undertake an aggressive land assembly program to stem the most inflationary factor in the housing cost; the price of land. However, the federal loan provision for the acquisition of servicing of land for housing purposes expired March 31, 1972. This is an indictment in itself. There should be better provision for earlier servicing of land. That is an important element.
Finally, I should like to refer to a point made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. This point naturally arose as a result of the obligations of these

municipalities to raise the wherewithal for developing sewer and water services. Let me quote from this statement:
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities believes that the present system of sharing revenues among the three levels of government is out of balance. We feel that this imbalance is leading to a growing gap between needed and actual expenditures at the local level with a consequently detrimental impact on the quality of life in our communities. Moreoever, we feel that this imbalance promotes a deterioration in the independence and vitality of the municipal level.
I suppose some of them feel that way since they have very difficult negotiations with provincial governments. This federation then said in its statement:
The solution lies, at least in part, in righting the imbalance with the introduction of a new source of revenue for local government. We therefore offer the following proposal:
That the Federal and Provincial Governments agree to share with local government a portion of their proceeds from personal and corporate taxes;
That the portion to be shared be decided upon by a tri-level conference;
That the municipal share of personal income tax proceeds be distributed on the basis of place of residence;
That the municipal share of corporate income tax proceeds be distributed on the basis of an equalization formula devised by a tri-level conference.
Later on in the statement, we find the following:
The transformation of the revenue-sharing system in the last decade has not been of great benefit to the local level. Municipalities have been left to rely on a highly regressive, inelastic tax as their principle source of tax revenue. Moreoever, the present system leaves the local level at the end of expensive and costly conditional transfer programs. These programs, often initiated by other levels of government without consulting the local level, must be delivered by local government sometimes at the expense of their own responsibilities. The present system, in other words, not only fails to alleviate fiscal squeeze at the local level, it actively promotes it.
Let me give you another example. A poor individual might be left a Rolls-Royce by rich Aunt Emma, but may find the upkeep almost more than he can bear. I have mentioned the plight of older people again and again. Their housing needs are substantial. I use that argument to show why a new tax base is needed and why there has to be meaningful negotiation among the three levels of government in order to assist municipalities faced with staggering changes in the Canadian way of life, namely the rush toward urbanization. There must be a new tax base in order to tackle the problems of urbanization.
Frequently, older homeowners take the view that their homes will, with a minimum upkeep in expenditures, provide for their diminishing needs for the remainder of their days. Many are not interested in, or unable to undertake repairs. Improved property attracts increased property taxes, as an added price for keeping up the fabric and appearance of a dwelling. This is my point and it is particularly true of those people who are the greatest victims of inflation in Canada today. I would not, and cannot say when inflation is going to stop. If 18 per cent more money every year is to be printed on the presses of the Bank of Canada, costs will continue to go up and up, and most people will feel utterly helpless in the face of such a method of financing.
June 2, 1972

These are some of the ills and some of the solutions I would suggest. Above all, I suggest there is a need for greater action by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). As I have said, he needs greater powers, and this has been argued by others including my leader. That gives me hope the day will come when we will have a federal department that will not only pay lip service to the idea that Canada is rapidly becoming urbanized, that the rural pleasantry of the Canada of Sir John A. Macdonald is giving way to the vast conglomeration in our cities, but will introduce policies that will be wise and sensible enough to provide a more stable and more meaningful way of life for the people living in the cities. I have presented some of my suggestions. My colleagues will follow with others. The matter is really too important to be simply a matter of presenting ideas over and over again in Parliament. This is a time for action. It is a time for action now.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party agree with the substance of the motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative party. We say the government has failed to take measures which would provide all citizens with decent housing at reasonable prices. If a vote were to be taken on the motion we would add two amendments. The first amendment would be to the effect that the government has failed to provide decent housing at reasonable cost and also at reasonable interest rates. The second amendment would be to the effect that the government has failed to give any protection to purchasers of new homes against home builders who perform shoddy and defective workmanship and supply inferior materials in the construction of new homes. Those are the two amendments we would move.
I am sure most Canadians agree with the principle set forth in the task force report on housing back in 1969 when it declared that all Canadians should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of a basic human right. We in the New Democratic Party, and many others, would adopt the stronger and more forceful approach that was set forth by the Canadian Social Development Council when it said that all Canadians should be guaranteed the right to decent housing, whether or not they can afford it. The government has failed to implement either of these two principles. I agonize when I recall the performance of the ministers since I came into the House of Commons in
1965.
First, we have had five ministers in eight years. I am sure the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation cannot sing the familiar song "I am getting to know you" because having five ministers in eight years does not give leadership for the development of firm policies under the National Housing Act we have today. I recall, first of all, when John Nicholson and the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson) took the approach of acting as friendly bankers and just supplying the money without giving leadership. In the period 196568, we had a tremendous shortfall in housing construction units across the country.
Then we had the present member for Trinity (Mr. Helly-er) who set up a task force to study the problems of
Housing Prices
Housing. That task force reached certain conclusions. First of all, it said that the private sector could take care of the housing needs. It is obvious that the private sector has failed to achieve this objective. Second, the then minister said we should take the ceiling off interest rates and then the interest rates in all probability would drop. The government failed to adopt that approach. The minister at that time then suggested that a damper be placed on public housing. The result was that public housing was set back and the need for public housing across the country has intensified. Finally, he said we should deal directly with the municipalities in respect of purchasing land. He presented this proposal to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who rejected it. The result was that the present member for Trinity resigned as minister.
Then we had the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras), who brought to the housing portfolio the compassion and sincerity he acquired when dealing with the Indians. He became overwhelmed with the problem of housing and said that we must take the research approach. He hired Harvey Lithwick who brought forth a report. No action was taken on the report and Mr. Lithwick had to resign. He said the whole department is just an empire-building bureaucracy. Then, we had Michael Dennis, because the minister said we should have a report on research and planning in respect of housing. This report has been concealed. We have a concealment of reports by the present minister, especially those which would be embarassing to the government. The minister refuses to table them and make them public. He keeps us all in the dark in respect of their comments and recommendations.
Then, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said we must have innovative housing and undertake a new approach. The government set aside $200 million to take care of that. The housing committee of the Canadian Social Development Council put the situation quite well when, in its report, it said that there was nothing innovative with regard to the houses built and that in fact if there was any result it was smaller homes on smaller lots. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs then decided that a new department should be set up and that he should be made the Minister of Urban Affairs. This was what he did. Perhaps he was embarassed in respect of his other position as Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. He was probably charged with being the minister without housing in charge of portfolios. As a result, we have the present minister who this morning said we would have progressive and forward-looking proposals from this government.
I have seen nothing new, nothing bold, nothing courageous and nothing aggressive undertaken by the present minister. In fact, he has presented one bill, Bill C-209, which really constitutes a financial rip-off with regard to the financial institutions which have persuaded him to give them certain tax concessions provided they place their money in mortgages. When that bill comes forward I shall deal with it in more detail. All the minister has done has been to present four proposals to the provinces in respect of public housing. For the low income people, he introduced mortgages over a 40-year period and introduced certain amendments in respect of home improve-

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
ments. All he is doing is tinkering with the National Housing Act. He is not bringing forward any serious proposals to deal with the housing problems we have in Canada. The result of this attitude and the non-performance I will deal with in more detail at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment, I said that by reason of the multiplicity of ministers in charge of housing in the last eight years, and by reason of their attitudes with regard to policies as well as by reason of their non-performance, there have been certain results with regard to housing in Canada. I should like to set forth those results to you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, we have had a serious housing shortage, more especially for senior citizens and persons of low or modest incomes. The total housing stock in Canada is disgraceful, and less than 2 per cent of housing consists of public housing. That is the first result. The second is that we have the highest housing costs in the world. For example, in the city of Toronto the average cost of a house is $32,000. Third, we have the highest interest rates in the world, and they are still going up. The newspapers indicated yesterday that the interest rates will probably exceed 10 per cent again and that NHA mortgages will probably be around 9} per cent in the very near future.
Let us consider, for example, a young couple 30 years of age buying a home on a 40 year mortgage at the interest rate of 10 per cent. They will finish paying for it at the age of 70, and by that time they will have paid at least three to four times the original cost of the house which they purchased by reason of the high interest rates. Fourth, we have the highest rents in the world. One does not have to go beyond Ottawa to realize how high the rents are. Fifth, we have the highest land prices in the world. Sixth, we have the highest legal costs for home buyers in the world. Is it any wonder that the present minister has earned the title of minister of the most expensive housing in the world?
In addition, we have no integrated national housing policy whereby we would have national consultation among the three levels of government. Thus, the needs for housing would be determined, the proper mix of housing would be determined, the financing needs for housing would be determined, and new building techniques would be incorporated in a national housing policy. The present minister has given us nothing of this nature, and I am sure he will promise us nothing this afternoon. The last result has been that we have no laws to protect home buyers against builders who perform shoddy and defective workmanship and who supply inferior materials in the construction of houses. It is bad enough to be aggravated by the high cost of a home, but to have the further aggravation of no protection against shoddy construction of that

house adds real insult to injury for people who buy houses in Canada.
We in the NDP have set forth in the past our approach to these problems, and this afternoon some of my colleagues will deal with some of the areas that I have mentioned this afternoon. I want to dwell on the last point I made with regard to the lack of protection for home owners against defective workmanship and inferior materials. In the April issue of Canadian Homes, Professor William A. W. Neilson, who is a professor at Osgoode Hall attached to York University, set forth in an article what happens when people have no protection with regard to homes that they buy. He said that people who buy television sets and vacuum cleaners have more protection than a purchaser buying a home in Canada today. He mentioned a case in Burnaby, British Columbia, where purchasers of condominium town houses were complaining of seepage in the basements, lack of promised sound proofing, wet crawlspaces, and unfinished landscaping. They appealed to the Attorney General of British Columbia and also to the minister of municipal affairs, but were told that they could do nothing about it. One of the purchasers said that he realized at that time what the Latin words "caveat emptor" meant-"Let the buyer beware" because of the sad experience they had.
In the city of Sudbury, Mr. Speaker, 20 owners of new homes had to abandon them because the plumbing and sewage facilities were condemned and nothing was done about it. People in Deep River, Ontario, were having trouble with a builder on the same problems of construction and materials defects, so they thought they would go to the source of supply. The mortgages on these homes had been arranged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the owners thought that they would be interested in their problems. The attitude expressed by CMHC was that the inspections made on their behalf were just to protect the security of the mortgage loan that they had placed on the property and that the purchaser had no protection as far as CMHC was concerned. This is the attitude of CMHC with regard to guarantees. This problem has been repeated across Canada. There are many instances in Quebec and I am sure members of the Social Credit party and the Liberal party will set forth some of the agonies that purchasers there have experienced. Mr. Speaker, I have had some contact with people in the Talvin housing project in Hull, Quebec and one of the purchasers gave me a list of 30 items that were defective in construction and materials. Very little or nothing has been done, and many of the purchasers have had to go to court in an attempt to set aside the contracts they had entered into with the builders.
What is the answer, Mr. Speaker? The Ontario Law Reform Commission said in 1968 that we should place the whole responsibility for supplying reasonable workmanship and good materials on the builder for at least six years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there should be a guarantee that the home is fit for habitation, built of proper materials, constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner and free from defects of construction. I would remind the minister that in England there is a two-year guarantee and an arbitration system to settle
June 2, 1972

disputes. They have also imposed a ten-year coverage against major structural damage and there is insurance to protect the buyer if the builder should go bankrupt.
What does the government of Canada do through CMHC? Nothing. What is the practice in the United States, Mr. Speaker? Under HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Program, guarantees are built into the federal housing act whereby the government has power to pay for repairs if they are necessary because of defective work and materials and to deduct those moneys or recover those moneys from the builder. In Canada, there is the Housing and Urban Development Association which is comprised of the builders. The best they can do is to give a one-year contract which is worded in a manner which makes it virtually impossible to take them to court.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time has come when the CMHC should give leadership with regard to this important problem. May I remind you that for years CMHC has insured the loans given out by them. They have insured them with regard to any default by the purchaser and if a financial institution suffers a loss as a result, it can be reimbursed out of the fund. It is really the purchaser who reimburses them, Mr. Speaker, because he has to pay one per cent of the loan by way of an insurance fee. At the moment, there are over $300 million in the reserve fund of CMHC to cover this. Surely, they could set up an insurance scheme whereby prospective purchasers would be protected against defective workmanship and material in cases of loans given by approved lenders and direct loans by CMHC. This is the least they could do. This is the leadership they must give and I would ask the minister this afternoon to assure the home purchasers in Canada that they have some protection.
We have dealt many times with the question of high interest rates. In the New Democratic Party we feel that the highest interest rate that should be charged on a mortgage in Canada at the moment is 6 per cent. The financial institutions of this country have a social responsibility to meet this requirement. Under the financing mechanism of the bill that is expected in the near future, an adequate flow of money will only be assured if the insurance companies and financial institutions receive at least 10 per cent.
We have said many times that the land bank assembly plan is necessary. When we were discussing estimates, I asked the minister how much money CMHC had set aside for this proposal and he said not one cent. This is one of the main problems involved in the high cost of land today. Is it any wonder that most of us have become disgusted with the performance of this government? I hope that the people of Canada in the next election will see clearly the extent of-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Thirty million.


John Gilbert: -their non-performance and throw the rascals out.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today has been moved by a member of the official opposition, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and it reads as follows:
Housing Prices
This House regrets that the government has failed to take measures which would provide all citizens with decent housing at reasonable prices.
It contains, as usual, pious wishes. The present housing situation did not arise yesterday; actually, it has always existed.
Thirty years ago, we were faced with a housing problem in Canada. Such problems existed during the economic crisis that raged from 1929 to 1939. Indeed, some people were living in shacks. This means therefore that the housing problem is not new.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants stated that the only difference between him and the minister was that if he were in his place, the situation would be improved forthwith. And yet, he does not know precisely the minister's intentions in this respect. He also said he was very much concerned to note that the Bank of Canada was easing credit more than usual which could pave the way for more inflation.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if we want to guarantee a house to every citizen, it will be necessary to turn to some form of credits. At the moment, we make use of the credit facilities of finance companies, of insurance companies, of the CMHC, of chartered banks and, often enough, of Caisses Populaires and Credit Unions. And we complain that there are not enough dwellings for the very reason that there is not yet enough credit available.
In order to show that the situation referred to is not new, may I recall that when I was first elected to the House in 1946, the Prime Minister was the right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, to whom the right hon. Louis St-Laurent succeeded. We had as leader of the opposition Mr. Bracken, whose successor was Mr. Drew. Thereafter, we had the right hon. Lester B. Pearson as Prime Minister of Canada. Today, we have as Prime Minister the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). As leader of the opposition we have had the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was replaced by the present leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield). And in 1962, when we entered the House, the Housing problem existed already. Please note that from 1958 to 1962, the country was administered by the strongest government ever in office in Canada after Confederation. In fact, the Progressive Conservative party elected 208 members out of a total of 264. At the time, nevertheless, we had to struggle with housing problems.
I remember having heard the Liberal Party, on the opposition side with us, request from the Progressive Conservative ministers remedies to the housing problems. However, despite the overwhelming power of the government at the time, it was unable to solve those problems, with the result that today we still have to face them.
After 10 years of administration and research dissension can be found almost everywhere across Canada. One province wants one plan and another province wants another plan. The province of Quebec has intervened directly in the housing field because it wanted to have its own housing department and to finance construction.

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
This led to direct confrontation between the different levels of government instead of an understanding to solve once and for all the housing problem in Canada. There are various points to which we could refer regarding this problem.
For instance, my distinguished friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), was saying that at the present rate of interest, a 30-year old family man who contemplates buying a house on a 40-year instalment plan will have to pay three or four times the value of his house. It is true, as is evidenced by the fact that according to statistics or accountants' studies, a $25,000 house built this year will cost $94,000-almost four times the value-40 years from now. If the man who borrows and spreads his payments over 40 years is now 30 or 40 years old, this means he will finally own his house when he is 70 or 80 years old. Who is going to become a home owner at that time? Do you think that people can afford to go on making monthly payments of $150, $160, or $175 after they have reached the age of 60 or 65? It is inconceivable! When will Canadians become homeowners?
Under the present system it is a physical and mathematical impossibility. It would be possible physically, considering the availability of materials, of labour, and of engineering. We know we have all that, but what we lack is credit, which is not adapted to physical possibilities.
The hon. member for Broadview suggested earlier that the interest rate should never exceed 6 per cent. But even at 6 per cent, a person will still pay twice as much as his house is worth. It is intolerable to have to pay double the value of one's house; at 6 per cent interest, a $25,000 house will have cost $55,000 after 40 years-$30,000 in interest and $25,000 in capital. The borrower will make payments which he may not be able to keep up from the time he reaches 55 years of age, not 60 or 65.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that to encourage people to become owners at the age of 75 or 80 is to fool Canadian consumers, those very people who need housing, who do not ask for a lot, who do not ask for the impossible, but who quite simply ask that the huge resources of Canada be used to serve Canadians.
Many factors contribute to the high price of housing as well as the high monthly instalments. The famous 11 per cent sales tax on building materials whose removal has been advocated for many years is not likely to help the buyer of a new home. The provincial tax is added to the federal tax because nowadays taxes are taxed; the 11 per cent federal tax in Quebec is taxed at an 8 per cent rate by the province of Quebec. Therefore, we have reached a point where we have to pay taxes on taxes. That surely does not help lower the excessive cost of building materials and housing. All companies are quite aware of such things.
I shall deal now with another aspect: building defects in houses, as mentioned a while ago. They are so obvious that we often wonder whether the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the department officials are not more interested in granting contracts to housing contractors than in providing homes for those who need them. That is quite true.

We know that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has paid in full contractors who had built houses, and barely three or four months later the foundations became defective, walls begin to sag and floors to warp. That happens everywhere, and the minister is aware of it. Are the inspectors not discharging their duties? Are they waiting for the contractors to tell them? Do builders contribute to the party's electoral fund? I do not know, but something is wrong, Mr. Speaker, because some houses are really in very poor condition after two or three years of occupancy.
In my opinion, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the department should take the necessary steps to ensure that serious inspections are being made during the construction of houses. I congratulate the minister on that score. Last year, for instance, more attention was paid than usual to single-unit dwellings. That pleases me tremendously because, we, of the Social Credit party, feel that there is enough space in Canada for every family to live in its own home, instead of 30-floor buildings, where families with five, six or seven children live on the 30th floor, go up and down elevators, deprived of their own yard in which to play, in a complex of hundreds of dwellings. Those buildings resemble chicken coops more than healthy dwellings.
In the Laurentians, the Eastern townships, barely 20 miles out of Quebec, Toronto, Montreal and Hull, vast expanses of land could be used to build nice little homes for Canadian families.
Recently, I was in the Dehli, St. Thomas and St. Catherines area in Ontario; I saw vast stretches of land where the construction of single-family dwellings could be promoted.
The conditions are the same in western Canada; when you arrive in the Prairies you realize that there is no lack of land. It is therefore not a question of space. We have enough space in Canada to accommodate 500 million people and we only have 21 million inhabitants; that means that we have ample space to provide housing for everybody.
I am really sorry to see people who would rather live outside large cities, because it is healthier and promotes social life, stuck in chicken coops along St. Catherine and Ontario streets, in the south or east end of Montreal, while there are numerous places where these people could settle, till a garden, raise their children in peace, what they cannot do in large cities.
Mr. Speaker, I may not be there anymore, but I know that in a few years, an honest and enterprising government will have to face this task of clearing the big cities a little bit, so as to enable people to live, not in polluted but clean air, in areas where pollution has not yet caused any damage as in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, etc. Let us call it a kind of return to the countryside, not as in Vautrin's days-a kind of return to an acceptable life, close to nature. Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), who must indeed be happy to go home to the Gaspe peninsula for the weekend and breathe the sea air whereas in Ottawa, if I am driving behind him I have to breathe the carbon monox-
June 2, 1972

yde released from the exhaust of his car, which is distasteful to me.
If I followed the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to Drummondville, it would be the same, and I am sure the minister has managed to find himself a little lake near Drummondville.
Whether it is in the direction of Sherbrooke or elsewhere, everyone is seeking nature, which is quite normal.
As for town living, why does one do it? To get employment, security of some sort. But if such security were available away from the cities, I can guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that they would not be crowding two million strong as, for example, in the city of Montreal, but there would be decentralization so that human beings could breathe, not merely with the permission of finance, but breathe freely the air with which the Creator filled the world so that we could live decently.
Mr. Speaker, in the field of housing, there is ample space for improvement. Above all we ought to try to reduce the sales tax which contributes to increase construction costs. It would also be necessary to reduce interest rates; not long ago, we were mentioning interest rates of 6 per cent. The minister might very soon announce that we will have to pay an interest rate of 10 per cent. I say that Caradians should not pay one cent more than the actual administration cost for building houses. What would that mean? That we would only have to pay an interest rate of 1 3/4 or 2 per cent to offer the directors a decent salary. On the other hand, we should stop paying a tribute to those who only provide credits for the construction of houses.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes hope that we will succeed one day in providing all Canadian families with wholesome housing instead of letting a good number of them suffer, as we do now. If we took every necessary step to build new homes perhaps we would not have any unemployment this summer in Canada, because there is an urgent need for housing. We could give a job to university students as well as to thousands of unemployed. So we could provide Canada with new riches, consisting of wholesome one-family dwellings for all families in Canada.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has chosen to use one of their opposition days to debate housing and urban affairs. It gives me a chance to discuss some of the government's thinking in terms of a housing policy and, hopefully, to get some ideas from the opposition as to what they think the housing policy should be.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I listened to his very thoughtful speech on the question of housing. I am delighted to learn that his thinking and ideas follow closely along the lines of what was predicted in the Speech from the Throne issued by the government at the beginning of this session and follows closely the line adopted in my own speeches on the subject of housing. I am glad that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants agrees with me that we
Housing Prices
should introduce the amendments to the National Housing Act, which the government wants to introduce and wants to introduce forthwith. On learning the thinking of the opposition which obviously agrees with the government's proposals, I hope that the legislation will have very easy passage through this House in the next few weeks.
The hon. member speaking for the Conservative party also talked about repair and rehabilitation, land costs, servicing costs, the process of urbanization, land banking, the Audain report, the comprehensive demand for housing and a program to assist in home ownership. Some of those points will be dealt with by me today. Many are dealt with in legislation before the House or which will be introduced very shortly. Other points will be dealt with by other speakers this afternoon. I do want to thank the hon. member for a thoughtful and comprehensive speech on the subject of housing. He covered so many subjects on the cost of housing, he illustrated far more effectively than I can that the cost of housing is made up of many factors. There are many things responsible for these costs and many policies responsible for keeping these costs down. There is no one easy, simple answer to the question of providing reasonable housing at a reasonable cost.
I listened with amazement to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I always do. He seems to think houses can be built or other policies solved by engaging in sarcasm, cliches, catchwords and smart-alec expressions. I have never found that that builds many houses. Canadians have a housing need but it will not be solved by acting in a partisan way. The hon. member for Broadview is in the habit of making a series of unsupported assertions but they are really no substitute for concrete policies and proposals. For example, I was amused to hear him describe the government's amendments to the Housing Act as "tinkering with the National Housing Act". These amendments have not even been introduced yet, so how he could describe them as tinkering is beyond me. Such a criticism can only come from a man who is reckless with his words, and reckless with the House of Commons.
The debate this afternoon gives me an opportunity to put on record briefly and quickly what has been done in the last four years during the life of this government. Listening to opposition speakers one gets the idea that nothing has been done, though, in fact, houses have been built in Canada over the last four years in record numbers and at record levels.


Mr. Orlikow:: For whom?


Stanley Ronald Basford: For the low income people and the senior citizens. I shall come to that. The number of housing starts in 1971 reached an all-time record of 233,653, a total of more than 830,000 starts over the last four years. The opposition says numbers are not important in housing, but it seems to me an essential element in housing policy is to build houses. That is what we have been doing, and we have been doing it at a record pace. All the indications are that even this record will be surpassed in 1972, with more than 240,000 starts. This is a tribute to my predecessor, it is a tribute to the government's housing policies and

Housing Prices
it is a good basis from which to begin improving our policies.
During this period, the government's efforts have been directed not simply to creating numbers of dwelling units but to ensuring that housing is available to those who need it most. Policies have been deliberately aimed at providing for those who need financial assistance in getting housing. Through its agency, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, more than 140,000 housing units have been created in the past four years under programs designed to help people with low incomes- more than twice as many low income units as were built in the previous 22 years. Therefore more has been done in the last four years than in the previous 22 years, including the five years in which the Conservatives were in office. I have not included in those figures some 50,000 hostel units built with CMHC financing.
In dollar terms, more than $2 billion in loans at favourable interest rates have been made available for low income housing in the past four years as compared with less than a billion dollars back to the end of the second world war. By far the largest proportion of CMHC loan and capital commitments for housing over the last four years has been directed to housing for people in the low income group. In 1971 this proportion amounted to 83.2 per cent. In 1972, more than $500 million is allocated for this purpose. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) a few moments ago, asked "For whom?" I answer him by saying the efforts of the government have been devoted almost exclusively to providing homes for those who do not have the financial resources which enable them to acquire homes in other ways.
Our policy in this regard is clear. These programs have been carried out and have achieved their outstanding success through the co-operation of the provincial governments and their housing agencies which are active and enthusiastic partners in helping to meet the housing needs of Canadians. I do not wish to imply that all the solutions have been found. Much yet remains to be done in developing new techniques, new mechanisms for co-operation, new policies. Over the last few years we have carried out a number of studies and appointed a number of task forces. Some reference has been made to this today. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that the time for new legislation is here. Already one piece of legislation has been introduced-Bill C-209 which is presently before the House. The time has come, now, for changes to be made in the National Housing Act, and I am glad that hon. members opposite agree with me. The record in housing achievement is more than satisfactory and we are also putting before the House and the country new, bold and imaginative policies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are they?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wish to mention three aspects this afternoon-the legislation relating to mortgage financing, the National Housing Act amendments and the process of tri-level discussion and consultation with the provinces and municipalities. I refer, first of all, to Bill C-209, the residential mortgage financing act which I had the honour to introduce a few days ago and which is on the House leader's agenda for business. I hope it can be dealt with

June 2, 1972
next week, be given second reading and sent to committee for study as soon as possible. There will, I hope, be opportunities before the end of June for members to deal with this bill, give it third reading and see it proclaimed. The measures contained in the residential mortgage financing act represent the latest in a series of initiatives by the government to bring more private capital into the residential mortgage market. Our purpose in doing so is to ensure that financing is available at the most reasonable cost possible to people in the middle income group and for those who cannot obtain financing in the usual way. The two institutions to be created through this legislation are the Residential Mortgage Market Corporation and the mortgage investment corporations. These institutions will eliminate some of the difficulties which institutions and individuals have found in investing in residential mortgages, and will make these mortgages more nearly as attractive and convenient as are other kinds of investment. Even a small shift in the investment policies of the banks and financial institutions could lead to huge injections of capital into the residential mortgage field and cause a depressing effect on interest rates, making access available to greater amounts of money.
I should like to turn, now, to consider a piece of legislation which the opposition wants me to introduce forthwith. I can undertake, on behalf of the government, that the bill amending the National Housing Act will be introduced shortly. I do not want to anticipate the business of the House, but since the subject is relevant to this debate I believe I would be in order in speaking briefly on the government's intentions with regard to the National Housing Act. The amendments which will be introduced fall into a number of categories. There are amendments relating to the repair and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. There are proposals for neighbourhood improvement programs to replace the old urban renewal provisions under the National Housing Act. There are provisions designed to assist people with low incomes to buy their own homes. There are provisions relating to nonprofit housing to accommodate elderly people and people with low incomes.
There are new and important provisions relating to the co-operative movement, and I shall be particularly happy to introduce these because I shall be the only minister in 70 years to bring forward federal co-operatives legislation.
The amendments which we will propose are intended to modify and strengthen the act, and to make it a more precise and effective instrument for dealing with the most pressing and significant housing and community building tasks. They will provide the federal, provincial and municipal governments with a greater flexibility and permit different approaches, in different parts of Canada, to different kinds of problems. The amendments will also be a response to the growing concern throughout the country, not only with houses but with the neighbourhood environment. They will support provincial and municipal initiatives to preserve the neighbourhood as a living community and where possible to improve and enhance it- instead of destroying it by bulldozing it away.
June 2, 1972

The amendments will also give expression to the government's policy of conserving and rehabilitating good usable housing, consistent with our view that the public concern must be for the entire housing stock-the old, as well as the new. We have heard discussed today the need to keep in our housing stock old housing and to make it good housing. The act's provisions for assistance in the public assembly of land will be extended and strengthened to make this program more useful to provinces and municipalities for land development and the creation of new communities. I observe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the House and I am complimented by his presence. The other day he was speaking in Toronto to the Urban Development Institute, but I had some difficulty following his speech. He spoke of the need for land assembly. Our amendments will go far beyond what he was proposing in speaking to the Urban Development Institute.
Specifically, the amendments will increase the range of choice available to low income people with regard to the kind of home they live in and the kind of tenure by which they occupy it. The non-profit housing provisions of the act will be made more generous to encourage the church groups, service clubs and similar organizations who sponsor this kind of accommodation. New measures will be proposed to provide financial assistance in the form of loans and matching federal-provincial subsidies for low income people who wish to own their own homes. We intend to give these people the opportunity of purchasing their own homes and having that pride of ownership that goes with the purchase of a home.
Other assistance in a similar form will be available to help rehabilitate housing for people of low and moderate incomes. The neighbourhood improvement program arises out of the need to replace the urban renewal program which is being phased out. The new program, with its emphasis on conservation, improvement, repair and rehabilitation, is also directed mainly at low income and moderate income people and the neighbourhoods in which they live. Subject to an agreement with each participating province, the federal government will share the cost of acquiring land for open space, community facilities, low income housing, providing day care centres, drop-in centres and similar community services. We will also pay half the cost of conducting meetings, surveys and other ways of ensuring the participation of the residents themselves in these proposals of conservation and neighbourhood improvement. This legislation is in its final drafting stages. I am happy that the opposition wants the legislation immediately and I shall be delighted, of course, to listen this afternoon to the suggestions hon. members make with regard to what should be in the legislation. I hope ideas will be forthcoming.
I have mentioned the provincial and municipal governments as important partners in our housing enterprises. We are not going to solve the housing problems of Canada unless there is complete co-operation and co-ordination between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. For this reason, senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs have visited every province and the territories, meeting with ministers and their officials, to outline the proposed amendments and to invite their
Housing Prices
views. In most cases, municipal officials also attended, with the concurrence of the provincial governments. So far their response has been encouraging and I feel there is a sufficient degree of understanding to warrant my bringing legislation before the House very soon. I think it is also the right of Members of Parliament to see these proposals and to know what the government is planning at a very early date.
I should emphasize, however, that these meetings are only the first in a continuing exchange of views which will permit us jointly to deal with all of the necessary regulations and administrative details which will ensure that the programs are delivered efficiently and effectively. The objective of this series of meetings with the provinces must be to try and agree, if need be, on dealing with the nature of the regulations made under the act, the implementation process and the administrative process of the federal government's housing program. I assure the provinces that this kind of discussion will be had on such matters. What we are seeking to develop as a result of this legislation is a flexible range of instruments so that the provinces and their housing agencies as well as the municipalities will have a choice of housing instruments to pick from in order to solve their particular housing problems.
As I have suggested to the provincial ministers, these meetings are more than just an opportunity to discuss important legislation of mutual concern. We see them also as a commitment on our part to a long-range process of tri-level consultation between governments, not just about housing but about the whole range of urban affairs. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants discussed this when he talked of the whole process of urbanization and many of the matters mentioned by Professor Lithwick in his report on urban Canada.
This is a policy to which my ministry has been committed since its inception and one which I heartily endorse. One of the roles for which my ministry was instituted, and one which I have been energetically pursuing since I was appointed, is to create the mechanisms, and the atmosphere, within which all levels of government in Canada and the private sector can work together in the interests of achieving a healthy and satisfying urban life. It is evident that the scope and complexity of urban problems are beyond the capacity of any one level of government, federal, provincial or municipal, and, indeed, beyond the capacity of government alone.
This is why I was gratified two weeks ago to be able to announce preliminary agreement on the first national conference of the three levels of government on urban issues, to be held in mid-November. I was also able to announce agreement between the preliminary spending committee composed of myself, the Treasurer of Ontario on behalf of all provinces and the mayor of Hull on behalf of the municipalities of Canada in which we agreed that such a tri-level conference should be held. This process of a tri-level conference is the first step of a procedure by which I confidently expect we will provide a way for all governments whose decisions affect the urban environment to talk to each other, to compare policies and programs, and to begin to define common goals for urban Canada. In a speech the other day the Leader of the

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
Opposition said that we had a tendency to play the game of blaming the constitution. With this agreement between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities I am confident we will find a process by which we will ensure that the constitution is working for us rather than hindering us in co-ordinating policies among all levels of government.
There will be many opportunities during the next little while to debate housing and urban affairs policy, both in connection with Bill C-209 and in connection with the amendments to the housing act that I shall be introducing. There will be many opportunities to discuss the policies which we have now or will be applying during the tenure of office of this government as revealed in legislation offered to Parliament. This legislation is in terms of financial mechanisms to assure an adequate supply of capital for mortgage moneys, amendments to the National Housing Act and the progress made in terms of the tri-level consultative process, all of which are very important initiatives taken by this government and by myself during the short time I have been the minister responsible. I think this brief summary and forecast is a sufficient response to the resolution before the House. Other points which have been raised will be answered by other speakers during debate on specific legislation.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to outline the government's achievements and policies in the housing field and to allow them to be compared with the alternatives offered recently in a public statement in Toronto by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I did not find much in that address, but one thing that startled me was his statement regarding the federal role. The Leader of the Opposition said the federal government's role was one of co-ordination and support. I agree with that statement, so far as it goes. We have a new tri-level process for co-ordination and we are now suggesting amendments to the National Housing Act designed to provide support to the provinces in their housing programs. It seems to me that the federal government has not only a co-ordinating and supporting role but also a leadership role.
It is the purpose of CMHC to introduce policies of imagination in a few days, and it is the purpose of my ministry of state for urban affairs to show leadership to the people of Canada in solving housing and urban affairs problems. It is a far greater role and purpose which we see for ourselves than that envisaged by the Leader of the Opposition. I can only say I am disappointed at the role picked out for the federal government by that hon. gentleman.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the introduction of this motion caused the minister responsible for housing to react by making a statement in this House. It is pleasing to know he is now telling us about legislation to be introduced in respect of mortgage financing. He did not say when the amendments to the National Housing Act would be coming forward, but I hope we can deal with those at the same time. The opposition showed its co-operation two or three weeks ago when we passed within seven days two bills for the benefit of our senior citizens and veterans. If
the bill to be introduced is good, I am sure it will receive early passage.
My main concern is for the low-income and no-income people. I am also concerned about the hundreds of millions of dollars produced by the government for housing. I agree that many houses are being built for the rich, but nothing is being done about housing for the poor and needy. It is necessary to recognize that housing is a primary social, economic and physical need, yet there persistently prevails all across Canada a severe shortage of family housing at reasonable prices. Thus the choice for large, low-income families is limited, causing them either to reduce spending on other needs or to accept housing well below normally accepted standards. As a rule, they cannot afford to become homeowners.
To alleviate this situation the federal government provides funds for low-income housing programs in distant and isolated areas. The provincial and municipal governments are establishing subsidized housing programs which more often than not produce social ghettos. As to private enterprise, it is continuing to serve mainly the socio-economic class which is least affected by the housing situation. A lasting improvement of the current housing situation requires a corresponding improvement of the social conditions which cause the situation.
I realize this is a long-term goal, but the housing of many Canadians is still below minimum acceptable standards. It is little wonder that there exist so many substandard houses in Canada. Sophisticated studies are not necessary to discover that there are still thousands of ill-housed Canadians. This Liberal government persists in one study after another. I will deal with this matter a little later.
There is one basic fact. Housing that is substandard, usually occupied by low-income families, should be improved or removed, with new homes built. The government in power must provide the funds and the direction to reach those people who are not being reached by present housing programs. Strangely enough, a quick perusal of the intentions of the government indicates much the same situation as that leaked in respect of the Charney report. These leaks were not as bad as many of the leaks I have seen in homes in my constituency, where people are living in embarrassing conditions of which we in Canada should be ashamed.
Public housing authorities now face larger problems than the straight provision of adequate physical structures. A social environment less damaged by noise, pollution and social stigma must also be provided. These problems can only be solved with greater understanding and participation by the three levels of government. Experimentation with such techniques as variable interest rates and terms, deferred equities and varying degrees of ownership should be used to encourage the private market to move into low-income housing. At the same time, this should provide encouragement to low-income families to purchase their own homes. Government plans in this regard have revealed only tokenism in the area of low-income families working toward home ownership.
We should investigate ways to permit low and middle-income families to borrow up to 100 per cent of the property cost and, where needed, they should be subsidized by the government to help pay for housing. By low income I

June 2, 1972

do not mean a family of five or six living on $4,000 to $7,000 a year; I also mean a family of ten living on an income of $10,000 a year. Surely one cannot disagree that such a family is in the low income bracket.
Let us consider some of the studies that have been carried out over the years. Just yesterday I was looking at a six-volume study on urban Canada by Mr. L. B. Smith. We also have the study by the Senate committee and its report on poverty, as well as the Dennis commission report. The minister has refused to table that report but there are 50 copies over in the offices of CMHC.
One of these books on urban Canada is called "Research Monograph 2," whatever that means. It is on housing and it reaches several conclusions. The first conclusion in this book is that to the extent our nation is better housed than ever in terms of number and basic facilities, there is no immediate housing problem. It refers to 1970. The second conclusion is that to the extent our construction industry has averaged approximately 200,000 dwelling starts per year and can provide sufficient dwellings for our population, there is no housing crisis.
The third conclusion is that to the extent shelter costs are not outpacing and are probably lagging behind income income increases, so that housing accommodations are generally more affordable, there is no housing problem. The fourth conclusion is that to the extent there are few doubled families-180,000, or 4 per cent of all families in Canada in 1966-and a considerable number of non-family households, there is probably no housing problem. We find that first of all there is no housing problem, and when there is a problem it is not serious.
The report also suggests that to the extent there is a group of low-income families living or who were previously living in soon-to-be-demolished or previously demolished housing, there is a housing problem or, more properly, an income or poverty problem. Now we find an admission of the existence of a housing problem.
These are fine conclusions, but I suggest they are conclusions from a computer. In this case the author, Mr. L. B. Smith, suggests his conclusions are drawn from equations and variables and that people should look at the graphs and charts. They do not indicate how to build houses for the poor people. I am wondering about the source of Mr. Smith's conclusions, because the hundreds of letters I receive from poverty stricken Canadians cry out in simple language the fact that they need homes but cannot afford them.
I wonder what conclusions can be drawn from letters such as these? I quoted one in the House some time ago which is worth repeating. It is one of many hundreds I have received. This gentleman wrote:
My concern is about the shack we have to live in. It is infested with rats which have chewed large holes in the walls. I have to live on welfare because of a sick wife who is mentally ill and has an epileptic condition. And the doctor confirms this, indicating that the home is unfit for human habitation.
The hundreds of millions of dollars which are being directed into housing are going into areas in which the big builders want to build; they are not going into areas where they are needed. Just last weekend I visited one of
Housing Prices
the communities in my riding and saw a man, his wife and four children living in a deserted school bus set up on the side of the road. If this is the type of housing involved in the wonderful plans of the government, then I wonder what is wrong.
I could quote many hundreds of examples such as these where Canadians are crying out for help. I wonder why there is nothing in "Research Monograph 2" to solve this type of problem. I also wonder if Mr. Smith could figure out by his ingenious methods of calculation how these people could get a decent home. I wonder if he could explain his conclusion that our nation is better housed than others in terms of numbers and basic facilities, and that there is no immediate housing problem.
I should like Mr. Smith to accompany me when I tour my district this summer and see the embarrassing and distressing situation which exists with regard to substandard housing, and then tell me that Canada does not have a housing problem. Everyone knows the government has been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into housing in Canada. For one reason or another, much of this money is not being directed into areas where the need is greatest nor to those people who have the greatest need, the poverty stricken and lowest income families.
In the Throne Speech the government, as usual, told the people of Canada of its new approach to supplying lower income housing. This occurred around the first of the year. I was very optimistic about this, particularly the announcement that $100 million or more would be directed toward providing ownership and rental housing for families earning less than $6,000 a year. Funds would be made available for projects sponsored by non-profit community organizations and co-operatives, and for continuation of present assisted ownership programs. Funds would be made available for a program to enable low-income families to renovate or rehabilitate their substandard properties without an increase in their monthly cost of ownership or rent, and for a multimillion dollar neighbourhood improvement program focusing on rehabilitation and renovation of blighted areas.
This sounds fine and wonderful in a Throne Speech. It builds up the hope of Canadians. All I have seen, however, arising out of the Throne Speech is a bill in respect of residential mortgage financing which will provide more money through more agencies, which in fact is being done now by CMHC. The family with little or no income is still restricted in respect of assistance to improve existing deteriorated homes or to build something better for themselves, while the extra millions of dollars will still go to the speculative, big builders who will continue to locate massive housing units where the price is right for themselves.
In this regard, I should like to see the minister today table the Charney report which evidently ridicules the present direction of our national housing programs. Why does the Charney report state that housing is a by-product in an agglomeration of builders, developers and financial institutions committed to the routine of making money? Why does the report say that CMHC is oriented to market interest rather than to consumer interest? The private sector is involved in low-income housing only in so far as the delivery of this type of housing corresponds to the objectives of the influential members of the industry. I

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
think it is worth while to quote from an editorial written as a result of a leakage of the report. It reads:
The pertinent question on a national level is not whether rehabilitation programs are needed, but whether scattered rehabilitation that does exist now, and will increase in the future, will be given its proper place in a policy framework.
CMHC has systematically neglected to gather and organize data on rehabilitation. The formation of local groups came about not only because of a concern for rehabilitation of all too visibly deteriorating housing, but primarily in resistance to the urban renewal policies of government and to private developers' bulldozers.
While government talks about the involvement and participation of people to determine the kind of housing they would like to have, local groups involved with rehabilitation have simply been doing it.
Few large builders are willing to become involved in rehabilitation because they feel they can make larger profits in new construction. This top-down view of the larger builder-developer tends to dominate policy af federal government and CMHC levels.
Only 10 per cent of the builders consider rehabilitation an important part of their business. These builders, according to the report, are the small firms that construct fewer than 25 housing units a year.
Rehabilitation builds on the resources available to low-income families and does not cause the disruption of a family or a neighbourhood like urban renewal schemes, the report said.
The over-all costs are generally less than new construction, especially when evaluated in terms of social costs. It serves to upgrade the general adequacy of housing at the neighbourhood level-one of the initial objectives of urban revitalization.
The report said there should be grants available, without a means test, for improving the structure, exterior, electrical and mechanical services, for conversions and for revitalizing neighbourhood and community services. It also suggested that technical assistance be offered by the government.
It is easy to see that many of the things the minister said are taken directly from the Charney report.
There are virtually no programs aimed at revitalizing the neighbourhood and social development at present, the report said.
The report continues on and on. I do not wish to take up too much time because I know other members wish to speak on this subject.
It should be the first priority of housing policy to reverse the further deterioration of existing housing through maintenance incentives and assistance programs.
Low-income housing, because the rents are often not as high as other units, often falls into the abandonment spiral. In many cases the housing stock is purposely run-down by owners who see little economic potential in the house, but keep the land for speculative purposes.
Other failures of the builders, CMHC and the government are referred to. One of the things which I think should be done-this is a recommendation of either the Charney report or the Dennis report-is that a national inventory should be taken. The task force recommended that a national housing inventory and building code be implemented as quickly as possible. With the need for employment I cannot understand why we are unable to find people who are interested and who could take an inventory of substandard housing and do something about it.
Just the other day in the House the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) welcomed a suggestion of mine that programs similar to the Local Initiatives Program be initiated to help fishermen provide through, their own initiative, the facilities they require in order to

provide employment and give them the base for a better livelihood in an industry which is fast deteriorating. The minister thought this was a good idea and said he would discuss it with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) for future planning. Perhaps the minister responsible for housing will take a similar step with regard to housing.
Since it is obvious that eventually a program for rehabilitating homes will be introduced, and I hope soon, why not direct some of the moneys that will be available into a type of local initiatives program to allow municipalities and small communities to take an inventory of all substandard housing and submit projects to improve these homes for the benefit of people who cannot afford to do the work themselves or are not capable? This could also be done, based on need, for a community even before it has a housing program.
At the same time, this type of program would bring out the initiative of Canadians and satisfy a critical need which could be relieved by providing the materials and labour under technical leadership. Such an idea would provide employment and avoid duplication of spending with co-operation among departments of the federal government and the two other levels of government. This is one idea on which I could elaborate if the minister is anxious to listen.
My main concern-I say this again-is that regardless of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, there are still people living in homes which have been condemned. There are still families like the one I described who are living in an old, abandoned bus at the side of the road. This is the area to which we should direct our programs, and I hope the minister will bring in legislation soon to this end.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising to speak in the debate on the motion which was introduced by the official opposition and which reads as follows:
This House regrets that the government has failed to take measures which would provide all citizens with decent housing at reasonable prices.
I have spent quite some time objectively studying this situation. When one considers the accomplishments of the National Housing Act in Quebec, one cannot help being proud. Of course, we do not pretend that everything has been done nor that the various acts have been perfectly administered. Much remains to be done, but achievements over the past few years indicate that the government has given priority to the housing problem and approached it with determination. We shall continue to give evidence of this interest and determination during the next few years, and with an increasing measure of success ensured by the amendments to the National Housing Act that will be submitted to the approval of the House during the next few days by the hon. minister responsible for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford).
During the four-year period 1968 to 1971, there were nearly 190,000 housing starts, of which 5,800 took place in 1971, which represents a production rate that few indus-
June 2, 1972

trial countries have been able to match. These achievements were the results of co-operation between private industry, financial institutions of all kinds and the implementation of the National Housing Act, which made an important, indeed an essential contribution.
Of the 190,000 housing units which were started during this period in Quebec, 113,500 represented a value of $1,540 million and were made through the provisions of the National Housing Act; 62,500 represented a value of $900 million in loans granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under agreements with the Quebec Housing Corporation.
As a member from Quebec and from a city ranking second in size and population, this is my opinion on the government's achievements. It seems to me that the federal government and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation contributions to the Quebec Housing Corporation are unfortunately not well enough known and this is why I shall later bring up this subject again.
This figure applies only to housing units. We must add 22,500 hostel units mostly for the elderly and students. If the problem boiled down to housing starts and financing, our industry's capacity and our means would soon solve the issue-if it did exist as such. We do not intend to present it only as a matter of dimension.
The basic problem of housing in Canada stems from geographic and social distribution, so that low income people may benefit from proper housing to the same extent as those in higher brackets. One must also consider the capacity to pay. The National Housing Act and the activities of the CMHC were all directed toward correcting distribution disparities at all levels and in order to minimize the geographic and social disavantages.
I find it very strange, Mr. Speaker, that this motion has been moved by a member of the official opposition, when one considers the present situation in the field of housing for low income people. As a matter of fact, the sum of $306 million was made available to the provinces for public housing in 1971, compared with $7.5 billion a year under the Progressive Conservative government from 1957 to 1963.
Let me correct that, Mr. Speaker, it was $306 million made available to the provinces in 1971 by the present government and only $71 million a year by the Progressive Conservatives from 1957 to 1963.
So this government's performance is better than that of the previous one.
At the regional level, to the extent that, during some years, the activity of conventional lenders or lenders approved under the National Housing Act has decreased, that of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been greatest. During that period, the percentage of all housing starts financed in Quebec by the CMHC, either directly or under agreement with the Quebec Housing Corporation, was 30 per cent, which is higher than the national average.
In the developing regions which are of great importance, as far as the province's future is concerned, the part played by the Corporation, as regards mortgage loans, has been even more important. There are a few places-I am referring to Sept-Iles-where the only avail-
Housing Prices
able loans are those granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Another problem even more complicated than the matter of regional distribution is that of the social distribution of housing. The free market operations were leading us to a surplus of housing units for upper income citizens, and a serious shortage of housing for families in the middle or low-income brackets, in different parts of Canada, in particular in the province of Quebec.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to say that this problem no longer exists, but there is one field in which we are entitled to be proud of the government record, under the National Housing Act, namely, the building of lwo income housing.
Between 1968 and 1971, the orientation of the National Housing Act underwent an overall change. Between 1957 and 1967, commitments in the field of social housing loans and other programs designed for low income families amounted to an average of $50 million, for a total investment of $377 million; in 1971, the funds spent under these budget items totalled $622 million, compared to a total investment of $748 million This means that the proportion of budgetary expenses allotted to social housing, as well as that of low income families, increased from 14 to 80 per cent.
Such a new orientation was not achieved only through instructions. In the field of housing, where the co-operation of all government levels as well as of industry is necessary, it could only be achieved through initiatives and experiences to which all of them took part. Under the federal program of $200 million for the development of low income housing, $72 million are paid to the province of Quebec.
In that respect, I had in my capacity as member for Laval to criticize some projects endorsed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I refer to the famous project Les Abeilles. I also refer to the case of the Residences Richelieu Inc.
But it is my duty today to point out the beneficial achievements of the CMHC in Laval, and on behalf of all those who were victim of Les Abeilles project I wish to thank the government authorities for having considered that problem and having understood the situation by providing the promoters of the project with an adequate solution which met their needs. Actually they were victim of unfortunate circumstances, When we considered the estimates referred to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I raised that question and the minister assured me that such situations will never arise again owing to implementation of different and much better controlled overseeing mechanisms.
In the field of family housing, the Corporation invested, either directly or under agreements with the Quebec Housing Corporation, $153 million for senior citizen housing or special projects. I should like to point out the co-operation of the CMHC with the Quebec Housing Corporation at Ville de Laval where a home for the aged is now under construction; it will cost $2,250,000. The contribution of the federal government will amount to $2,137,500. The building will contain 210 beds.

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
Next Monday, a ceremony will be held to turn the first sod for the construction of the Centre de sejour de Laval, a 332-bed complex that will cost $3,185,350. There again, the federal government will contribute about 90 per cent.
Some situations come to my mind which I should like to mention to the minister, not as criticisms but rather as suggestions. But before making my suggestions, here is the situation in which we live. As for the Quebec Housing Corporation, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that we might have to review the situation.
I have in mind the building of Co-op Habitat, a 352-unit project built with CMHC funds, but through a loan of some $4,589,820 granted by the QHC. These apartments, built in 1958, are still unoccupied.
Here is another very typical case: l'Office d'habitation de Montreal-Nord. Here again, the funds came from the CMHC, but were administered by the Quebec Housing Corporation and the apartments are still unoccupied.
I see that an agreement has been entered into with the provincial government whereby rents for people on welfare, are fixed at special rates. I am referring to the Office d'habitation de Montreal-Nord project, involving 168 units of 31, 41 or 51 rooms. They are meant for people on welfare, and the rents are according to the monthly income of the head of the family. As an example, if the monthly income is $303 to $406, the rent will be $60 a month.
The minimum rent is $41 a month, including various services. It includes electricity, heating, hot water, water tax, the supply of a stove, a refrigerator, a washer and a dryer.
I believe that this measure meets the needs of welfare recipients. The provincial government will contribute 25 per cent of the deficit while the municipality will pay 25 per cent and the federal government 50 per cent.
I suggest therefore that if such a formula were applied to the Co-op Habitat project, at Ville de Laval, we could house families which surely need it.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making a few suggestions regarding transfers of funds from the CMHC to the province of Quebec whose housing funds are administered by the Quebec Housing Corporation. I would point out to the minister that we should review the administrative set-up governing relations between the CMHC and the Quebec Housing Corporation.
The supervision and control should be proportionate to the lender's responsibility, or else, to the monetary contribution. The building of shelters and the loans made by the Quebec Housing Corporation are administered in Quebec by non-profit organizations.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this type of administration by non-profit organizations might lead to some patronage hotbeds that are not always conducive to the best interest of the community. I believe that this honorary type of administration is now obsolete.
It has not always been the most effective, precisely because of lack of interest and motivation, and I would even go as far as to say that the interests at which this policy is directed are not the same.
IMr. Roy (Laval).]
It seems to me, therefore, that the transfer of funds from the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation to the Quebec Housing Corporation should be reviewed. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will be introducing in this House amendments to the National Housing Act. They are the result of in-depth studies made in the past few years and which drew on all the government's resources, as well as researchers from outside. Those amendments have been under constant review, and the initiatives and experiences of the past few years have been assessed. The amendments are designed to facilitate the solving of urban problems, as well as access to homeownership for the class of citizens who are deprived of it.
As a representative from Quebec and from the metropolitan area of that province, I am particularly glad to see that there will be, amongst others, amendments providing for a preferential rate loan system for low-income families, as well as valid tools likely to facilitate the rehabilitation of downtown areas for municipalities, which will represent, for provincial and municipal undertakings, a valuable contribution in this area. There will also be mechanisms for citizens' participation, which will be a first in housing legislation, in Canada as well as in other countries. We have to go further and to provide all the services and equipment which give the community a soul.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) sing the praises of the Liberal government's record in the field of housing I could not help thinking of the saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see". In criticizing my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), supposedly because he was partisan, the minister said-I am not sure that I have the words exactly, but I think basically I paraphrase correctly-"The major concern of this government has been to provide housing for people in the low income bracket".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: The minister applauds, so I must be quoting him correctly. He said that in the last four years the government has built 135,000 housing units for people in the low income bracket. I presume that means public housing and limited dividend housing, Mr. Speaker. Let us assume that the minister's figure is correct. In the last four years we have built close to 850,000 housing units and my rough arithmetic tells me, if the minister's figures are correct, that we have built between 15 per cent and 17 per cent of those housing units for people in the low income bracket. If that is how the government shows major concern, I hate to think how it would act if it were to show no concern at all.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member is all mixed up.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks I am being purely politically partisan, let me refer him to a report-one of six submissions to a task force on low-income housing set up by the former minister-written by
June 2, 1972

a group headed by Professor Melvin Charney, professor of architecture at the University of Montreal. The minister has consistently refused to make public that report.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


David Orlikow: I am not surprised. Never have I seen a report commissioned by a government which is so critical or so hostile to a government or to the agencies of government responsible for housing as the report submitted by Professor Charney. Of course, the minister would like to hide it but he has not been successful. Professor Charney says that nearly half of Canada's people cannot afford decent housing and the situation could get worse.
In the report, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal government's housing agency, is accused of spending the bulk of its annual $1 billion budget on new construction and of almost ignoring renovation of houses for the poor. I will return to the report later. I challenge the minister to table the report so that we can see whether I have summarized it correctly. If the minister is afraid to table the report, as he has been until now, let me summarize-


Mr.   Bastard@: It is not ready.


David Orlikow: The minister says it is not ready. I have it here on my desk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Let me refer to a speech made on December 8, 1971, by W. H. Hignett, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. According to a report before me, Mr. Hignett, speaking to the Toronto Housebuilders Association, said that about 95 per cent of families in metropolitan Toronto cannot afford a new house in spite of record production that probably will top $1 billion in 1971. The report then reads:
To support his contention that builders were not providing enough inexpensive housing, Mr. Hignett noted that in 1962 and 1963 less than 10 per cent of the units produced in Toronto cost more than $20,000.
In 1970, only 10 per cent sold for less than $26,000. About 45 per cent of the houses for sale in that year went for $30,000 or more.
That was said two years ago. I am certain that housing costs in Toronto have risen by at least 15 per cent in the last two years. So the head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has disproved the minister's contention that we are doing well and meeting the housing needs of the Canadian people.
I now want to deal with specific aspects of housing policy in which the government has failed dismally. First, the government suggests that land assembly will be easier when the magic amendments to the housing legislation are brought forward. Mr. Speaker, not a single dollar in the estimates or in capital expenditures relating to Central Mortgage and Housing is set aside for land assembly. Actually, the biggest newspaper in Toronto that has never failed to support the Liberal party during elections- although it may not have done so between elections-the Toronto Star, has called for tri-government co-operation in the field of land assembly and has said that this government has shown absolutely no leadership in the field.
Housing Prices
Why did it say that? In every major city of Canada the development of land is under the virtual control of two or three major developers who work in our cities. For instance, in Toronto the big developers are Greenwin, Cadillac and Meridian; in Ottawa, Minto, Campeau and probably another; in Winnipeg there are three developers, and I am sure this is true in Vancouver.
Since these developers own the major parcels of land which can be developed, they can control the price of land. And land prices are skyrocketing. These developers are making tremendous profits. Increased land prices, of course, are affecting tremendously the cost of potential homes and finished homes. That is one effect. The other effect is this: since large developers control most of the land available for home building, the smaller builders who could compete with them and build homes at better prices are being frozen out.
This has resulted from the government's refusal to heed the appeals of all sorts of people, including the Toronto Star, and make the lead in assembling land for the poor so that the housing needs of people living in our cities can be met. Why does not the minister, who in his previous portfolio was head of the anti-trust division of government, do something? Why does he not consider how these corporations control land prices and housing? Why does he not look at the practices of these developers-practices which have enabled them to eliminate real competition in the building industry? Does the government not care? Or does the minister think that if he does something the developers and builders in question will not contribute to the campaign funds of the Liberal party in the next election?


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


David Orlikow: Professor Charney's report shows in detail that if people on low or moderate incomes want houses, they are better off if they do not buy new houses. The report shows that the program of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has encouraged builders and developers to build new homes. Professor Charney makes crystal clear what the government ought to do, namely, institute programs that will make sure older parts of cities are not destroyed.
Mr. Speaker, as one drives through Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg one sees some of the best homes-old, established homes-being torn down and replaced by cracker-box, high-rise apartments. Why do we not prevent this? Why force people in the moderate income brackets to go 20 or 30 miles from the central part of the city and live in a new development where there are no trees, shrubs or grass? Why not help to preserve the central parts of our cities?
If you go to the Glebe area of Ottawa or to the central part of Toronto, you will see that most houses are still structurally sound. True, they do not meet modern standards in all respects: there is not a bathroom on every floor, and the kitchens lack the number of cupboards that wives want nowadays. There is not room for a dishwasher. Nevertheless, most of these homes could be renovated and remodelled for a moderate amount of money. Why does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation say to mortgage companies, "If a citizen wants to buy a new

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
house in the suburbs, let him make a small down payment and assume a mortgage of $18,000 or $20,000"? Why does the government, or Central Mortgage and Housing not stand behind the person who wants to remodel and modernize his home? That man's house may still be sound. Why can he not borrow, say, $6,000, probably all that is required, and modernize the home in which he is living in the downtown area?
Why does the government not do that? There is no indication in anything the minister has said to indicate that they propose to do it. It would be possible to borrow $5,000 or $6,000 at a reasonable rate of interest if there were some kind of free grant program for families with a low income. Then we would not see the bulldozing and destruction of some of the finest homes in the cities of Canada.
About a year and a half ago I had an opportunity to attend a parliamentary conference in Holland. I was impressed by the housing in the city of Amsterdam. Houses which are several hundred years old are still being lived in; they are being remodelled, refurbished and very adequately meet the needs of the people. The government of this country has the view, and CMHC agrees, that if a house is 35 years old the best thing to do is bring in a bulldozer and demolish it. I completely reject that kind of approach.
I urge the minister and the government to pay attention to the very moderate recommendations in the Charney report so that the central parts of our cities will not be gutted and replaced by high-rise apartments. They are very expensive to rent and are really only adequate for single persons or young, married couples: they do not provide sufficient space or facilities for family life.
There is one more point I wish to deal with in the few moments remaining at my disposal. This government has adopted a principle which is not only impractical but immoral. I refer to the principle they have fostered that every person in Canada should own his own house. The fact is that the majority of people in Canada cannot afford to own their own homes, regardless of which government is in office and what it does to make it attractive to buy your own home.
The majority of people in Canada have an income of less than $6,000 a year. There is no way they can afford to buy their own homes. Therefore, we ought to be seriously thinking about policies which encourage rental housing. I am not talking about apartments in every city of Canada where a one-bedroom apartment rents for $225 a month and a two-bedroom apartment for between $275 and $300. That may be adequate for a businessman, and a Member of Parliament may be able to afford it. But those earning $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year certainly cannot afford to pay that kind of rent.
When you consider that the average family moves between five and seven times in a lifetime, it is idiotic not to have a national policy to encourage rental accommodation. Our encouragement of individual home ownership has made people who rent accommodation second-class citizens. We have no effective policy for rental housing,

not just for those with low incomes but for those with moderate incomes who badly need housing.
The only program which this government has proposed for people with moderate incomes is the program of rental housing under section 15 of the act, namely, limited dividend housing. That program is a complete failure. There are not enough units, the standards are poor, the community facilities are badly located, there are little or no on-site facilities, the on-site planning is atrocious and the rents being charged are exorbitant. The only people who benefit are the builders.


An hon. Member:: What city are you talking about?


David Orlikow: I am talking about Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver or any other city. I invite the minister to come with me and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to look at the limited dividend housing projects that have been built in the St. Boniface constituency. They are a disgrace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is Joe?


David Orlikow: The builders are making a fortune out of these projects. CMHC has no real policy of policing site planning, the design and building standards of limited dividend housing. While designed for moderate income families, this program is so disastrous that it is a bad influence on public housing. People confuse what they see in limited dividend housing projects with low-income housing. Let us do something for people with moderate incomes.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Vote Liberal.


David Orlikow: The minister says "Vote Liberal". I think people have a good deal more sense, now they have seen what the Liberal government has done.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It was just a suggestion.


David Orlikow: I advise this government to step up a program to encourage public housing. In the past 2 i years the government of my province, with the co-operation and financial assistance of the federal government, has built
8,000	public housing units, half of them for senior citizens. It is now possible for an old age pensioner with only his old age pension to get a bachelor apartment in a modern apartment building for as low as $32.50 a month. This is what can be done when governments get into the field of public housing.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to answer one or two of the comments made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) earlier in the debate. As a lawyer who used to do considerable work in the real estate field, I know from experience how important is the question of warranties that the member raised. He mentioned particular problems in Ontario, Sudbury and Deep River.
I asked the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to check into these problems and see if we could get an answer before the debate closed today. I have been informed by them that in Sudbury, where the prob-
June 2, 1972

lem involves only 20 houses or thereabouts, CMHC has met with the builder and that considerable improvements have been made as a result of this intervention. As far as we know, the people there are satisfied with the improvements made by the builder. With regard to Deep River, to the knowledge of CMHC there was only one complaint. Here again, CMHC has intervened and the builder has done additional work.
I think we should debate the question of high interest rates at some other time, perhaps when we consider Bill C-209 in the next week or so. We could then consider the idea of the hon. member for Broadview that the interest rate should be 6 per cent. I believe every member of the House would agree it is desirable that the rate should be 6 per cent or less, as long as we can be sure that sufficient money would be going into the investment market from the private sector to enable the houses we need to be built.
The hon. member for Broadview did not tell us how much he thought it would cost in subsidies to reduce the rate to 6 per cent, nor did he give us his ideas as to the way in which sufficient moneys could be secured from the private market if the rate were 6 per cent. Perhaps he will do so when the bill to which I have referred comes up for consideration.
No member of the government or no member of the House need apologize for the extent to which the National Housing Act has served the people of Ontario during the past four years in which this government has been in office. The National Housing Act during this period has financed and made possible the construction of more than
200.000	homes and more than 20,000 hostel beds for the elderly and students, for a total investment of more than $3,100 million. People in all parts of Ontario in all income ranges, both young and old, have been given the opportunity as never before to provide themselves or be provided with decent housing accommodation.
Of this total investment, more than $1 billion was made available by the federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to provide 70,000 homes for families of low income and other disadvantaged people, together with 16,500 hostel beds for our elderly people and our students. In the field of subsidized public housing alone, funds have been provided for nearly
40.000	deserving families in 73 Ontario communities, requiring an investment of $500 million and continuing support for subsidy payments in the amount of $20 million a year.
The needy of my province have been served to an extent never before though possible, and may I remind hon. members that more housing has been built for low-income families in Ontario during the past four years than in the whole of Canada for the previous quarter-century. The housing record of this government is one of which I am very proud and this pride is shared by all members on this side of the House. This is by no means the full story. The federal government has provided through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation $150 million in 74 Ontario communities for new sewage treatment facilities, the assembly of land for housing purposes and the implementation or urban renewal programs.
Housing Prices
Let me return to the subject of public housing. We are not only concerned about the rapid expansion of the public housing program to meet the needs of the elderly and families who through no fault of their own do not have access to the products of private enterprise; we are equally concerned about the nature of the housing provided and about its integration into the total community. We are not only concerned about new housing, as important as this may be; we are also concerned about the proper use of the existing housing stock.
In Ontario we provide to the province financial support for the payment of rent supplement subsidies to families to allow them to gain access to private accommodation suitable for their needs. We have shown, and will continue to demonstrate, our willingness to provide every possible opportunity for our needy families to secure good housing. Only yesterday it was announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) that a rent supplement program for Ontario for 1972 has been approved which will provide assistance to 1,100 Ontario families to be placed in privately-owned rental accommodation. This is another example of three levels of government working closely with the private sector to provide accommodation for those in desperate need.
There has been much talk in some quarters about the so-called abandonment of the urban renewal program. May I remind hon. members that during the last two years the federal government has made contributions to urban renewal programs at a higher level than in any preceding years. This has meant that in my province grants of more than $26 million have been made. A good example of the changing atmosphere of urban renewal is the Trafann Court project in Toronto where the citizens of the area have worked jointly with the city of Toronto to achieve a project acceptable to both the residents of the area and the city.
In general, however, urban renewal as it has been practiced in Canada has been less than perfect. Too often urban renewal meant the destruction of housing occupied by low-income families, to be replaced by large public or private commercial enterprises. Too often have the people who live in urban renewal areas suffered hardship because of the nature of the urban renewal process, and not often enough have the people directly affected by urban renewal had anything to say about the process that affects their daily life in such an important way. Far from abandoning the inner cities, we have been striving to find ways of improving the circumstances of those who live there, without the distortion, degradation and hardship of urban renewal.
As the minister has stated, there will be introduced into this House very soon a proposal relating to the improvement of residential neighbourhoods. This program will provide assistance for homeowners and tenants alike to bring substandard housing in residential neighbourhoods up to a decent, safe and adequate standard. Assistance will be provided in respect of sites for housing for those of low and moderate income and for the provision of open space and land for a wide variety of community facilities. A substantial portion of the capital cost of neighbourhood, recreation and social facilities such as day-care centres, drop-in centres and multi-service centres, will be

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
provided by the federal government. Assistance will also be provided for the improvement of normal municipal services and the removal of noxious uses in residential areas.
Perhaps just as important as the improvements that will take place in housing and all other facilities in neighbourhood improvement areas will be the part that the citizens themselves will play. The residents of such areas will be involved in the identification of neighbourhoods, the planning for action and the implementation of the plan. This, we believe, is the proper way to deal with our cities.
It is our intention to conserve the residential neighbourhoods which play an important part in the lives of our citizens. It is our intention to upgrade substandard housing to decent, adequate levels, and I for one am confident that this kind of action will halt the deterioration of residential neighbourhoods into the slum conditions which plague urban places. So let us not talk about urban renewal in old and outdated terms; let us talk about the things we can and will do to improve the lives of our inner city residents.
A great many concerned Canadians, both inside and outside this House, are worried about the rapidly increasing cost of residential land in many communities. The National Housing Act has for many years provided assistance to provinces and municipalities for the assembly of land for residential purposes-indeed, the federal government has provided more than $30 million for this purpose in Ontario during the past four years, which has met every request that the province has made for such funds.
We recognize that public intervention in land banking and the assembly of land may well have a beneficial effect on residential land cost. We shall be introducing legislation to broaden the provisions of the act to make it possible for provinces and municipalities to play an active part in providing land, not only for our growing urban areas but for new communities. We are not naive enough to think that this can be done with a revolving fund of $100 million as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in a recent speech in Toronto. I assure him that much more is needed and much more will be provided than a revolving fund of $100 million for land banking purposes. I can assure the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), who may be speaking next, that there will be lots of money in the fund.
All members know that the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes and the international section of the St. Lawrence River are in Ontario. Members know, as well, that this government has entered into an agreement with the province of Ontario which will provide for a concerted effort to eliminate the pollution in the lower Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. This Canada-Ontario agreement is part of a larger Canada-United States agreement whereby the province of Ontario, the government of Canada, the states bordering the Great Lakes and the United States government can jointly eliminate pollution from this great asset.
It has been agreed that the government of Canada will provide during the next five years $165 million in loans to the province of Ontario and Ontario communities border-

ing these waters, of which $42 million will be forgiven as soon as the work is completed. This, of course, is in addition to the work being done in other Ontario communities for which loans of more than $90 million have been made under the National Housing Act by this government during the last four years, and of which $22.5 million was forgiven.
Despite the record-for which no apology is needed- this government is not afraid of innovation. During the past three years the federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has invested more than $300 million in innovative projects to find new ways of serving Canadians better. We have experimented on a large scale with assisting lower income people to become homeowners, and we have found ways of providing home ownership to thousands of Canadian families who had no hope of finding housing through the private market mechanism. We will be hearing more about this program as the days go by.
We have found ways to serve old and unattached men and others who require rooming-house accommodation in urban areas. The Braida high-rise rooming-house project on Sherbrooke Street, Toronto, is an example of this. We have worked diligently with native groups, both Metis and Indians, to seek ways of assisting them to solve their housing problems. We have supported co-operative housing societies and will continue to seek new ways of making these more effective. We have worked with citizen groups, non-profit housing corporations and the building industry to examine every possible proposal that holds promise of serving Canadians better.
Some of these activities have involved risks that private enterprise simply cannot take and because of this not all experimentation has been successful: experimentation involves risk. But as a result of this experience and far reaching studies into the housing problems of the defenseless will come the most enlightened proposals for amendment to the National Housing Act that have been seen in this House for a generation.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, in the past 25 years Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs have built about 250,000 housing units for the 1,-
500,000	low-income families in this country. It has therefore met less than one-sixth of the need, and some of the units were not well conceived nor well built.
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), who although not in his seat may be behind the curtains, mentioned earlier in this debate that nowhere in Toronto had he seen any limited dividend housing projects that were not satisfactory in every respect. I should like to direct to his attention the Richmond Square project which lies between Richmond Street West and Queen Street West at Niagara, in my riding. There is a $2 million complex standing idle since last April when it sank about a foot into the ground, causing a depression 13 storeys high which the local people call the "Trudeau depression". That is just one example of what limited dividend housing has done for the landscape in Toronto.
I understand that Professor Charney in his report says something to the effect that the Main Square project at Danforth and Main Street, which is close to the riding of
June 2, 1972

the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), consists of units so small that they are something in the nature of cages. These are the kind of results government programs are producing and which are being eulogized today by the hon. member for York Centre and the parliamentary secretary. However, I do want to say that I believe the parliamentary secretary made a much better speech today than did the minister.
We are told that since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has proposed a $100 million revolving land bank fund for the country, the amount has been upped by the government and that will probably make the fund $500 million. I do not know the precise amount, but apparently it will be sizeable. I wonder how responsible the government is being in this respect, in view of the fact that its estimated budget for the current year is over $16 billion without supplementaries. I do not think there is any provision made in the estimates at the moment for these hundreds of millions of dollars. However, the government must take responsibility for this, as it will have to take responsibility for the consequences of its poor financial management of the affairs of this country.
There is no denying the fact that ours is materially one of the richest countries of the world. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living and although we are not selfsufficient in every respect we are becoming increasingly so. Yet strangely enough we have a dire shortage of decent housing for the low-income and poor people of this country. As former speakers have made clear today, people in all parts of Canada are living in substandard housing. Many still live in log cabins, tarpaper shacks, former streetcars, buses and the like. This type of substandard housing is a disgrace and many people who are in this situation have little hope for the future. In general, their income is not sufficient to permit them to make a large down payment on a home and to assume heavy mortgage payments.
Since the need for housing is not decreasing but increasing, something must be done to alleviate this situation. I hope that the puffing by the minister this afternoon means that his amendments will cover the whole problem, not just another fraction of it. I also hope that the amendments will deal substantially with the rehabilitation of homes. In this respect I should like to draw to the attention of the minister an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Toronto Star of Monday, May 29 last by the well known columnist and able panelist, Miss Dian Cohen. She writes the following under the heading "Several questions":
The decision to recognize the need for rehabilitation as well as for new construction is long overdue. So-called "low-cost" housing projects have cost the public purse as much as $15,000 a unit in past years. Restoration costs run around $2,500 to $3,000 a unit.
But if the new policy is to succeed in producing more, higher quality housing for the poor, several questions have still to be answered.
First, will rehabilitation of existing housing be accompanied by rent controls, a freeze on assessment rates and a guarantee of purchasing adjacent land to prevent speculation? Will landlords be compelled to take advantage of government subsidized loans in order to restore their property?
Second, will low cost housing-like the unemployed-continue to be the unfortunate side effect of restrictive economic policies?
Housing Prices
As long as the housing industry is at the mercy of government whim, there can be no lasting solution to the problem of adequate housing for low-income groups.
To these two questions I should like to add a third. Will the size of the units of low-cost housing be increased so they will be reasonably large enough to satisfy the needs of human beings? It is not only the people in the low-income brackets who are feeling the income pinch; more and more people are finding that housing is taking an ever increasing share of their income. Young married couples working as professionals are also finding it difficult to purchase and set up new homes.
By the year 2000 it is expected that 94 per cent of Canada's population will live in urban areas. In view of this, the comment in the Speech from the Throne of February 17, 1972, that "One essential is the provision of adequate housing of high standards to all Canadians" becomes all the more imperative; yet the government has failed to do anything about that situation up to now. It promises to do it tomorrow, but from what we have seen of this government, much of the time tomorrow never comes.
In 1969 the average cost in Canada of a detached, three-bedroom bungalow was $20,831. By 1970 this has risen to $22,422. These figures conceal a great deal, for they are averages and as such conceal, even though they are appalling enough, the inordinately high cost of homes in areas such as Toronto where an average home costs considerably more than $22,422. In Toronto, which is perhaps the most expensive place in Canada to buy a house, the average price for new and resale houses is now in the $32,000 range. This is an increase of 5 per cent over the 1971 average.
Home buyers are facing higher borrowing costs as well as higher prices for houses. Right now, prime conventional house loans on good urban properties carry interest rates of 9 per cent to 9.5 per cent. In addition, National Housing Act mortgages generally cost 9 J per cent. It is the responsibility of this government to lower these interest rates.
During the 1968 election campaign a great deal was said about urban affairs. The leaders of the Liberal party poured forth many commitments in this respect. Interest rates were to be kept reasonably low, land costs were to be kept as low as possible and a concerted effort would be made to attract more investment in mortgages. What we have in 1972, after four years of non-government, is ridiculously high land costs, mortgage interest rates which are unacceptably high, closq to 10 per cent, and a desperate need for investment in the mortgage field.
This House has been constantly told that dynamic new policies are under consideration, but I recall that after one of its former cabinet ministers completed his task force study on housing the entire matter was more or less shelved. I suggest it is time for members opposite to take concrete and dynamic initiatives with regard to housing and urban affairs.
There are three main avenues which the government may follow to reach the goal of giving some relief to homeowners and potential homeowners. The first of these

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
is the tax system, the second is actual expenditure of federal funds and the third is new legislation dealing with building codes. It is possible for the government to give a great deal of relief to homeowners and would-be homeowners through the tax system. Parliament might, for example, grant homeowners a tax credit on their personal income taxes equal to their property taxes, or a portion thereof if the government wants to be miserly about it. Also worthy of consideration is the idea of granting homeowners a tax credit equal to the sum of their mortgage interest or, again, a portion of it. Home improvements might also be considered as being an alternative tax deductible expense.
New tax sharing agreements might also be considered. Under our constitution, the federal government has almost unlimited taxing powers and they certainly know how to use them. The federal-provincial tax sharing agreements sire signs that the federal power has responded to the obvious need for sharing its funds. Perhaps it is time this sharing was extended to include municipalities across Canada. At the present time municipalities are the poor boys of the three levels of government. The taxes available to them are highly inelastic and completely inadequate for their needs. I would suggest to this House it is time for us to seriously consider the possibility of direct federal-municipal tax sharing agreements with the consent of the provinces. I admit there are numerous constitutional difficulties, but if the problem is approached with common sense and good will I am sure these difficulties could be resolved.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where are they going to get the common sense?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: The minister seems to think he would be able to persuade Mr. Bourassa to keep the conference in November at the three-level rather than the two-level which Mr. Bourassa apparently prefers at this time. Perhaps there is some hope. The second avenue of federal expenditure involves the actual expenditure of federal funds. A great deal of research needs to be done in the area of building techniques in this country. I believe the federal government should provide more funds for research and facilities in this field. It is just not good enough to have a National Builders' Association subsidized to build a few experimental homes in places it selects. What is required is a new federal program designed to experiment with many new innovative building techniques for homes and apartments, better control over prime and subcontractors, with better inspection and soil testing.
The third avenue I mentioned is that of new legislation dealing with building codes. An obvious need exists for a new, modern national building code which while taking into account climatic and other differences among the various regions of Canada will standardize building codes across the country. It is only in this way that the Canadian housing industry will be able to take the fullest and most complete advantage of modern industrial techniques of manufacture and assembly.
As well as the three major avenues of development which I have mentioned there are numerous other matters the government should be examining. Recently the government introduced Bill C-209, the residential mortgage

financing bill, which it feels will work some type of miracle cure for the maladies presently being suffered by our housing industry. I do not think it will achieve this. However, I do not intend to fully criticize the bill at this time because I will probably speak in the debate when the legislation is before the House.
I believe that before the government involves itself in the setting up of new financial institutions, it should fully investigate, evaluate and assist in the rehabilitation of existing housing, the maintenance of existing housing, neighbourhood improvement and setting up of serviced and unserviced land banks.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are stealing my speech.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: We hope this will all come to pass, but after four years we are a little skeptical and have to take some of these things with a grain of salt. We will know after the amendments have been introduced by the minister whether they will cover the whole picture or whether they will be just a fractional solution.
The combination of down payment, monthly mortgage payment, upkeep and service payments and tax payments has greatly increased over the past decade and this has sufficed to place the cost of new housing far beyond the reach of many. Why, then, is there little rehabilitation of our existing stock of housing? There are numerous reasons for this. I hope the rehabilitation provisions will be used to a far greater extent and prove of more utility than the existing situation under the National Housing Act.
Frequently, older homeowners take the view that their homes will, with a minimum of upkeep, satisfy them for the remainder of their days. Home improvement is not attractive to them. Improved property attracts increased property taxes, as an added price for keeping up the fabric and appearance of a dwelling. It is in this area that the federal government could do much by allowing tax credits on net personal income for either the cost of home improvements or the net increase in property taxes resulting from home improvements.
As well, the government should extend National Housing Act provisions to make federal grants and loans available for rehabilitation of existing dwellings. Financial assistance should be on an individual basis according to the income of the family or landlord and the condition of the house to be rehabilitated. The government should also be taking concrete steps with regard to neighbourhood improvement. For almost four years now the government has been dilly-dallying with programs which would best aid municipalities to improve the environment. I hope it has now solved the problem. The previous urban renewal program was prematurely curtailed. At that time it was indicated that a new form of urban assistance directed mainly at the improvement of housing and living conditions would be brought in shortly. As yet we have seen nothing. Once again the efficiency and sincerity of this government is questioned.
Not only does the government desperately need to introduce programs aimed at housing and living conditions, but it must also introduce a program of priorities to tackle such problems as improper land use, inadequate
June 2, 1972

street patterns and shopping facilities, transportation, poor government housekeeping and social services. The federal and provincial governments are responsible for setting proper priorities within their fiscal resource plans. Where are these plans? Every year the estimates increase and each year there are the same complaints of the inadequate social program* of this government. Adequate resources should be provided by this government, available to municipalities on a continuing basis for conservation, improvement and redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods and newly created ones. This should be done in a way that would protect our past and prevent slums.
Conservation and improvement of neighbourhoods for low and moderate income residential neighbourhoods is especially important in facilitating the involvement of neighbourhood residents to plan and implement. The present government thus far has failed to introduce a social plan that would preserve neighbourhoods. It is time a program was introduced to make grants and loans available, within a ceiling, to local neighbourhoods.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth).


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks for your allowing me to take part in this debate because I have looked forward to it for some time. In bringing this matter before Parliament for public debate through an opposition motion, we hoped we would receive constructive help from the government and a constructive indication of what the program would be. As usual and as might have been anticipated, government members, the minister included, have dwelt on their accomplishments in this field. They indicated, as usual, that Canadians have never had it so good. Also as is usual with an upcoming election, they promise tremendous amendments in respect of this very serious problem. This is not good enough. This is not the type of action the people of Canada want from this or any other government so far as housing is concerned.
Listening to speakers from the government benches, one would almost believe they do not realize how serious this problem is and how many Canadians it affects at all levels, low-income, middle-income and even upper-income. Something must be radically wrong with the economic environment of a country when the government calmly assumes that a person earning under $8,000 a year has no business attempting to own his own home and, calmly assumes that young people should be tied up financially for 40 years in an attempt to pay for a home.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you were as impressed and awed by the figures put on the record as I was. They indicated that people who buy and attempt to pay for their homes will pay four times over before they have met their obligation. This situation will not be tolerated in Canada. We will have more improvisations which will cause more difficulty than we have at the present time.
I was not at all impressed when the minister told us the number of homes which have been constructed. If I heard him correctly, he said that this year 230,000 starts would be made. He did not indicate how many units the depart-
Housing Prices
ment and the people of Canada decree as the absolute minimum which must be built every year. He did not say that in the last four years we have fallen behind the
100,000	starts which is the minimum needed. This is why the type of facts and figures placed on the record by government members can be misleading: they do not tell the story.
When they talk about accomplishments, the accomplishments are not enough when people cannot have a place to live in this country of ours. When my associates talk about the necessity for further construction and meaningful consultation among the three levels of government, this certainly is what is needed. What we see now is the development of land for mobile homes. We see trailers being set up in the back yards of existing homes and alongside existing houses. This compounds the problem in respect of sewage disposal, ecology, schools and so on.
Some of these houses are actually in gravel pits. As my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), pointed out, some people actually live in converted buses, trailers and in even worse conditions. When we tolerate such a situation in Canada something is totally wrong and must be corrected. We cannot wait for amendments which may come some time in the future. This is not good enough. This government has been in office through two Parliaments and has had an opportunity to improve the housing situation in Canada. It has not done so. What is the alternative?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not you.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister says it is not me. I assume he means my party.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Nothing personal.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, my party and my colleagues feel that the approaches taken by this government are no different than those taken through the years which have proven to be ineffective. That is our objection. We feel there should be a brand new approach. If this government can allocate up to $1,000 million for the creation of a new international airport, with all it means to the environment and the surrounding country, the small municipalities and towns and everything that goes with it, is it not true that we could spend the same amount of money on creating new municipalities where they are needed?
When we think that today we are creating uranium factories and plants for the creation of energy in the form of electricity, and that these plants must be built on the side of large bodies of water to get rid of excess energy in the form of heat, does it not seem logical, plausible and practical to build such plants as the source and centre of a municipality and to use all this extra energy to provide heat and energy for our housing developments? Does it not seem plausible that when we have to construct networks of roads and railroads and services for these types of plants, they should be utilized also for the development of municipalities?
Does it not seem plausible and practical that we should take some of our submarginal land for this type of estab-

June 2, 1972
Housing Prices
lishment and create the services necessary to develop satellite cities or communities where people could live, instead of using arable land which is and will be so necessary for the production of food in the future?
We have to look at new policies and new ways of construction. We cannot forever put people in high-rise apartments, because they cannot stand this type of living: it does not appeal to all people. We are running into problems when we talk of land banks. We must have land to create the necessary space for building because we cannot have people living elbow to elbow without trouble. We can no longer tolerate the program that has been followed, where valuable farmlands surrounding existing municipalities have been tied up by local provincial and federal regulations, land which the owners cannot develop, land which is held in limbo and which could be utilized for agricultural purposes until such time as it may be designated for domestic or industrial use.
The answer lies in the creation of a land bank over which we would have absolute control and for which we would be responsible. This government proposes to tie up this land, the value of which is increasing every year because of the necessity of expanding our housing. Its present owners, the farmers, will have to pay a tremendous amount of income tax or capital gains tax and will not be able to profit from the development of their own land. The speculators will profit from it, not the owners.
Does it not seem right and justified that we should have a government department take possession of this land and do two things: guarantee a fair price for the land to the householder and a fair profit to the original owner of the land? We need an ordinary, common sense approach to housing, but we are not getting it. There is something wrong.
Some weeks ago I visited a new housing development because I was interested. I walked into the office where they were offering new houses for sale. There was a young couple in front of me. They were asking for reassessment of their payments. They were paying $186 a month on their house and after three years of this they had paid only $69 on the principal-all the rest of it had been taken up in expenses, insurance and interest. How would they ever be able to afford a house? This is what is wrong with the housing program of this government and I cannot understand why they cannot see it.


John Gilbert: These are your financial mechanisms.


Harold Warren Danforth: What concerns me is that the minister seems more interested in asking people to read his speeches than jn directing a policy of his party that will solve this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: The finest speech in the world will not solve this problem. We must have a policy, and we cannot have policies that follow the same old line because they do not work. This has been proved. We must go out in new directions, and I say that the time to do so is now. Is it not a strange country in which we live, where people are desperate for houses and are living in tents while under

the agricultural policy of the government farmhouses are being abandoned and are falling into decay because there is no one to use them?
The taxes on farm property are so high that the farmers cannot afford to maintain their dwellings. Houses are being torn down, burned down or they fall down at a time when they are desperately needed in Canada. And the government is not even aware of this fact! My colleague has brought my attention to instances in Canada of property owners taking the roofs off their houses so they will not have to pay taxes on them. This is the situation when people are in desperate need of houses.


An hon. Member:: Don't believe everything he says.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is not a question of believing, it is a question of grieving and this government does not see it. You cannot be proud of a record when people are without houses in Canada. We are talking about an affluent society, yet people live in garrets where normally you would not even keep an animal. Out of desperation people live there because they have to have a roof over their heads. This is what is going on in Canada today, and yet you talk about the record of this government. I would like to have time to talk about the record of the government.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead; you have ten more minutes.


Harold Warren Danforth: We could get right back to a request that has been made by my party and by other parties on this side of the House, for the government to relieve the costs borne by householders directly by removing the sales tax on building materials. This action would make it possible immediately for householders at any level to buy a house at a cheaper price. But the government will not even consider this.
We have heard them speak about putting millions of dollars into a land bank, yet they tell us they cannot remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials because it might cost a few million dollars. Legislation is needed immediately to help these people. It will be a crying shame and a scandal if the government has held off this necessary legislation simply in a desperate attempt to win the next election. This is contemptible, but it is what we have to expect. There has been lots of time to bring in legislation. The government sets up the legislative program for Parliament; it is the government that brings in measures, not the opposition. Why have we not dealt with this problem until now?
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this subject today because I think it is time the public of Canada knew who is at fault. This government talks about leadership.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What a joke.


Harold Warren Danforth: They cannot even make a speech unless it is written by someone in the department. What kind of leadership is this?


Stanley Ronald Basford: How is your research staff?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, our researcn staff is just dandy. They were able to prove to us that the situation is
June 2, 1972

far worse than we even suspected. I am delighted to find this out, but I feel sorry for the householders of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister's staff tells him the same thing.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is time we had a government in Canada that brought in policies. They talk about something that is new, something that is daring, something that is invigorating, something that is a challenge-but if they brought one new policy into this Parliament it would be a first for them. They talk about their record. They had an opportunity to run on their record, and they have not done it.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the problems of the people of Canada. Members on the government benches may laugh, but among the citizens of this country the matter is most serious. The idea that a young couple has to postpone marriage because there is no place to live, the idea that people cannot afford a home even though they may earn $6,000 a year, is a tragedy in Canada. The idea that old age pensioners cannot find a home at any price because there is no low-cost housing available to them, is criminal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we like to feel we can be proud of Canada and the way Canadians are treated. This is the way we should feel. But no member in this House on either side can justifiably feel proud of our housing policy. It is criminal, it is tragic, it does not meet the needs of the people and the really sad thing is that every month the situation grows worse. We are producing less units every year than the minimum needed, and the cost is increasing as is the interest rate. It is a tragedy that is growing even more tragic, and I think we will all rue the day when the government brought in what they consider to be their housing policy.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain this afternoon I would urge the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) to assume, in his new capacity, the activist role that he played so well in his other responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope he will do better than he did on the price of drugs.


Ian Watson: The activist role I would urge for the minister, Mr. Speaker, would have the CMHC play a role not simply of a passive lender, which appears to have been its role so far in the province of Quebec, but a role where it would use its power as a lender to force upon municipalities the kind of reform that I feel is essential if we are to protect our local municipal taxpayers.
In my constituency there is a rising population. It is now the second largest in the province of Quebec, with a
Housing Prices	[DOT]
population of 131,000. This has meant a tremendous expansion in housing in the last few years. This expansion along the south shore of the St. Lawrence opposite Montreal has been as a result of direct CMHC loans and NHA guarantees and, more recently, the CMHC sponsored low and moderate cost housing. But this federal input has not been reflected in any visible improvement in local planning or in the amount of space set aside for green areas, recreation areas or park areas. On the municipal financing side, Mr. Speaker, this growth has been accompanied by a disastrous deterioration in the finances of most of the local municipalities, with the result that in one or two communities which I represent, taxes on a $12,000 or $14,000 house are in the $800, $900 per year range.
What is happening now is that because of this chaotic and terrible local municipal financing, the low-cost and direct loan housing which formerly was within reach of a very large segment of the population, is being forced out of the reach of the very people it was designed to help. The major cause of this poor municipal financing is the practice which is still tolerated by the Quebec department of municipal affairs of allowing municipalities to not incorporate into the cost of house lots all municipal costs associated with such lots. I mean not only roads, sidewalks, water and sewage costs but also lighting, police, fire, recreation and administrative services. In most parts of North America and in Ontario I understand the practice is followed of capitalizing all costs into housing. The cost of all these services, actual and anticipated, is capitalized and forms part of the cost of the lot. Although the lot costs more initially if it is financed by CMHC, it is spread over the loan period and municipal taxpayers do not end up having taxes increased to pay for the cost, largely hidden, of every new subdivision and housing development.
The minister indicated today that he is proposing to bring in some NHA changes soon. But I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that these changes will not benefit the people they should help, the long suffering municipal taxpayers, unless-in my province at least-the condition is attached for CMHC loans and NHA guarantees that would require intelligent municipal financing for new development. This must include the capitalization of all costs associated with new development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
25316-55}

Monday. June S, 1972