1972-03-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Since the age of 13, with my heart and soul I have believed in and supported the Liberal party and its leaders. This innermost feeling has now petered out. With no regrets I have come to the conclusion that I cannot continue my support of this government and ask that I be seated across the floor with the official opposition as a Progressive Conservative member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: This is the beginning of the landslide.


An hon. Member:: Watch them come now.


Mr. Paproski:: The Polish members have to stick together.


An hon. Member:: Send over the other 19.


George Harris Hees: This is going to be like those one-a day vitamins.


Mr. Cullen:: Lots of luck, fellows.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Questions on order paper.
Mr. Speaker:: Questions on the order paper. Order, please. The Chair has called questions on the order paper. Shall the questions stand?


Mr. Trudeau:: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, in all the ruckus I did not hear you call motions-


An hon. Member:: Are you coming over?


George Harris Hees: Here comes No. 2.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I would like to table-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a suggestion by the right hon. Prime Minister that although we have gone beyond the order of motions he be allowed to table a document. Is this agreed?


Mr. Stanfield:: In view of the difficulties the right hon. gentleman is having, Mr. Speaker, I think we should cooperate with him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am happy to hear that because I have another statement to make on motions and therefore I am sure I will have agreement.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of letters which I sent to the provincial premiers concerning federal proposals on payment of family allowances.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Prime Minister also has a statement to make on motions.



STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON SECURITY OF MAIL AND TELEPHONES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Yukon asked whether the government is "aware of any practice or policy in government departments whereby personal and private mail directed to members of parliament from government employees, using the internal mailing facilities of the department, is intercepted and examined by departmental or any other security personnel." The hon. member asked whether in the case of unsigned correspondence there is any procedure "subjecting the envelopes and contents to fingerprint and other identification tests."
I want to tell hon. members categorically that there is no such government policy. Inquiries have been made of the RCMP on my behalf and I have been given positive assurance that nothing of the kind is done by the RCMP or on its behalf either in security work or in connection with criminal investigation. I am not aware of any such practice in any government department or agency and certainly there is no policy or direction in that regard. I should be astonished to learn that anything of the kind is going on anywhere. Frankly, I do not believe it is. If the hon. member has any evidence that it is in fact occurring, I think he has a clear responsibility, especially since he has raised this matter and given rise to widespread specula-

March 13, 1972
House of Commons
tion. It is his responsibility to give such evidence to me or to the Solicitor General.


Mr. Forrestall:: What can you provide?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are you babbling about?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not babbling. You are waffling.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he can provide such evidence, I can assure him and this House that an immediate and thorough investigation will be made.
The hon. member for Mackenzie also raised a question on Friday with regard to the telephones of Members of Parliament. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the telephone services of members of parliament come within your own jurisdiction. So far as the government is concerned may I say, as categorically as in the case of the question relating to private mail, that there is no policy or practice by the government or by the RCMP to interfere in any way whatsoever with the telephones of members of parliament. If any hon. member has any evidence that such a thing is occurring, I would again think it is his responsibility to provide such evidence-in this case, I assume, to you, Mr. Speaker. The government would be glad to make any investigation that such evidence would suggest to be necessary or desirable.
Finally, the hon. member for the Yukon asked about long distance calls of members of parliament to and from constituents. The flat denials I have just made as to policy or practice by the government or by the RCMP in relation to members' telephones apply equally to long distance calls. There is no recording of any kind of which I am aware and certainly there is no policy of the kind the hon. member has suggested.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the reference that I made to the Acting Prime Minister while the Prime Minister was away last Friday was not merely to telephone calls to and from members' offices involving constituents but long-distance telephone calls generally. With respect to the practice I alluded to last Friday the Prime Minister has said that the RCMP have assured him that no such practice or policy exists. But he says nothing about the security policy that exists within departments and which I believe to be part of the new security arrangements of the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) that were implemented a short while ago.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to stand in his place and say to an hon. member who raises such a question that it is the member's clear responsibility to advance evidence, either to himself or to other members of the government, for the purpose of investigation or remedial action. But, Sir, what would happen if that were done?


Mr. Hogarth:: Better fish or cut bait.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the interjection by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Fish or cut bait.


Erik Nielsen: It is all very well for members opposite and for the Prime Minister to say that it is the clear responsibility of a member to adduce evidence. However, were that to be done-


Mr. Stafford:: Four years ago you said that a hundred times.


Erik Nielsen: -were that to be done the source of information, if it were a government source, would be fired, and fired immediately, and the Prime Minister knows that. He would dearly love to know the source of the leakage of the Gray report and the source of the leakage of documents concerning the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but if that source were to be disclosed it would mean the immediate dismissal of that civil servant.
I do not accept the Prime Minister's assurance that these practices are not being followed because my source is much too highly placed to be wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond motions. The House gave unanimous consent to reverting to motions to permit the right hon. Prime Minister to table documents and also to make a statement. My understanding was that we were then to go on to other items of business. But again with unanimous consent, if hon. members want to revert to motions to deal with other matters I have no objection. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I rise on a point of order because of the interjection from the other side of the House only to say that if the House leader wants to move a motion let him do it himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. The House will now go on to the next item, questions on the order paper.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Look into it-12 days late?']
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Introduction of bills. Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Mr. Speaker-

March 13, 1972



[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Ryan: 1.	Does the CMHC loan to Victoria Wood Development Corporation Limited cover 95 per cent of the lending value of the low-cost rental part of the Main Square Development?
2.	What amount of the CMHC total loan to Victoria Wood is earmarked for low-cost housing, and what amount is for other housing and commercial parts of the complex?
3.	Does the loan cover 95 per cent of the lending value of the commercial part and the non-low cost housing part and, if not, what percentage?
4.	What will be the total number of low rental apartment units in the Main Square Development and what amount per apartment unit is CMHC loaning to Victoria Wood?
5.	Was any effort made by the government to involve a Canadian majority-owned and controlled development company in the development of Main Square at any stage of negotiations?
6.	Is the Main Square Development leased by Victoria Wood to CMHC under terms that guarantee that CMHC will always pay sufficient rent to meet the mortgage payments?
7.	What are the full terms of such lease?
8.	Did CMHC investigate the possibility of having a Canadian majority-owned and controlled company manage the Main Square Development?
9.	What methods were used to select a manager for the Main Square Development, and what are the terms of the management agreement?
10.	Prior to or after the granting of the CMHC loan for Main Square were the plans altered to provide more housing units for tenants with school-age children and, if so, for what number of children was accommodation increased over the original estimate?
11.	What amounts have been advanced to Victoria Wood by CMHC, when were such advances made, and what amount remains to be advanced?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: 1,
2,	3, 4. The CMHC loan to Victoria Wood Development Corporation Limited covers 921 per cent of the lending value of the project. The total loan approved for the project is $13,774,000, with the loan attributable to the housing component being $12,685,000. A specific number of the housing units is not earmarked for low-income housing. The total number of housing units in the development is 1,080, with the average loan per unit being $12,753.
5. Victoria Wood had control of the Main Square site when it made application to CMHC for a loan. CMHC was not therefore in a position to involve anyone else.
6 and 7. The terms of the lease, within a contract between CMHC and Victoria Wood, are part of the arrangements between borrower and lender and are therefore confidential.
8.	Management by Victoria Wood was part of the proposal submitted to and accepted by CMHC. Having assured itself that the total proposal, including management arrangements, was satisfactory, CMHC had no occasion to explore alternative arrangements.
9.	See 6 and 7 above.
10.	The number of bedrooms in the project is exactly the same as it was when the project was first presented for CMHC's consideration.
11.	See 6 and 7 above.


Mr. Laprise: What projects have been planned by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Abitibi for the fiscal year 1972-73?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Location
Amos
Cadillac
Chapais
Chibougamau
Duparquet
Fort Chimo
Project
Repairs to fence
Repairs to landscaping
Replacement of drinking fountain
Remove furnace
Interior painting
Interior painting
Exterior painting and fence
Remove furnace
Other
Interior painting Exterior painting Toilet ventilation Asphalt resurfacing Interior painting Remove furnace
Modern electric heating in night lobby Other
La Sarre Macamic Malartic
Normetal
Senneterre
Taschereau Val d'Or
Exterior painting and fence Repairs to stairs and sidewalk Remove furnace Other
Exterior painting and fence
Backyard lighting
Repointing
Remove furnace
Fence painting
Painting fence
New emergency door
New Post Office building
Painting fence
Asphalt resurfacing


LUNENBURG, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING FENCE
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the name of the person who proposed the construction of an iron fence around the front of the federal building in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia?
2.	Who constructed the fence?
3.	What amount was spent on the construction of this fence?
4.	What was the cost of removing this fence?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
The fence was proposed by Nova Scotia District officials of the Department of Public Works to protect a landscaped area.
2.	D & E Industries, Ltd. Lunenburg.

March 13, 1972
Questions
3.	$1,345.
4.	$48.


NUMBER OF VISITORS GRANTED LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS, 1971
Mr. Deakon: 1.	How many visitors to Canada have been granted landed immigrant status during the past 12 months?
2.	From what countries did such persons come?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1 and 2 See following table which reflects the latest 12-month figures available.
Non-immigrants in Canada Granted Landed Immigrant Status Calendar year-1971
Country of
Former Residence	Total

Austria	66
Belgium	83
Bulgaria	14
Czechoslovakia	158
Denmark	52
Estonia	1
Finland	38
France	871
Germany	437
Greece	1,731
Hungary	163
Iceland	5
Ireland	120
Italy	1,450
Latvia	2
Malta	7
Netherlands	162
Norway	32
Poland	425
Portugal	1,754
Romania	104
Spain	164
Sweden	40
Switzerland	83
Turkey	86
England	1,919
Northern Ireland	56
Scotland	271
Wales	49
Lesser Br. Isles	4
U.S.S.R.	37
Yugoslavia	257
Other Europe	1

Algeria	13
Egypt	226
Kenya	50
Morocco	40
Rhodesia	34
South Africa-Rep.	462
Tanzania	28
Tunisia	22
Uganda	65
Zambia	38
Other Africa	259

Burma	6
Ceylon	51
China	44
Cyprus	90
Formosa	174
Hong Kong	1,377
India	2,285
Indonesia	47
Iran	147
Iraq	37
Israel	238
Japan	275
Jordan	28
Kuwait	5
Lebanon	212
Malaysia	145
Pakistan	199
Philippines	361
Saudi Arabia	3
Syria	26
Other Asia	413


AUSTRALASIA
[Stage Direction]
Australia	543
New Zealand	178
Other Australasia	2
NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA
Barbados	253
Bermuda	88
Central America	150
Jamaica	1,590
Mexico	331
St. Pierre & Miquelon	24
Trinidad	1,589
Tobago	20
U.S.A.	19,594
Other Br. W. Indies	481
Other West Indies	840

[Stage Direction]
Argentina	152
Brazil	262
Guyana	1,005
Chile	211
Columbia	186
Peru	307
Uruguay	312
Venezuela	114
Other S. America	365

[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Fiji Islands	217
Other Oceania	1
Other Countries	39
Total	46,896

Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	When is International Book Year?
2.	Has Canada made a commitment to participate in International Book Year and, if so, on what date?
3.	What steps has Canada taken to observe International Book Year?
4.	Has an amount been set aside for this project and, if so, what amount?
5.	Who will be responsible for implementing projects?
6.	What opportunity will there be for public participation?
7.	What are the goals of Canada's participation in International Book Year?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary oi State):: 1. 1972 has been proclaimed "International Book Year" by UNESCO.
2.	Canada has agreed to celebrate International Book Year on February 24.
3.	The government has set up an interdepartmental committee consisting of interested departments and agencies under the chairmanship of the Department of the Secretary of State. Its purpose is to organize the activities of public and private bodies, particularly professional book associations.
4.	Yes; the amount provided is $400,000.
5.	The Secretary of State.
6.	The Secretary of State Department is organizing broad consultations in March with the provinces, numerous professional organizations and individuals interested in books, for the purpose of developing a complete program for the year and stimulating public participation.
7.	The activities marking International Book Year are designed to encourage reading and awaken the public to the importance of books.


NUMBER OF SUSPENSIONS FROM LE DAIN COMMISSION AS A RESULT OF DRUG POSSESSION OR TRAFFICKING
Mr. Yewchuk: Sihce its inception, has anyone been suspended from the Le Dain Commission because of possession and for trafficking in hallucinogenic drugs and, if so (a) how many (b) how many of those suspended are still receiving a salary from the Le Dain Commission?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) Yes. One person suspended for possession;
(b)	None.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise the matter of the failure of the government to answer starred questions. On March 1 I asked the following question, No. 242:
In what towns, villages, or municipal areas have projects under the local initiatives program been approved and in what amounts in the constituencies of (a) Saskatoon-Humboldt (b) Prince Albert
(c)	Saskatoon-Biggar?
Inquiries of the Ministry
There is no reason why that question should not be answered. The government has the information. They sent me an answer but it is altogether mixed up and wrong. I also asked question No. 243, which is not starred:
How many projects as of this date have been approved under the local initiatives program, and in what total amounts in (a) Saskatchewan (b) Alberta (c) Manitoba?
Sir, it is bad enough not to be able to get answers to questions asked orally in the House of Commons but it is worse when the government deliberately flouts the practice of the House with reference to starred questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is, of course, in error. The government never flouts any question asked by the right hon. gentleman, and I can assure him we will be looking into the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Look into it-12 days late?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I always feel strong in the presence of the hon. member for St. Boniface. I have a question for the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, and I quote, "You know, there are people on unemployment insurance who prefer not to work and they have a perfect right to make that decision", I would ask him when the laws of this country were changed to justify that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must have missed something because I did not understand the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody understood your statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the statement the Prime Minister made over the weekend that "there are people on unemployment insurance who prefer not to work and they have a perfect right to make that decision . . . should be no stigma attached to them ... they paid their unemployment insurance", can the right hon. gentleman tell the House when the law of this country was changed to make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection to allowing the right hon. Prime Minister to answer but certainly that is argument. I suggest to the hon. gentleman who is asking the question that he might like to rephrase the question or ask a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister has made a statement inconsistent with the law of this country and which seems, on the face of it

March 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
at least, to-encourage people to break the law. It is for this reason I am pursuing this line of inquiry. I would like to ask the Prime Minister when the law of this land was changed and if it was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that a question asked in those terms is argument, not a question seeking information. I am inviting him to ask the question in another way. It is as simple as that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will ask the Prime Minister whether the statement that there are Canadians drawing unemployment insurance benefits who are making the decision not to work is based upon information he has or whether it Was just made off the top of his head. Is it based on any study or any authoritative figures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not based on a study; it is just common knowledge that some people do not accept jobs which are offered to them by the unemployment insurance offices. I remember a case of a young man in Toronto at one of my rallies who had a placard asking for a million jobs. I said, "Do you want one job or a million?" He wanted a million. Later he came to see me and said he would take one job. I asked for his name and I looked into the matter. He had been offered two jobs by the Manpower offices but two were not enough and he turned them down. He still wanted a million jobs. That is the kind of case which is fairly frequent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that this young man did not appreciate more the great efforts the Prime Minister was making on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: There are lots of jobs available in the Privy Council office.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Inasmuch as the Prime Minister's statement was not qualified in that manner but was a simple statement that there are Canadians who prefer not to work and to draw unemployment insurance, and since in those terms it is an obvious encouragement to Canadians to break the law, may I ask the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Prime Minister, to correct this impression and to withdraw that statement as it was made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it very difficult to accept this kind of question. It is obviously debate. Again,
I will not oppose the Prime Minister replying to the question or suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, but when in a supplementary question he invites the Prime Minister to withdraw a statement made outside the House I cannot see how that can be acceptable as a question asked during the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a perfectly nonargumentative supplementary. The Prime Minister has spoken about the many thousands of jobs that are vacant in this country. Will he tell the House how many of these jobs there are and what measures he is prepared to take to assist people to take advantage of them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is marvelous, every Monday, to see that the opposition has done nothing better over the weekend, it appears to me, than to read some abbreviated reports of speeches I have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am very pleased to see that they are spending their weekends that way, although it might be more productive if they would think up some policies rather than nitpick. To answer the question, I think the Leader of the Opposition is referring to a statement I made, I believe in Victoriaville, in which I reiterated some information we had-I said it was several months ago- from Manpower offices in Montreal that there were something like 10,000 jobs available at the Manpower offices in Montreal. That is a clear statement. It does not go beyond that. If the opposition is hiding that fact from itself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -they are not realistic. However, it is a clear fact that there are jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I suggest that the reply given by the Prime Minister is also partly argumentative or debate. I do not think the question period was intended for this kind of debate which takes quite a bit of the time of the question period from day to day. I would hope the question period would be used for the purpose for which it is intended, the seeking of information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to annoy the Prime Minister, of course, but I want to tell him that when he goes out every weekend making silly statements he has to expect pretty vigorous questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the alleged supplementary of the Leader of the Opposition was a supplementary question. It is a continuation of debate. I doubt that the matter should be pursued further. Unless the Prime Minister has a point of order to raise, I would be prepared to go to the next question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am really rising on the same point of order. I simply say that if the opposition holds that there are no jobs being offered in Canada to people at large, if there are no such vacancies, then my statement may have been silly and then they may have a quarrel with me, but until they say there are no jobs being offered in Canada it seems to me that this whole line of argument is just hypocritical.
March 13, 1972



ENFORCEMENT OF LAW REQUIRING PERSONS RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE FOR WORK

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, since a statement by the Prime Minister of the country may easily be believed by people across Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -easily and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -and in view of some of the statements the Prime Minister has made, may I ask these questions, not as nitpicking but because they are important for the understanding of the people of Canada. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Unemployment Insurance Act requires a person seeking to draw unemployment insurance benefits to make himself available for work? As he made the statement there are people who prefer not to work and to take unemployment insurance benefits, is the Prime Minister doing anything to get the present law, not any new law, enforced so that people who draw unemployment insurance benefits do in fact make themselves available for work?
Inquiries of the Ministry
know what they will show-is the Prime Minister suggesting there is more than one job per 12 or 15 unemployed available anywhere in Canada at this time? Is he suggesting that all the unemployed can find jobs or that even 95 per cent of them can find jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that this is debate. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can he offer any advice to those who are out of work and looking for a job other than what he offered in Victoriaville, namely, that people now leave where they are living and be prepared to work with a pick and shovel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I said that the opposition had spent some time over the weekend reading badly abbreviated speeches I had made. I must also say that they are probably very poor readers of those bad reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will return to this subject in a moment. We will now move on to the second subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. A person who does make such an application, which he is obligated to do under the law, is not obliged to accept any job that is offered to him at any salary and at any place in the country. I would have thought the hon. member would know of such a provision in the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for York South and there are four or five additional members seeking supplementaries. We have spent ten minutes on the first question. Perhaps we should limit the number of supplementaries and, if there is time, eventually return to this matter. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary.



AVAILABILITY OF JOBS FOR UNEMPLOYED

David Lewis: Your Honour may wish to treat this as an original question rather than a supplementary. Is the Prime Minister saying that there are some jobs available, which no doubt there are on any given day, but jobs at very low wages and in undesirable working conditions which he is asking the unemployed to accept, no matter where they live? Is that the idea?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certainly with the first part of that statement I am glad there is agreement between the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself. There are some jobs available. That is all I have been saying.


David Lewis: As unemployment in the middle of January was 635,000 and in view of the likelihood that the unemployment figures which I understand may be released tomorrow will again show that level of unemployment, higher unemployment or a few thousand lower-I do not
* *
*



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, may I put my question to the Minister of Finance. I see him smile: it augurs well.
As many local initiative projects presented either by municipalities or other bodies have yet to be approved, for lack of funds-no one says so, but that would seem to be the reason-may I ask the Minister of Finance whether or not additional funds will be put at the disposal of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to enable it to approve those projects, especially in the underdeveloped areas, and in particular in the riding of Bellechasse?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in this regard I must consult my colleagues the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
* *
*



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-PERMITS REQUIRED UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On March 3 my hon.

March 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
friend the Leader of the Opposition, referring to the fact that a member of the government had admitted that permits were required under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act in respect of the James Bay project, asked the Minister of Transport whether any applications had been received for permits under that act. The minister said he did not believe so but that he would inquire whether any had been made and let the House know. Since the minister has not indicated whether any permits have been issued, I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question: In light of the provision of the act which says that no work shall be built upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water in the absence of such permission, and in light of the fact that two bridges are presently being built, one across the Bell River and another across the Waswanipi River, can the Prime Minister explain to the House why the government condones this breach of the law and is an accessory to the fact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question obviously contains statements or allegations. The hon. member asks the Prime Minister why the government condones what he calls a breach of the law. That in itself amounts to a statement. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will rephrase the question and put it in this way: Have applications for permits been received in respect of these two bridges and, if not, will the Prime Minister inquire why these bridges are being allowed to be built, apparently in breach of the law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say that this question, in its rephrased form, is the kind of question I like to hear from the opposition, because it genuinely seeks information, something which is rather rare during the question periods. Since the hon. member is genuinely looking for information, I will be very pleased to take notice of the question. I could have done so already had he placed it upon the order paper. But I will gladly take note of it now and refer it personally, or through someone in my office, to the Minister of Transport personally or to someone in his office. We shall do our best to get a good answer to the question and convey the information to the House leader of the very valiant Conservative party.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the Prime Minister give me an answer which is cluttered up by facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.



MANPOWER


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the recent announcement that an additional $30 million is to be spent on the program for on-the-job training, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions explaining the necessity for this additional appropriation and the purposes for which it will be used? Could he at the same time present an accounting for the $40 million which has already been spent on the industrial training program, bearing in mind that no such report has yet been made available to the House?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for making additional funds available is very simple and can be explained in a moment. It was done to accommodate the many useful further projects in connection with the on-the-job training program which could be in place by March 31. The number of persons who could be employed on these projects was sufficiently large, and costs were sufficiently low in relation to them, that the government decided to make additional funds available for these projects which must be in operation by March 31.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Perhaps the minister could give consideration to making a statement in response to the second part of my question. In any event, can he inform the House whether any safeguards exist which would ensure that moneys being spent on the industrial training program are being employed for the purpose intended, that of training, and not simply as a means by which employers may reduce labour costs at public expense? If there are such safeguards, what are they?


Mr. O'Connell:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I could refer the hon. member to the regulations concerning the safeguards which are maintained. But I would point out to him that these projects are contracted projects and the employer is obliged to follow the contract which is to put people on the job in training.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's suggestion, as reported in the Toronto Star, that Canadians who are out of work could find jobs provided they were willing to relocate elsewhere-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member but his question is hardly supplementary to that just put by the hon. member for Selkirk. If there are no supplementaries to that question, I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

March 13, 1972


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just about to reach that part of my question which is supplementary to the one raised by the hon. member for Selkirk. What steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to assist the unemployed to relocate? Can the Prime Minister tell the House where these surplus jobs can be found?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a provision in the law providing for manpower mobility. If the hon. member would look up that provision he would find the answer to his question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where are the jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is one in your seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX ACT


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the House when he intends to introduce the amendments which were promised by his predecessor on December 20 when he appeared before the Senate committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on what was then Bill C-259 and promised to introduce amendments early in the new year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in terms of this session it is still early in the new year. The Minister of State from Calgary South and myself are reviewing these propositions and the possibility of amendments on an active basis.


George Harris Hees: Obviously, what the minister's predecessor gave the Senators was a "con job". I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he has yet acquired sufficient competence in his job to bring down a budget before Easter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether I should rule that the question is hypothetical, but it is out of order on other counts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the right hon. gentleman has indicated that things are not as bad as the statistics would suggest, does he propose taking some action to change the manner by which Statistics Canada produces information, or does he have access to other figures which so far have not been made public?
Inaniries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. No such steps are required. But it is hoped that anyone who looks at statistics will look at them intelligently, even members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the Prime Minister expressed some dissatisfaction with current manpower policies, I wonder whether he or the minister is planning to introduce changes with respect to manpower legislation to in fact relate all these jobs which are supposedly available to Canadians who are presently out of work, numbering some three-quarters of a million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did get an admission from the leader of the New Democratic Party that there were some jobs available, and that is the answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont rises on a point of order. After we have disposed of the point of order the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, repeatedly this afternoon the Prime Minister has embellished his answers with irrelevant comments and not answered questions. He has made gratuitous references of one kind or another which are most unsuitable, and certainly improper under the rules of the House. I asked the Prime Minister a straightforward question with regard to manpower policy. I did not receive an answer, and I wonder if he would show me the courtesy of replying.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.



WELFARE


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister inform the House whether, in light of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan with respect to persons in need and the appeal provisions included in that legislation, he has studied Bill 49, introduced in the British Columbia legislature by welfare minister Gagliardi, which would give that minister absolute discretion to decide who should receive social assistance and would deprive welfare recipients of the right to appeal?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I have just heard about this proposed legislation in British Columbia and am looking into the matter now. After I have had a chance to study it I would be pleased to report back to the hon. member.

March 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Winona Grace MacInnis: In looking at the matter would the minister consider measures to deal with the problem, including the withholding of federal money from British Columbia and all other provinces that are violating the Canada Assistance Plan, if he finds that they are, and make an early statement to the House on his findings?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member, the question is purely hypothetical at this stage. I should like to have a chance to find out what the legislation is all about and then I will report back.



MANPOWER


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering that many local initiatives projects could not be accepted or carried out because of a lack of funds-and this I find unfortunate for small localities-would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government intends to present a supplementary budget so that some projects may be carried out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having voiced his approval of the Local Initiatives Program and also for having commented on its success.
To answer his question and for the moment, I can only say that no decision has been taken to that effect. We have created over 85,000 jobs through this program and, for the moment, we do not intend to renew it. But the question will remain under review.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-DURATION OF JOBS CREATED

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether the 85,000 jobs to which he has just alluded are of a greater duration than 8 weeks, or if rotation took place while some projects were carried out, which would have resulted in the multiplication of jobs when at times those jobs may have lasted only three or four weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the supplementary asked by the hon. member is of a statistical nature. In my opinion, it should normally be put on the order paper. If there is any urgency, the hon. member may wish to give notice, and I will see to it that it is considered on the adjournment motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. About nine or ten days ago I asked the minister, in connection with the Geoffroy case, whether or not he would table in the House a copy of the application for a passport for Geoffroy and his paramour, and as yet I have not received an answer. It should be a most revealing document, one that I am sure will go a long way toward clearing up doubts in the minds of people in general concerning the issue of that passport.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not made a decision on this matter. Perhaps I should explain to the House that there is nothing in these documents that we have any fear of revealing. Unfortunately there is the name of what is apparently an innocent man involved, a person whose name had been forged. I have had some hesitation in tabling such a document, because I know that if his name became known the casual reader might come to feel that he had had something to do with the case. In due course all these documents, I suppose, will be revealed when the case against Madame Geoffroy is proceeded with, but I will try within the next day or two to reach a decision on the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, ten days have gone by since the minister said he would look into the matter. No one wants to do any harm to an innocent person. All the minister will have to do in producing this application is to say that the name of the individual who is the sponsor was forged, and then there will be nothing adverse resting on the individual.
I do not know what the Prime Minister is pointing at, but I am afraid that he will start to swear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that the right hon. gentleman had asked his question, that the minister had replied, and the matter was to rest there. The Chair then recognized the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. If the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary, I will recognize him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was making signs to me to sit down. When Your Honour told him to sit down a few minutes ago he stood for fully two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Disgraceful show of manners. Let him have it, John.
March 13, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have a good supporter now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that hon. members seem to be enjoying themselves, but a number of others are anxious for an opportunity to ask questions. Therefore we might try to proceed with greater celerity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no hilarity that is on the other side of the House. Today they are disturbed by the Rock incident. Is it the minister's considered opinion that this document will be produced in the House, in view of the fact he has stated that in any event when the trial takes place it will be available? It should therefore be made available to the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member, as a well known protector of civil liberties, would feel that I ought to consult with those who will be prosecuting in order to find out whether it would in any way interfere with the course of justice. If I am satisfied it does not, I am sure I will be able to satisfy the right hon. member.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Is it the policy of the government to permit those federal civil servants who wish to present themselves as candidates in the forthcoming federal election the privilege of taking leave from the public service, as was the case during the last provincial election?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this question does not fall within my jurisdiction. It should be put to my colleague the President of the Treasury Board, or to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I put the same question to the Prime Minister and add a supplementary to it. Would the Prime Minister look into the case of a Miss Ann Booth who has been refused leave to seek a nomination and has been suspended today by the Public Service Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. While he is making this investigation will he also see whether or not some of the former drop-outs might be expected back after the next election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the assistance and co-operation of hon. members to reduce the number of supplementaries, and also points of order, so that we may
Inquiries of the Ministry
proceed to the end of the question period and allow as many members as possible to ask questions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture who, according to the iniquitous roster system, should be here today. I should like to ask why Prince Edward Island was excluded from the list of provinces for which Canadian Livestock Feed Board subsidies for feed grain are to be increased, and has the minister received any indication of when this egregious oversight will be corrected?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and speak to the minister about it, and if there is any information I will report back to the House.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the government has the authority, either by regulation or by order in council, to raise the amount of the federal minimum wage, may I ask whether consideration is being given to doing this, particularly in light of the recent increases in the cost of living?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage is constantly under review and if a change is to be made it will be announced in due course.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I asked him last week if he had anything to report to the House on the continuing guerilla warfare between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and NABET in respect of CBC problems. On his return from the west he said he had not had a chance to check. Would he tell the House now what the present status is of this dispute?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have followed these developments, but the situation is so fluid that if I made a report now, it might prove absolutely
March 13, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry
without value at 4 or 5 this afternoon. There will be a time, no doubt, when the situation will stabilize around a bargaining table and I will then be in a position to make a useful report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a humanitarian question in respect of the plight of imprisoned Syrian Jews about which the international secretariat of Amnesty International has recently expressed very sharp concern. Can the minister advise whether the government has been made aware of this situation? If so, what action has it taken or does it intend to take on this issue?
Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed and we have been working through our diplomatic channels to see whether we can do something effective on behalf of these people.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether or not he anticipates any position which would afford the government an opportunity to take some initiative in this case within the next week or ten days?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to discuss this question too specifically. We have found that we have been most effective on behalf of people in this circumstance if we move quietly without declaration and without publicity.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since on the weekend the Prime Minister led the public to believe that farm and tobacco workers in Ontario receive the minimum wage, would the Prime Minister inform the House as to what minimum wage law affects farm and tobacco workers in Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me it would probably be the minimum wage laws of Ontario rather than of any other province.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: As Ontario farm and tobacco workers are not covered by provincial and federal minimum wage statutes and as 42 per cent of farm workers in Ontario receive less than the provincial minimum wage, would the Prime Minister consider correcting his advice to Quebec residents who may be considering moving to Ontario for employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three minutes remaining before the end of the question period. I would hope that we might limit supplementaries. If the hon. member has a supplementary he will be recognized, but I would hope we would try to have no more supplementaries in the last three minutes.



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OF ASIANS TO WORK IN BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL MINES

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a supplementary earlier in respect of the last revision of Aesop's Fables over the weekend having to do with the statement of the Prime Minister that British Columbia coal mines import Asian labour. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, with that appreciation of statistics which he said we all should heed, could inform the public as to what year he was referring to and has he any statistics to justify-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This type of question should be on the order paper. I cannot accept that it is a proper question at this time.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Hon.  W. G. Dins@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises from a report from Winnipeg that the government has made no commitment that the competition bill will be introduced during this session of parliament. Can the minister inform the House whether the government has any timetable for the introduction of this legislation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report in the paper was somewhat erroneous. I was saying that there were certain measures which would have to be taken first before we could give a firm date. Those measures are primarily: consultation will all the provincial governments, and concurrently, return consultation with those who have submitted briefs. Both those series of meetings have been scheduled. One meeting took place in Manitoba on Saturday with the Manitoba government. Other seminars begin this Wednesday.


Mr. Dinsdale:: A brief supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then we will be pretty close to the end of the question period. I suggest to hon. members that an attempt should be made by them to try to limit the number of supplementaries.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in light of the constitutional go-ahead given by the province of Manitoba, can the minister indicate whether unanimity on this point will be required before the bill is proceeded with.
March 13, 1972


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would not make such a decision at this stage.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the reason the Manitoba government has stopped negotiations with the federal government for establishment of another national park in Manitoba that there has been a change in the federal policy on parks or are there any other reasons?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand very much the government of Manitoba because as I said before in the House, the then member for Selkirk asked me the same question. I think it is a problem he has. He has more difficulty coping with the mining interests than I had when I established new parks in the north.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON PREPACKAGING OF CERTAIN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TO CUT COST

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Friday I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether or not he would make public a confidential government report dealing with the cutting back of drug prices by prepackaging. This report has been leaked to the press. The Acting Prime Minister told me he would ask the minister whether or not he would make the report public and I ask him now whether or not he will?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that whole subject matter is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe the question should be directed to him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I have an answer to the question then?


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


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, especially because he has been so patient over the last 40 minutes. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a point of order and the last question will be the one to be asked by the hon. member for South Shore.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did not hear my question. Perhaps I may repeat it. On Friday I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether or not he would make public a confidential government document on cutting back drug prices by prepackaging. The Acting Prime Minister said he would take it up with the responsible minister. Can the minister say now whether or not that report will be made public?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will give that consideration and report back.



HARBOURS


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of the Environment today in Vancouver is making a very important policy announcement wherein he states that the administration of small craft harbours at long last is being transferred from the federal Department of Transport to the federal fisheries services and that they will be asking commercial fishermen who want additional services provided for their fleets to organize local committees and submit their proposals to the Minister of the Environment. My question to the minister is, has this change been considered in the cabinet and will we on this side of the House in future be directing any petitions we receive for new additional public wharves or facilities such as skidways and so on, or for dredging, from fishermen in Atlantic Canada to the Minister of the Environment or to the Minister of Public Works.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should first read the statement made by my colleague before I am called upon to make any comment on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



AGRICULTURE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday last the President of the Privy Council as Acting Prime Minister undertook to provide specific answers to two or three urgent questions from me in respect of the disposal of potatoes in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council has conveyed those questions to the minister and whether there will be any information forthcoming?

March 13, 1972
Business of the House


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I drew the matter to the attention of the Agricultural Stabilization Board. It is true that there are stocks of No. 1 Prince Edward Island potatoes in the hands of the board, but it is not feasible at the moment to consider disposing of these potatoes to feed stock or for any other purpose because the supply situation is not clear and it may be necessary later on to import potatoes. On the positive side, my hon. friend will be glad to know that the price of Prince Edward Island potatoes has increased significantly since March 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point we are prolonging the question period. This can be done only with the consent of the House. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that this was a question rather than a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with House business. Now that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is back, I wonder whether the government House leader has yet had an opportunity to discuss with him the matter of the petition of the people of Old Crow, and has the minis ter come to the conclusion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to rule that this is not a point of order but a question. I believe this question was asked a few times last week. Again I suggest this is not a point of order but a question relating to the order of business of the House, which does not make it a point of order. However, if the President of the Privy Council or someone on his behalf wishes to reply to the hon. member's question, I have no objection.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not had a chance to speak to the minister this morning. I will do so today and give a definite answer tomorrow.



WAYS AND MEANS


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it might be the disposition of the House to revert to motions by unanimous consent in order that I might make a motion pursuant to Standing Order 60?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Pursuant to Standing Order 60, I request you to designate an order of the day

for consideration tomorrow of the notice of ways and means which I tabled on February 22.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House, alarmed at this government's inability to deal with the accumulating problems of urbanization in Canada, declares that a federal government must co-operate in good faith with provincial and municipal governments in planning and in implementing policies on revenue sharing, inter-urban transportation, housing, urban poverty, pollution and rural depopulation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this resolution and in speaking to it I wish to emphasize particularly the problems of our urban communities, although I recognize that all municipal governments in Canada are having difficulty, whether they are urban municipalities or otherwise. But the brutal fact is that by 1980 it is believed that four out of five Canadians will be living in our large cities, and so far preparations have not been made for this nor are they being made today in an effective way to meet the - problems arising within the next decade.
While these problems will deepen during the next ten years, they are already with us because in terms of transportation, housing, problems of pollution, recreation, and a decent physical environment, Canadian citizens are already facing an enormous challenge. Without any ability to control their own growth, the cities must nevertheless provide for the vast numbers of new arrivals from all over the country, and indeed from all over the world. They must deal with these vast numbers with their very limited powers, and having to rely in the main on financing largely from property tax as well as whatever help they can receive from the provinces, which is difficult in a number of cases. It may be said that under the constitution these are primarily provincial problems and that if the cities need help with their finances, that is a provincial problem. But both provincial and municipal governments are very hard pressed financially, particularly in view of the nature of their responsibilities and the growing cost of providing the services needed by the people of Canada.
In 1968, the then premier of the province of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Robarts, summed this up rather neatly in the following statement:
The facts of life are that the federal government has the main access to the growth fields of taxation, such as personal and corporation income taxes. The provinces and the municipalities are boxed in by such slower growth taxes as retail sales taxes and in the case of municipalities, property taxes. At the same time, the provinces and the municipalities are the levels of government which are faced with the most rapidly expanding demand for services.
March 13, 1972

What the Hon. Mr. Robarts said in 1968 has become even clearer in 1972. The pressures on the provincial and municipal governments are even more severe now than they were in those days. Of course, one of the things that has added greatly to the financial pressures and the difficulties of our municipal governments-and I think this is particularly true of our larger urban governments-has been the vast growth in their welfare costs, the vast increase in the amounts they have to spend toward providing welfare for their residents as a result of the great increase in unemployment that has taken place during the last two or three years. This is directly attributable to the policies deliberately adopted by the present government. We have had massive unemployment, and as a result of this, a massive rise in welfare costs. It really does not help the municipalities any more than it helps anybody else for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to go around talking about how many vacant jobs there are in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far as our municipalities are concerned, they have been confronted by this vast increase in welfare expenditures which they have had to make as the result of federal policies, and this has added tremendously to their difficulties in discharging their other responsibilities and carrying out plans to meet the needs of citizens in these large communities. So, to begin with, the federal government should certainly share a far larger proportion of this welfare load that the municipal governments are carrying as a result of the policies of the federal government. Over and above that, because the federal government has created this problem for the municipal governments and for cities, it should be even more active, even more energetic in trying to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in reaching solutions to these urgent problems faced by our cities.
But going beyond the present situation, going beyond the present difficulties that the municipal governments and our cities face, there are serious and urgent matters that have to be considered. There has to be some sort of national urban strategy concerned with the environment in which the great majority of Canadians work, live and play, and in which an increasing number of Canadians are going to spend their lives. In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the existence of constitutional problems. I recognize the presence of the constitutional question and the fact that it cannot be just shunted aside. But I also maintain that the constitution cannot be used as an excuse for the federal government to ignore the urban problems, as it has largely tended to do up to this time.
I am saying that the federal government must involve itself in working out a national approach to some of these problems. I want to emphasize that the provinces must always be involved in these discussions, these consultations and these policies. I am not suggesting for a moment, and I would be very much against the government of Canada in Ottawa, or even this parliament imposing plans in this area on the provinces, simply laying down here by edict, by law-if this could be done constitutionally-some program that the provinces and the cities would have to accept whether the^ wished to or not.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems I want to emphasize that this has to be a co-operative effort in which the federal government has a role to play, but in which the provinces as well as the cities must always be involved. When I talk about the need for a national strategy with regard to growing urban problems,
I am certainly not suggesting that there should be some rigid national policies set down with which all the cities in the country have to comply. Again, even if that were constitutionally possible it would certainly be undesirable because each city in this country has its own individual profile of problems, of opportunities, and of goals. Each one has its own character resulting from the ethnic mix in that city, its industrial base, its geographic location, and all sorts of other characteristics of which we can all think. Every city has its special quality and there could be no rigid national policy that would fit the needs of all our cities, even if it were constitutionally possible to devise such a policy.
At the same time there are problems such as the tax base, such as relations between the federal government and the provinces with regard to municipal problems; there are problems involving research and co-ordination of research in relation to transportation matters. Indeed, there are many aspects of urban life that are common to all our cities. I have to say that the visible rate of progress toward effective co-operation between all three levels of government in fighting in some common way these urban problems is very disappointing.
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities pointed out in its brief in 1970 that there is a growing inconsistency between the low constitutional status of the city and its actual role in the lives of the people. I quote briefly:
Changes in Canadian social, economic and political organization, stimulated by the increasing demands of urbanization will soon, we believe, make new approaches to the fundamental questions of governmental organization and structure inevitable.
But we have to work with things as they are, for the time being at least. We have to work with the constitution as it now is. And regardless of what one may feel as to whether the cities are adequately recognized under our constitution, I certainly endorse the federation suggestion that municipal governments should be recognized as de facto partners in all discussions of their problems. Any attempt to ignore their existence and proceed without their participation would certainly be unrealistic. It would be virtually unthinkable.
I recognize that an approach has been made towards a process of tripartite involvement in urban affairs, involving federal, provincial and municipal governments. This has been going on for some years in such areas as housing, and I recognize that this approach has to be broadened so as to include some structure that would provide for discussion generally among the three levels of governments of urban and municipal problems. This kind of approach would seem to be the only sensible procedure to follow because all three levels of government have their contributions to make in finding solutions to urban problems.
There should not be any attempt by any higher level of government, and certainly not by the federal government, to take over. There is certainly no reason for confronta-

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems tion on this issue. After all we are dealing with the lives of millions and millions of Canadians. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not raise this subject to suggest that the government of Canada should dictate to others, should dictate to the provinces, should dictate to our cities and municipal governments. But in saying that, I do not mean to take away at all from my intense belief that the federal government must take initiatives in association with the provinces and with the municipal governments. I also believe that the federal government must broaden its interests. For example, if we think in terms of urban transportation posing a very acute problem in many of our cities, is there any particular reason, stemming from our traditions or constitutional considerations, why the federal interest in housing and in urban redevelopment should not be so interpreted as to include a consideration of and participation in the solution of transportation problems?
How can the federal government participate in a meaningful way in solving housing problems and urban redevelopment problems unless it is prepared to become involved in and help with problems of urban transportation? The federal government should be prepared to participate in studies of its own transportation policies to see how they have affected and are likely to affect the cities. This involves study of plane, train, and interprovincial bus services, as well as the federal involvement in roads. I believe the federal government should be prepared to involve itself on an urgent basis with the other two levels of government in consideration of inter and intra-urban transportation systems, and should also involve itself in commissioning and participating financially in research into these and related problems. It should be prepared to involve itself in the actual solution of these problems. How can the federal government do a meaningful job or involve itself in a meaningful way in the solution of the housing problem or the problem of urban redevelopment, unless it is prepared to get involved in the study of city transportation problems? I am again emphasizing the role of co-operation rather than the role of dictation or trying to lay down the law.
This kind of participation in meeting the problems of the city is all the more urgent, first of all, because of the extra burden that the federal government has imposed upon the municipalities as a result of the massive unemployment developed in the country and, second, because of the stand-pat position it has taken with regard to tax-sharing.
The tax-sharing agreement that will arise out of the proposed legislation before the House is really an extension of existing arrangements for tax sharing. There are changes in some details but by and large the tax-sharing arrangements proposed for the next five years are basically those that have been in effect for the past five years. In other words, the tax-sharing arrangements between the federal government and the provinces that are before the House indicate no recognition, and certainly are not based upon any recognition, of the growing needs and expenditures in the areas of provincial and municipal responsibility, especially in the large urban areas.
I remind the House again of the studies conducted some years ago by federal and provincial officials working

together. They forecast the growth in municipal and provincial expenditures in relation to the growth in the responsibility to the federal government. The federal government authorized this study but paid no attention to it. Now, we are again in the position where the government of Canada has chosen not to recognize the growing responsibilities of the provinces and cities in bringing forward a tax-sharing arrangement. Indeed, the only tangible thing the federal government has done in this area is increase the amount spent on welfare. The growing welfare burden and the general tendency of provincial and municipal responsibilities to grow more rapidly in costs, make it all the more necessary that we have active and meaningful federal participation in meeting the urban challenge in this country.
I think there was some optimism early in the year in this general area of co-operation involving municipal government and relating to municipal and urban problems. There was the Winnipeg conference in the month of April and following that a period of optimism. This optimism seemed to fade following the August meeting of the minister responsible in the federal government, the then minister of State for urban affairs, with the provincial ministers of municipal affairs and the joint municipal committee, and in the meeting in August involving the three levels of government. This was followed by a feeling of very considerable disappointment. The progress toward common policies in this area and the progress toward working together in some effective way is not noticeable. I hope the minister will be able to persuade me that I am wrong, and that much is going on in this area of which that neither I nor the country generally is aware. I must say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that visible progress toward achieving common policies and some effective involvement in a co-operative way is not obvious to the naked eye.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am not looking for this government or any government-in fact I would be opposed to this government or any government-trying to apply an urban strategy across the board. I do not ask for that and I would be opposed to it, but we do need a national approach to urban problems which would include flexibility and adaptability. I assume that the federal government has a national responsibility in this matter. This does not mean that it can or should try to solve the problems by itself. I am convinced that the federal government can co-operate, can provide the co-ordinating framework for the cities and provinces alike. It does not have to impose itself on anyone and it should not impose itself on anyone. Events themselves are imposing the need for co-operation on all three levels of government. I do not think any of the three levels will come out of this new process of consultation exactly as it went in. I do not deny that jurisdictional disputes may arise from time to time, but that is not the point. The point is that we do not have the right to refuse to embark upon this process and should do so very quickly. We are not merely dealing with structures here, although we need an appropriate structure; we are dealing with the future of the people and we cannot allow ourselves to forget this.
It is not enough for the federal government to appoint a minister of state for urban affairs and then let matters drift, leaving the cities and municipal governments to sink
March 13, 1972

or swim in a sea of welfare costs. We need effective leadership from the federal government in this area and I say to the minister responsible that we do not seem to be getting it. I hope he can persuade us this afternoon that we are getting it, but as matters stand now progress is lamentably slow. We have no reason to believe that the federal government is meeting the challenge of the urban problems of this country.
I call upon the minister today to tell us exactly where matters stand and how he proposes to involve the federal government in a co-operative way in a significant contri bution toward solving the urban problems that are overwhelming the people who live in our cities.
In case I did not do so, Mr. Speaker, I move the motion.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House deals with one of the most important and also the most difficult problems facing our people. I want to say immediately that I do not, nor I am sure does the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), blame any one person or indeed any one level of government for the immensely difficult situation in which our country finds itself. I certainly cannot undertake to go into the situation in a way that would satisfy me or anyone else in the 20 minutes available to me, but I want to make some general observations and some specific suggestions which will be followed by more specific suggestions made by my colleagues who will follow me.
The first problem that faces us is the constitution and the federal government's involvement in the urban problems facing this country. My first point, Mr. Speaker, is that urban problems are no longer local. Since 70 per cent of our people now live in urban centres, and in a few years 80 per cent or more of our people will live in such centres, urban problems are national in nature; they are no longer local and must be treated as being national in nature. Therefore, the federal role in this area is an absolutely essential factor, precisely for that reason. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal policies affect our urban problems in the same way as they affect all our other problems. As has already been said, economic policies which create massive unemployment add not only to the welfare rolls of the city, but add also to the problems associated with other aspects of urban life.
There are men and women who are anxious to work, despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has callously said from time to time. Well over 90 per cent- maybe 95 per cent or maybe 98 per cent-of those who are out of work want to work, and want work now. The Prime Minister has been guilty of a most reprehensive catering to the backlash of the hardhats of this country by trying to suggest, for reasons I cannot understand, that the problem of unemployment is not a serious one. He indicated, for example, that there were 10,000 vacant jobs in Montreal a few months ago. At least, that is what he said; yet his own manpower survey shows that in the last quarter of 1971 there were only 7,400 jobs available in the whole of Quebec. Why the Prime Minister said that I do not know.
As I said, economic policies which create massive unemployment not only add to the welfare rolls of urban gov-
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems ernments but also, unfortunately, add to our problems of delinquency, family welfare, family disruption and bring about all those other effects of idleness and humiliation that unemployment produces. That is why I am so angry about the callous way in which the Prime Minister has dealt with this problem, for he has been refusing absolutely to recognize that in addition to considering the question of unemployment insurance benefits, we must consider the human problems involving idleness and degradation which flow from unemployment. It was shameful that the Prime Minister talked the way he did about the serious problem facing our people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That, Mr. Speaker, is the second reason the federal government is involved in this area. Its policies necessarily affect all aspects of urban life. Its third reason for that involvement is, obviously, that urban governments are incapable of dealing with their problems in this area, in view of the present financial structure of this country. Therefore, again, we must look to that level of government, the federal government, which has the capacity to generate funds for those activities and works which must be carried on by the municipalities as well as by the federal and provincial governments.
I repeat what has already been said. Appointing a minister without portfolio responsible for urban affairs was a useful but small step to take. And, despite the charming side of the present minister, the establishment of a new ministry will be a small step and, indeed, of no value at all unless that ministry has the imagination and determination to evolve entirely new avenues on which the federal government can play its role and retain participation in the development of useful urban policies. Therefore, the first point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that urban governments in this country, in some way-perhaps at the local level, perhaps at the level of the Canadian organization, perhaps at the level of the provincial or municipal organization, I am not particularly concerned how this is done- must be given the opportunity of direct participation in discussions and plans affecting urban life. That, as has been suggested, does not mean that the federal government must emphasize its view and impose its will on the urban level of government; rather, the federal government must have a direct part to play in this matter.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need constitutional change for that purpose. The government hid behind the constitution for years before it summoned up enough nerve to appoint a minister responsible for urban affairs. The government has carefully indicated that that department is not an operational department but merely a coordinating department. We shall have to see if there is any difference between the meanings of these terms. I say that even under our present systen, we can set up the necessary structure and machinery to involve local governments directly in the over-all planning and budgeting for the crucial needs of our urban communities. So far, we have failed to evolve such machinery. I hope the minister will indicate any steps in that direction that may be taken.
I am not talking about an occasional conference, about an occasional meeting or about an occasional response to some demand by the Federation of Mayors and

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems Municipalities. I am talking about a permanent structure and permanent machinery, with regular consultations and regular meetings. To me, the gap between the urban needs of this country and our failure to evolve such machinery is a major gap which must be overcome if urban problems are to receive priority in our national objectives, a priority which they demand and deserve. Our urban problems, Mr. Speaker, have become so large, so overwhelming, as to be almost unmanageable, largely because of the dreadful delays in launching our concerted attack on them. I plead with the government to end these delays. Let there be no more dragging of feet on the part of the federal government, on the part of provincial or municipal levels of government, or, indeed, on the part of the citizenry of Canada as a whole.
We have talked a great deal about urban matters and about the quality of life in our cities. That subject competes with motherhood as the subject of speeches made by people at all levels of politics. Actually, though, the steps we have taken so far are miniscule in relation to the size of the problem that faces us. I appeal to the minister and to the government to start marching wilfully and in a planned way to the goal of engaging the people and municipalities of Canada in steps that will solve this problem.
The first point to be considered is the question of funds. The first problem that municipalities now have to deal with is the massive difficulties involving the problem of the availability of funds. All who live in the larger urban centres, as I do and as the minister does-I represent a Toronto constituency and the minister represents a Vancouver constituency-know about the problems that the people in urban centres experience. I am referring to the congestion, overcrowding, snarling traffic jams, deterioration of the city core, sprawling "planlessness" of the suburbs, shortage of housing, squalor of slums and rundown neighbourhoods, lack of playgrounds and parks, difficulties associated with urban transportation, dreadful pollution of the air and waters surrounding our municipalities, high cost of and greedy speculation in land, heavy cost of servicing land, and the ever increasing costs of education and welfare. These problems have evolved in the last number of decades and were not foreseen in 1867, for then the people looked at a municipal government as a little, local outfit that would have to do some minor things in society. Today, municipal governments have to deal with the major problems facing the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. Those problems require funds for their settlement. Indeed, even if we are to begin settling those problems, we will require massive funds for that purpose.
Municipal costs have risen steadily. They have risen not only absolutely but, as well, in the size of the proportion which they bear to total government expenditures and gross national product.
Let me illustrate with some figures, the latest I was able to get. In 1958, for example, municipal expenditures were 23 per cent of all government expenditures. By 1968, ten years later, they had risen to 27 per cent, an increase of between 15 and 16 per cent. In 1960, municipal expenditures were 7 per cent of the gross national product. In 1970, 10 years later, they were 9.1 per cent of the gross

national product, again an increase of some 30 per cent in the proportion of the gross national product used up by the municipalities. Therefore, there is the problem of cost that the municipalities cannot meet. What is even worse, the municipalities are forced to meet these costs largely from property taxes, the most regressive form of tax in our society.
Property tax falls heavily on the low income group, older citizens who have managed to acquire a home during a lifetime of work, young married couples who undertake to build or buy a home, as well as those who rent accommodation because invariably the landlord passes this on to the tenants through increased rents. The property tax is the worst possible and most regressive form of tax in our society. It has another disadvantage which in any discussion of the problem which the motion raises ought to be mentioned. Another disadvantage of the property tax is that it has disastrous consequences in that it distorts the objectives of our cities. Assessment becomes the major concern of municipal councils. They change plans and rezone land in their competition for industrial, commercial and other development.
In my experience, I have never known of a municipality or a planning board which started with great social objectives of building a decent city or environment which did not in the end become distorted or destroyed by the assessment demands of the property tax. The municipal council feels it has to cut corners and change plans in zoning bylaws for the purpose of getting more assessment and money. That destroys the capacity of a municipality, even if the will is there, the plan property for the quality of life for those Canadians who live in the large centres of this country.
I do not have time to develop my first point other than to just state it. There has to be a complete review of the tax base of the municipalities in Canada. This is where the federal government and the provincial governments come into the picture. We ought to give consideration to a system of unconditional grants based on some established, recognized and agreed-on formula or extend the tax base for municipalities to include some income tax or some form of other tax, or a combination of these and all other taxes. In some way, the municipalities have to be given the finances to meet their problems and carry on with their plans without constantly being frustrated and diverted by the demands for taxes and, therefore, the demands of the developers which, as I said, distorts the objectives of these municipalities.
The other point I want to make in this general introduction is that our talk about pollution will have very little meaning unless we take into account the municipal situation. Much of the pollution of Canada's waters occurs as the result of inadequate purification and recycling plants in this country. There are very few urban centres in this country that have adequate purification plants. We are talking through out hats and not being honest, in fact we are being hypocritical-and I am not pointing my finger at any one party or spokesman-when we talk about pollution and do not recognize that a major amount of the pollution of our waters as well as our air results from the failure to build the necessary purification, sanitation,
March 13, 1972

recycling and other plants in every urban community and, indeed, rural community where necessary. Until we are willing to make funds available for that, we will continue polluting the air and water in this country without taking any meaningful steps to clear up the situation. That is another area in which the federal government is directly involved.
There should be a massive program of municipal works dealing with the garbage and refuse that is created in our urban centres, large and small. That massive program cannot be carried on without major participation by the federal government. That is the kind of thing I have in mind. This kind of program would have the added advantage of setting Canada on the road to a program that would meet social needs, improve the quality of life and, at the same time, create jobs for every employable Canadian for decades to come.
I think I only have a minute or two remaining. I just want to say I am disappointed that studies in the hands of the minister have not been made public. I do not know why the minister is hiding them. I think that discussion in Canada needs the publication of these studies. Either those studies include matters which the minister is afraid to make public or there is some other reason for his failure to do so. I hope that is not the case.


Mr. Francis:: Some good ones have been released.


David Lewis: Some have, but I am informed there has been a study on urban assistance by Professor Glen Milne who, I am informed, now works in the Privy Council office. I hope he is not there merely to prepare an election program at public expense, but to work on some kind of program to assist urban governments and the financing of urban governments. I am also informed that a study was made by Professor Michael Dennis which includes a great deal of information which we need today. This lack of information for parliament and the country is inexplicable on any ground, other than an attitude toward secrecy and hiding things which, in this particular area even more than other areas, is unforgivable. Therefore, I call on the minister to publish these studies without delay. They have been prepared by academics who have gone into problems that concern this parliament and the people of Canada.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are dealing with a motion that covers some of the major problems facing Canada and the quality of life of Canadians in the urban centres. This parliament, and this or any other government, will not fulfil its obligation as legislators unless a great deal more is done in this field and until the municipalities become involved in planning the priorities we can set before the Canadian public. Until we deal with these matters seriously, we will talk about a just society, grand society or whatever you like, without any honesty as far as the people of Canada are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion now before us
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems whereby this House blames the government for not having taken the necessary steps to ensure greater cooperation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. This motion says among other things, and I quote:
-that a federal government must cooperate in good faith with provincial and municipal governments in planning and in implementing policies on revenue sharing-
All this phraseology is fine, and for years now we have been discussing in Canada this problem of revenue sharing, in order to enable the various governments to take care of their own responsibilities.
When I was 20 or 25 years old, I took part in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the election of the provincial member for Lotbiniere, who was a member of the Taschereau cabinet.
At that time I did not know much about constitutional matters, but I was struck by the remarks of the late notary Verville, who was then the hon. member for Lotbiniere and who said: "How nice it is to live in Canada under the maple trees." But those were in fact pine trees and they are still there.
On that occasion I heard the rather strong speech made against the central authority by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau. He said, the East is paying for the West. That was in 1935, when it was said that old age security pensions were paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec for the benefit of older citizens in the West.
I can also remember the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who was at that time the member for Quebec East and later Minister of Justice in the government of Mackenzie King, who had stated exactly the opposite on the same platform. I was so struck by this that from that moment, I tried to find out who was right. From that day, I followed with great attention all political events and all federal-provincial conferences and listened carefully to all arguments put forward pro and con, depending on whether they came from members or ministers in the provincial or federal administration.
The same minister who was being made much of at the time became, two years later, a member of the federal Parliament, representing the same region, the constituency of Lotbiniere. At that time, his attitude changed.
It is my conviction that the experience acquired by these responsible men-whose sincerity I do not doubt- should allow us, in 1972, to reap the results of those years of debates of conferences at all levels and reach a conclusion establishing, once and for all, what are the real responsibilities of municipal, provincial, and federal governments, so that subsequently each level of government may avail tiself of the funds required to carry out its responsibilities.
I shall now quote from the text of the resolutions adopted in 1971 by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, as set forth in that organization's brief. That brief was presented to the Canadisn government on April 28, 1971, and I would like them to follow the suggestions made.
We talk about fighting pollution-and we have pollution indeed. Ths morning, as I was crossing the city of Montreal, they announced on the radio the degree of pollution

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems in the Montreal area. It was .13 degree, while according to the commentator the acceptable limit is .10 degree.
There are known means of fighting air pollution. If we are to succeed, governments will have to come to an agreement on their respective responsibilities, and each will have to have the money necessary to carry out those responsibilities in order to give the Canadian people a healthy atmosphere to live in and to ensure the health of the human race.
Unfortunately, we are always faced with the same problem: lack of money. People sometimes say: Those Credi-tistes are always talking about money; they can talk about nothing else.
Last week, I attended a meeting of students who talked about their lack of money to pursue their studies. They have to fight to get scholarships. They are speaking of money when they speak about scholarships.
And here, in parliament, what do we talk about the year round? We talk of money. Whether we are discussing taxes, tax reform, the Opportunities for Youth program or the Local Initiatives Program we are talking about money. Everybody is talking about money. Why? Because money is the name of the game and also the economic blood of the nation.
We, the Creditistes, are also talking about money. We are suggesting a reform so as to see the day when this means of exchange will be truly the servant of the federal, provincial and municipal governments instead of being their master.
If we are wrong, this means that the government is right and if it is right let it prove it so that we can at last see the just society. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is smiling but I am convinced he agrees with me. It is possible to set up a just society in Canada even though our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, not so long ago, that no government would succeed because Canadians are mortal and imperfect.
Mr. Speaker, these same men were also mortal and imperfect in 1968 when the Liberal party introduced its program for a just society. At that time, they sincerely believed in this or they were cheating the population. If they sincerely believed in it then, they should keep on believing in it today and work for the true establishment of a just society.
In spite of our differences of opinion in this House I think all hon. members want to work with sincerity toward obtaining the highest degree of justice in this country. It is imperative for society to allow not only three Canadians out of five but each and everyone of them to enjoy security and justice in our free country. Why? Because it is possible in 1972.
I would like to refer to the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and quote from their brief submitted to the government. They said:
WHEREAS urban development programs require increasingly larger investments-

They too talk about money. They are not asking themselves if anything needs to be done materially because they know the need is there, and they talk about financial possibilities. And it goes on:
-specially in urban transportation, including the acquisition of land for the rights of way, housing, the fight against pollution, water supplies, recreational facilities, industrial parks and others;
WHEREAS it is in the national interest to give high priority to several programs affecting the standard of life in our communities and the effectiveness of our regional economies;
WHEREAS it is not in the national interest for our municipal governments to be forced into competition with federal and provincial governments as well as private corporations on the capital market;
WHEREAS the long experience of municipalities and higher government sin Western Europe proves the value of institutions specialized in municipal credit, not only through granting adequate priority to their needs for urban development and favourable credit terms and conditions, but also by adopting modern methods of long term planning and debt financing in line with a sound intergovernmental tax system;
I agree with those "whereas" of the resolution, which is very sensible, and I do believe that in the mind of the hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) his motion agrees with them as well. As General de Gaulle would say, you have to get to the bottom of things. Even if that great general had left us only that sentence after his 75 years with us, his heritage would still be invaluable. Why? Because, regardless of one's field of administrative responsibilities one must always get to the bottom of things, objectively, in all sincerity.
The mayors wanted to get to the bottom of the matter and asked in their brief that as much attention be given to under-developed Canadian municipalities as to underdeveloped African or Asian countries. The conclusion is as follows:
We also ask how the federal government can grant interest-free loans to under-developed countries, while refusing the same privileges to such a great number of under-developed municipalities in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since time goes quickly, I would like to show the veracity of the brief and prove that the mayors were right. I have here several letters from various mayors. Are they old letters? No, they are dated February 28, March 5, 4, 6 and 9. They are quite recent letters dealing with what matter?
You will recall that on October 14, 1971, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced a program to fight unemployment in Canada, in order to enable municipalities to undertake works which had been delayed due to the lack of funds and construct water or sewage systems, arenas or other buildings needed in their community for a long time.
As the member for Bellechasse, I had faith in the local initiatives program and I co-operated with the government. The facts are there to prove it. I took the trouble of contacting all responsible public officials without any political consideration, because I feel that there is a period to fight and assert one's views and it is the electoral campaign. It is followed by a much longer administrative period during which we must all co-operate to achieve something, whatever may be the government in power. And if that government makes mistakes our task is to say so quite honestly. If the role of the opposition in parlia-
March 13, 1972

ment is not accepted it is urgent to change the constitution. If we accept the job of the opposition members, account must be taken of the fair claims which can be made for those we represent, and let the government accept our co-operation when it concerns serious reforms.
Unfortunately I was unable to discover the criteria used by bureaucrats for approving local initiatives programs. Those who submitted projects received a letter saying: Your submission was very meaningful. However, we regret our inability to assist you. Had they at least been told very sincerely: Your project was meaningful but it was not approved due to lack of funds, of available credits, that would have been true, and those people would not have been disappointed about having worked two or three weeks preparing a project, hiring an engineer or an architect and ending up with what? The same situation as before October 14, a situation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I greatly regret having to interrupt the hon. member for Bellechasse, but I must point out to him that his time has now expired.
Unless there is unanimous consent of the House, the hon. member will not be able to continue his remarks. Does the House agree to the hon. member going on with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in this House for their generosity. I know this generosity is motivated by the merits of my remarks. At any rate, I heartily thank them and I shall try to be brief.
One of the reasons for my question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today is that on December 8, 1971, the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) made a statement in the House to the effect that he was altering the criteria for application of the program announced on October 14 in order to make it available to municipalities.
Before that, I had met the parliamentary secretary to the minister and told him: "It is not possible for small rural municipalities to benefit by this program because 30 man-months is a disproportionate requirement. So, when the government-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is not seeking to limit the hon. member's remarks but earlier, and precisely when his time was about to expire, the Chair was wondering how the hon. member's remarks, in connection with a specific program, were related to the motion under study.
I understand that the motion deals with urban poverty. Of course, the hon. member can always allude to specific programs but I am precisely wondering whether the Chair may allow him to proceed with his speech for such a prolonged period of time on a precise program and to elaborate as he has been doing until now. This is why I would invite him not to refrain from expressing his opinion on this program but to limit his remarks and to deal with the motion now before the House.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to abide by your ruling. However, I think that the comments I intended to make were related to the motion now before us and I believe that the Chair as well as my hon. colleagues will agree that they have received with great satisfaction the statement made last December 8 by the former Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that the criteria of the program had been changed to enable small communities to take advantage of it. It was reduced from 30 man-months to 15 man-months of work. Some municipalities have therefore benefited from the program, but one and a half month had been already lost since they could not have foreseen, on November 1st, that they could benefit from the program in view of the established criteria.
I remember that I had replied in this House to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration to say that I was glad of this improvement. But since it was evident, according to the minister that, and I quote:
-it is now apparent that more applications which meet the basic criteria will be received than can be approved within available funds.
-I said, as appears at page 10253 of Hansard, that I deplored certain man made actions and the fact that people who were prepared to pool their efforts in order to fulfill a need of the community could not do it. I predicted also at that time that owing to the amendments introduced to the criteria applicable to municipalities, a greater number of projects could readily be submitted. So, when I see, for instance, that $15,000 are granted to an association called the Community Hemophile Association of Toronto, to assist in the operation of its centre as a refuge for hemophiles who have adjustment problems, I do not object, but when $10,000 or $8,000 are denied to municipalities to establish a community centre from which they will benefit I protest, because in my opinion it is normal to accept programs of this nature when they are proposed in good faith by voluntary administrators in municipalities who are dedicated to the task of trying to secure some well-being in their community.
If extra money is voted, I hope that these communities will be able to start and complete their projects. I am satisfied that by this means the government will help reduce the impact of unemployment in underdeveloped areas, in the areas where the people suffer greatly from the lack of employment, from a lack in income and to enable all family heads to meet their obligations.
May I repeat this once more for the minister. Extra money simply must be given to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order that he may give a favourable reply to the requests that were presented, not before February 20, but before January 20. The deadline was January 31, so it cannot be said that they were received too late.
I hope that this motion and this debate will bring about concrete realizations and that at least we will be pleased to hear that the federal government and the Minister pf Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) will be able

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems to direct their officials to re-examine all these serious projects that have beep proposed so that they be accepted in order to distribute some of the wealth we have in Canada and in order to promote further in this way the establishment of the just society, something which we can do in Canada although our people are imperfect and mortal.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the three interventions so far with a great deal of interest, particularly the energetic presentation of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I say to him first that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) will, I am sure, note his remarks about the Local Initiatives Program. In so far as he spoke about cost-sharing with other levels of government, and in so far as the leaders of the other parties spoke on that subject, they will note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has been in the House listening to their remarks. No doubt, he will want to deal with that issue on a future appropriate occasion.
If I may, I should like to deal with the resolution which is before us and with the remarks that have already been made. I wish to assure hon. members that for the balance of the debate today I will listen to the suggestions and comments made with a great deal of interest. I want first to express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for moving this motion. I hope it does not have the same result as that which occurred the last time his party moved a motion related to a former department of mine. They once moved a motion about consumer affairs which so divided the Conservative party that they never again, during the three years I was minister, moved a similar motion related to consumer affairs. The Conservatives did not seem to be able to agree as to what their position should be in respect of consumer affairs. I hope they will be more in agreement in respect of urban policy.
As I say, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kindness today in moving the motion that he has because it is a kindness to this government when he asks us to co-operate in good faith with the provinces and municipalities on urban matters. That is preaching to the converted, if I ever heard it. The Leader of the Opposition read us a lesson which indicated that we ought to be doing precisely what we have been doing for some time, what we are doing and what we shall continue to do. It was this government that initiated, and has expressed up and down the country, the concept that urban problems and urban opportunities, so pressing, so accelerating and so far-reaching in their effect on Canada, require co-operative mechanisms and approaches from the government. It was this government that sought to persuade others to develop new mechanisms and approaches so that governments at all levels could impose shape and direction on the growth of urban Canada.
All those things that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned are precisely the reasons this government has a Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. This is what my ministry has been seeking to do, amidst some clucking of hesitancy from some Conservative elements in the coun-

try. Such co-operation is what the provincial premiers agreed to support at the first ministers conference in Ottawa last November. The motion that is before us today is, in fact, a lesson for which this government provided the Bible, as it were, in the first comprehensive study of urban conditions in Canada, a study that was published by this government entitled "Urban Canada". It was that study that provided the Bible from which the Leader of the Opposition took his text today. That study analysed the current problems and predicted the deterioration in our life, as well as the worsening and greater inequality of social conditions if trends in urban life do not change.
This government understood those prospects and formed the ministry under my predecessor. It was established, plainly recognizing and accepting two key facts; first, the Canadian fact of life, which is offered not as an excuse but as a fact of life, that municipalities are the creatures of the provinces for jurisdictional purposes, and second, that no one level of government could possibly begin to tackle urban problems in the comprehensive way that is required. These problems required the comprehensive and co-ordinated action of all three levels of government. Accordingly, my ministry's mandate states that it shall foster co-operative relations in urban affairs with the provinces and, through them, their municipalities, and with the public and with private organizations.
Our mandate is:
to co-ordinate the activities of the government of Canada in establishing co-operative relationships with the provinces and their municipalities for the enhancement of the human environment.
Co-operation and co-ordination with provinces and municipalities is precisely the purpose and the mandate of this ministry. Our mandate is broader than this, requiring us to evaluate existing and proposed policies, projects and activities, to initiate proposals for new policies and to seek, in consultation with other authorities concerned, the co-operative development of an urban policy in Canada. This ministry is instructed to initiate research and policy studies relating to urbanization and is to co-ordinate urban related research within the government of Canada.
It is a wide-ranging mandate that recognizes the crucial importance of co-ordination and co-operation within all levels of government. I quote that mandate because it was alarming to me that the Leader of the Opposition or his research staff, in what I take was a major presentation on urban policy, seemed unaware of what our mandate was and that we have within the government an instrument to do precisely what he was requesting.
I would have enjoyed hearing from the Leader of the Opposition constructive suggestions on how I could fulfil that mandate in an effective way. If he has criticisms of what is being performed, I would have liked to have heard them. But the Leader of the Opposition and his research staff seem unaware of the fact that such a mandate exists. Flowing from this mandate, there have been important initiatives and important new programs. There has been an important shift in attitudes both inside and outside the government. People are beginning to take into much greater account the urban impact on specific problems in transportation, taxation, welfare, environment, housing and so forth. The opposition motion sets out such factors as if they were separate issues to be dealt with separately.
March 13, 1972

What the motion should do is to appreciate that such problems are a part of each other and are interrelated. For instance, what one does in transportation has an immense impact on job patterns, on housing, on requirements for schools and sewers and much else that goes far beyond transportation's immediate aim of moving people and goods from place to place. I would have hoped that the Conservative motion would have recognized the essential interdependence between these various policies that must be carried out.
Similarly intertwined are those things that governments do in urban Canada, including revenue sharing, social security, immigration, creation of jobs, industrial strategy, and so on. This fact should have been reflected with perception in the motion which attempts to understand, as the opposition alleges, the accumulating problems of urbanization in Canada. We should have heard something positive from them about how such complexities can be studied, debated and acted upon by different levels of government in productive concert. That is the path upon which the government has embarked with some success, and it is to that aspect that the Opposition should be addressing itself today. The motion that is before us today affords us at least the opportunity to report just what is happening, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked for such a report. That is why, as I said, he has done me a real kindness in putting forward the motion today.
It has been the conviction of the government that we in Canada are at an urban crossroads. We know that there are serious social, economic, environmental, cultural and political questions about Canada's urban future, and some have been touched upon today. We also have, and let us grasp this important fact, more bright and more easily realizable opportunities than almost any other highly developed industrial nation. Canada's major problems of poverty, housing, transportation, environment and social equity are in fact her opportunities to create a society of special excellence in the northern part of North America. These problems and opportunities are rooted in the intensifying process of urbanization. As I have said, they are characterized by a high degree of interdependence. They are influenced by a wide range of government policies and programs at all levels of activity. If we are to accomplish our goal, there must be unprecedented co-operation and co-ordination in planning and action between all levels, or the high quality of urban life we have now will become unstuck, and that will create divisions in this country that could sunder it.
The great excitement that I find in travelling through cities in Canada is that people in those cities see other cities in North America and in Europe, many of which are huge urban areas, that have become quite unpleasant areas in which people have to live. The excitement that I find results from the realization that Canadian cities are at the threshhold and so have an opportunity not to go down that path of building huge megalopolises that are unpleasant and unrewarding places in which to live. We have a choice to take another route and to build the kind of urban centres in Canada that we want to build. That is the excitement which I see reflected in the planners, builders and politicians across the country whom I meet.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
I say this because I want to make a plea for co-operation at all levels. Anyone who is at all familiar with Canadian urbanization trends appreciates that intergovernmental consultation and co-operation are no longer discretionary. They are mandatory. We face a very rapid rate of urban growth. Most of our principal cities could double their populations, and our biggest cities could triple their populations, over the next three decades. These decades will require the development of more urban area than has been developed in the entire history of the country-more houses, bridges, and roads, more schools and cultural centres, more sewer and water facilities, more of almost everything that makes an urban community. This growth will be guided and shaped by policies and programs within the jurisdiction of and administered by the three levels of government. If this growth is to result in the high quality urban environment that we all desire, and that we can have, not only governments but also other public and private institutions will have to put their heads together as never before, and work co-operatively together as never before.
This government has not needed to be told that there are real problems, national in scope and transcending all political jurisdictions. That is why my predecessor, even before this ministry was formed, began talking about the need for a special study of these problems and for new tools to plan and implement public urban policy. That is why he began seeking national urban planning consultations which would, for the first time, bring the municipalities to the table. That was, and still is, a federal government initiative.
The motion before us refers to co-operation with municipal as well as provincial governments. But the trilevel consultations sought by the government have met difficulties in some provinces which objected to any major consultative role for municipalities. The Leader of the Opposition touched on some of those difficulties. Federal-provincial-municipal talks, meant to lead to some sort of structures for consultation, have been held in Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Victoria. Finally, here in Ottawa last November, the premiers of the provinces agreed to support the principle of, and I quote:
-close co-operation between federal and provincial governments toward the effective co-ordination of their relevant policies and programs.
The first ministers at that meeting instructed that:
-on-going discussions to finalize the exact elements of the consultative mechanism go forward and be expedited.
That instruction, an initiative of the federal government, broke the impasse.
The on-going discussions referred to by the first ministers had been held between my predecessor, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras), and the then Ontario minister of municipal affairs, Darcy McKeough, and Mayor Marcel D'Amour of Hull representing Canadian municipalities. Changes in portfolios delayed the resumption of those discussions.
The Leader of the Opposition asked what was going on, and I am happy to report to him and announce that those difficulties have now been overcome. There is to be a

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems meeting between Mr. McKeough for Ontario, myself for Canada, and Mayor D 'Amour on April 10 at Mayor D'A-mour's chambers in Hull. That will be a meeting of the committee of which Mr. McKeough was chairman and which was instructed to convene a trilevel conference, and to work towards such a convening. We are to work toward establishing a date and a specific agenda for the first national consultation. I said, Mr. Speaker, this is to be the first national consultation, and I certainly hope it will be the first of many. I hope that meeting will show a federal initiative realized. I hope that bodes well for the future of trilevel discussion, planning and co-operation in Canada. I give the Leader of the Opposition my assurance that I will be there at that meeting, endeavouring in every way I can to ensure that it is a success and that it is productive of results for the development of further consultative machinery and mechanisms.
Our effort toward co-operation goes well beyond trilevel national consultations. The ministry has been engaged from its first day in the development of structured coordinating links with separate provinces and, through them, with specific urban regions. These efforts are now starting to show progress, despite the difficulties inherent in such a process. Links have already been established, and specific bodies created for the urban regions of Vancouver and Montreal. These have already yielded practical results of short and long-term significance. Similar links are currently being created for the urban regions of Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Quebec City and Halifax, in all cases with full provincial knowledge, support and involvement. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would wish me well in the creation of those links.
Through such continuing tripartite structures, the ministry is placing itself in a position of knowledge and competence to stimulate and co-ordinate federal in-puts into these urban regions, not on an ad hoc problem by problem basis, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us do, but rather in full awareness of the inter-relationships of urban issues, and within coherent urban frameworks agreed to by all concerned. The ministry has focussed on key agencies in its task of establishing links within the federal government to bring co-ordination and a specifically urban view to federal policies and programs. These include, for example, involvement in major federal works in cities, in disposal of urban located military bases, in decisions regarding the management of federal lands in cities, in investigations and policies regarding urban transportation alternatives in some urban areas.
There is, Mr. Speaker, the closest consultation and involvement with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in developing new and co-ordinated approaches in housing. This involvement with CMHC extends to plans for careful intergovernmental consultation on any new approaches that materialize, after they have been presented to parliament. I want to say a little more in a minute about federal housing programs that were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
I wish to mention some aspects of urban transportation, a subject which is referred to in the resolution. Of course, the outstanding example is the recent announcement by

both the federal government and the government of Ontario of the site northeast of Toronto for the region's new international airport. The choice of that site was made as a deliberate stimulus to planned urbanization. As the joint announcement of the governments of Canada and Ontario stated, it was made after an exhaustive federal-provincial evaluation of potential sites. The site was chosen for many reasons that are set out in the announcement, but a major one, and one mentioned in the joint announcement was, and I quote:
-the location east of Toronto is the result of joint federal-provincial effort to provide a major stimulus to development east of metropolitan Toronto as called for in the Toronto-Centred Region Plan.
The government of Ontario has been redesigning the shape and location of some of the proposed communities in order to take the airport location into account. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the airport can provide the stimulus and foundation for an entirely new community. The government of Ontario proposes to establish such a community, which is to be called Cedarwood. The development of this new town, as well as of many of the other principal features of the Toronto-Centred Region Plan, will require the concerted application of both provincial and federal policies and programs. This must be, to a very large extent, a co-operative venture. Both governments recognize this, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition asked what co-operation is there, and I am citing this as a specific example of specific programs that have been co-ordinated.
In its second report on the Toronto-Centred Region Plan, the government of Ontario stated:
We look forward to working very closely with the (newly established) Ministry (of State for Urban Affairs) in the formulation and implementation of many of our development policies.
May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition that we are also looking forward to working very closely with Ontario in this area, and discussions to this end are now under way.
Another important part of the mandate of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is to conduct, support and co-ordinate urban research. We are well launched into that. We have begun to study the effects of a range of current government policies on cities and on urban regions. The ministry is now designing public program impact models, of both national and big city scale, that are heavily based on computer simulation. Groups are working on the social consequences of what exists now and what we could have in such areas as housing policy, transportation, government operations affecting urban land and development, new devices to affect the use and allocation of land, and others.
Another important role of the ministry is evaluating existing and future federal policies as they affect urban areas. Our priorities for policy studies include population distribution, urban concentration and growth, government finance and revenue sharing, transportation and communications, federal land management, the character of employment to be created in this decade to meet the massive growth in labour force that is occurring, the federal role in the problems of urban poverty, and others.
March 13, 1972

You may notice, Mr. Speaker, that our various studies and various initiatives in this area cover the separate items in the opposition motion. In our research effort and in our role of evaluating existing and future federal policies, I want to assure the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) that we are not using research as an excuse for not doing anything but are acting already on the basis of information. In this kind of research and study, we are not seeking theoretical answers but practical solutions and implementation programs.
Having dealt with the ministry, may I now deal with the question raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, pollution. I should like to point out that the Department of the Environment has already brought in much legislation in this regard and through the agency which reports to me, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal government has, with other governments, been deeply involved in pollution control by means of sewer treatment projects. The National Housing Act provides for federal loans to provinces and municipalities of two-thirds of the cost of sewage treatment facilities including a grant of one-sixth of the cost of each works. The municipalities are hard-pressed for finances, and we are all concerned about pollution. This year, we have made available more than $100 million to the municipalities for this purpose, with the provinces setting the priorities as to where the need is greatest. We have been spending increasingly more in recent years in this program, for a total to date of $500 million. The governments of Canada and Ontario have also entered into an agreement about cleaning up the lower Great Lakes, and the federal funds of $167 million will be provided through this sewer treatment program over the five-year period.
Mr. Speaker, last year and the year before we mounted colossal housing programs, programs amounting to $1.7 billion. It would be infantile to think that we could have done this without the close co-operation of other governments and the private sector. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the provinces and municipalities for this co-operation in serving Canadians. It is this kind of cooperation in good faith, pragmatic co-operation to get things done, that the urban affairs ministry, CMHC and the federal government will pursue and nurture. We believe we will continue to get this kind of co-operation from the provinces and municipalities, in many endeavours, in turn.
If I may give some statistics on the housing program that has been launched, I should like to put on the record the tangible result of the co-operation with the provinces and municipalities which I have already mentioned. In the year just passed, there were 233,000 housing units started and more than 200,000 completed. At the average occupancy rate, this is new housing in one year for more than three-quarters of a million Canadians. It is unthinkable that this could have occurred without the best co-operation between the federal government, the provinces, municipalities and the private sector. With that kind of record I will not accept a charge by the opposition that we have failed to co-operate with other important levels of government.
In 1971, the record year for housing in Canada, the federal government made available to the provinces $306
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems million for public housing. It is in this particular field that the provinces and municipalities play the greatest role. We provided $306 million for this co-operative effort for Canadians of low income in one year. In the years 1957 through 1963, the Tory government provided an average of $7.5 million a year for public housing, compared with $306 million by the Liberal party.
In 1964, the government of Mr. Pearson amended the National Housing Act to provide the provinces with an option of taking a loan from the federal government for public housing rather than the former system where the federal government had retained a 75 per cent interest. It was this amendment that paved the way for the great upsurge in the building of public housing, and which spurred the creation by the provinces of provincial housing corporations. It has been from the growth of these provincial housing organizations that the great thrust in housing in Canada has become a reality. That thrust, with the federal government the driving force, is assuring that the homebuilding record of 1971 is almost certain of being well surpassed in 1972.
With the provinces, we are co-operating in supporting non-profit organizations in housing the elderly and the handicapped. For two years with a newer thrust, that of home ownership for people of low and modest incomes, provinces have introduced complementary programs to help these home owners, with help ranging from capital grants to interest rebates. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the mechanism of co-operation has existed in terms of building housing for Canadians. In the ministry we are developing a new mechanism of co-operation and co-ordination, not only on federal government policy but on federal, provincial and municipal policy.
I am grateful to the House, Mr. Speaker, because I think I have gone over my time. I have outlined the kind of programs and the co-operation and co-ordination which were developed and which I have no hesitation in saying will develop. In conclusion, may I say a few words about where that will lead us in terms of federal housing policy.
In the Speech from the Throne which began this session the government said that we will be proposing fresh concepts, continuing research and imagination in neighbourhood improvement, with emphasis on the need for low cost housing. We will be proposing, on the one hand, new financial mechanisms to improve the flow of funds for housing from the capital market. On the other hand, we will be proposing amendments to the National Housing Act to provide a broader range of projects for meeting the needs of low income persons and families and the improvement of urban neighbourhoods.
As a result of the steps that have been taken since 1964, such as the freeing of the National Housing Act, interest rates have increased the flow of funds from the capital market into housing to the extent that we expect the private lending institutions to finance 195,000 housing units in 1972. This funding by private lending institutions is in addition to what the government will do. This, together with the federal government's investment on behalf of low income families, will ensure that at least 240,000 housing units will be started in 1972. We believe that more can be done, particularly to improve the liquidity of mortgages held by such investors as Canada's pension funds,

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems the charter banks and the trust companies. It will be proposed, therefore, that a publicly-owned residential mortgage bank be created to buy and sell residential mortgages, and thus create the liquidity sought by some investors. Opportunities will be created for smaller investors to provide funds through new mortgage investment companies which will create-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have one more paragraph-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret having to interrupt the hon. minister, but I tried to allow him a half minute or so. I think the House is disposed to let him finish but I have to ask for consent. Is there consent for the minister to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would be happy to have the minister finish his paragraph.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for allowing me to finish my submission. I was saying that, through this legislation, a new residential mortgage bank will be proposed to parliament. Through that instrument, opportunities will be created for smaller investors to provide funds through new mortgage investment companies which will create a new source of funds for residential investment and will also provide the opportunity for small investors to invest their funds at, or near, current mortgage rates.
The amendments to the National Housing Act that parliament will be asked to consider are intended to provide a wide range of assistance to improve the quality of urban neighbourhoods. We intend to provide a wide range of choices for meeting the needs of low income families and disadvantaged groups, wherever they are to be found in Canada. We will continue to offer the strongest support to the provinces for meeting their special needs, and the federal government will also exercise its own initiatives on behalf of low income people. In this co-operative way, we will meet the housing and many other urban needs of Canadians, working in concert with various jurisdictions to maintain and create an urban Canadian excellence.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for moving his motion and giving me the opportunity to make a statement. I listened to his presentation with interest. I can assure hon. members that I and my officials will listen with great interest to any comments and suggestions that are made in the balance of the debate.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, the minister expressed a desire to create in Canada an urban society of special excellence. I am sure that is what we all wish. May I point out to the minister, and to the House, that there is no situation of special excellence at the present time involving the core of Metropolitan Toronto.
First, let me allude to the CMHC plans for building a low dividend, 13-story $2 million apartment house complex in my riding known as Richmond Square. Thirteen floors were supposed to have been finished by last April.

Yet, there the structure is standing, stark and empty, a ghastly sight against the sky. The building has settled in part. The people refer to the 13 floors that dip down as the "Trudeau depression", and with good reason. This is a very poor job on the part of CMHC as well as the contractor. There is no special excellence in certain parts of my riding, where about 25 per cent of the employable people do not have work. They are existing on welfare and unemployment insurance, or using up their savings when they are too proud to apply for welfare.
I confess that the situation would be far worse if it were not for the Local Initiatives Program. I must give the government some marks here, because lots of people are employed on worth-while projects financed under the LIP program. All the same, some of these projects are the goofiest projects you ever heard of in your life. I wonder what the reason is behind giving a grant of up to $12,000 to an individual or group-I am not sure which-for opening a coffee house with the emphasis on creativity. Where does all this lead us-to "spiked" coffee? I really must thank the government for approving an inordinate number of LIP projects in my riding. Out of $23 million or so allowed for Ontario, $1 million worth in projects has been approved for Spadina. This is all very well, and I appreciate it very much. I do not know whether the government is trying to elect me or defeat me in the next election. I know, however, that it seems a little strange that over $277,000 of this money, almost one third of the total approved for my riding, is to go to projects based at Rochdale College. Mr. Speaker, the government must make greater endeavours to bring about special excellence in our urban society, and especially in the core of Metropolitan Toronto.
Of all problems accumulating in the urbanization of Canada, the problem of poverty is one of the most acute. In 1967 our metropolitan areas accounted for more than one third of Canada's poor families and for more than one half of individuals living below the poverty line established by the Economic Council of Canada. A 1965 study by the Canadian Welfare Council gave equally startling and depressing accounts of the high incidence of urban poverty in Canada. The median per capita income of surveyed poor families was less than $400 in St. John's and Montreal, $500 in Toronto and $600 in Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, it takes a great deal more to live in downtown Toronto than in a village like Omemee near Peterborough. Poverty is not a problem merely of an insufficient income. It is a problem of inferior health, inadequate housing, low education and involves many other difficulties. There is no doubt that the urban poor face these difficulties to an almost intolerable degree.
The National Welfare Council's urban policy study found that 26 per cent of such families had no male head; in 43 per cent of such households there was a chronic physical problem in the family. The study also found that 70 per cent of the males and females involved had less than a grade 8 education; 46 per cent were unemployed for a period greater than ten weeks and their housing was judged to be unfit or bad, being in the lowest of possible categories in almost half of all the cases reviewed. The need for aggressive government policies to cope with this problem of urban poverty is very great. The need is immediate, Mr. Speaker, for the problem is a growing one.
March 13, 1972

The Lithwick report on urban poverty released last year warned that urban areas were increasing their relative share of Canada's poor population.
I contend that, despite the demonstrated need for a concerted federal effort to cope with poverty and, particularly, urban poverty, the Trudeau government's philosophy and policy in relation to the problem has been chaotic and inconsistent, as several examples will easily demonstrate. Last March the Lithwick report slapped the Trudeau government on the knuckles for its mistaken approach to the problem of aiding the urban poor. According to the Lithwick report, the majority of urban poor are unemployables who are not helped by manpower policies. Fully 40 per cent of all urban poor are single individuals over 65 years of age or consist of families headed by an aged person. Another 30 per cent are not in the labour force for other reasons, such as illness or handicaps. The Trudeau government has, on occasion, publicly supported the Lithwick findings. Equally frequently, it has denied the very same findings.
Consider, for example, the actions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). He has been known to set himself up as the champion of the cause of the urban poor against what he has called the extreme, intolerant rightism or welfare backlash. In a speech on October 10, 1971 he is reported to have said that most of the people receiving welfare in our society are not the unemployed employables. Scarcely six weeks later, he spoke about poverty and welfare to members of the House of Commons. Despite his statement that almost 90 per cent of people on welfare are totally outside the work force and often incapable of ever entering the work force, he spent the majority of his speech telling us about unemployment insurance, opportunities for youth and other job creating schemes that the federal government had authorized as part of the anti-poverty battle. Small wonder that the Toronto Star headline for the next day read "jobs, not handouts government policy for the poor: Munro". There is no doubt that the programs the Trudeau government has billed as its anti-poverty weapons are inadequate to do the job. Both manpower and non-manpower programs are at fault.
Let us consider the anti-poverty plan most publicized in recent months by the Trudeau government, the Family Income Security Plan. According to the official news release, FISP is, and I quote:
-part of a larger 'package' which the federal government has developed to fight poverty in this country.
However, the minister has forgotten to co-ordinate all parts of this so-called package with the result that there is a flaw, possibly a fatal flaw, in the anti-poverty effectiveness of FISP. The problem is that under the Canada Assistance Plan, the provinces are entitled to lower their rates of welfare assistance in proportion to the higher family allowance payments these families will be receiving when FISP becomes law. Under Section 2(b)(iii) of the Canada Assistance Plan, there is a provision that the provinces, in determining the degree of need and arrangements for social assistance to applicants for welfare, shall take into account all income maintenance payments
Federal Co-overation in Urban Problems through unemployment insurance, old age security, Canada Pension Plan, and guaranteed income supplement schemes. However, it is optional for the provinces to take into account family allowance and other schemes. Currently, none of the provinces calculate family allowance payments as income for purposes of social assistance.
However, it is entirely possible that when the new, higher benefits to poor families are paid after FISP becomes law, some of the provinces will start to include FISP as part of the welfare applicants' incomes and will lower family social assistance payments correspondingly. It is especially likely that the poorer provinces, which have long felt hard-pressed by the inflexible 50-50 costsharing arrangements with the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan, will unfortunately feel compelled to make such a revision. This problem in the relationship between FISP and the Canada Assistance Plan is an important one, and it is essential that the Minister of National Health and Welfare take immediate steps to correct it if he is sincere in his desire to fight poverty.
The Family Income Security Plan has been a political football for the entire life of the Trudeau government. Its repeated delaying of the plan, its high-handed approach to negotiations with Quebec and its refusal to let the people of Canada in on its intentions for the plan certainly throw into question the stated desire of this government to aid those in poverty. Today, we have again heard rumours of a major change in FISP. It is to be hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare change their tactics this time, that they carefully and immediately explain the changes and ramifications of these changes to the Canadian people and that they then act upon these changes in the form of legislation brought before this House without further delay.
Family allowances are not the only means stated by the federal government to cope with poverty in this country, especially in urban areas where the majority of the poor live. Manpower policies are another route by which the federal government has proposed to help some of the poor. It is not necessary to carry out much investigation before coming to the conclusion that Canada's manpower policies do not serve best those who need them most. Too much of the emphasis in manpower policies is on helping those Canadians who are able to achieve the same goals under their own steam, and too little manpower money is allocated toward helping the hard-core unemployed, the poor, and persons otherwise disadvantaged.
For example, Canada's manpower training programs have come under heavy fire from critics who point out that present programs tend to favour those persons who offer the best potential for employment to the detriment of the riskier subliterate individual who may be one of the hard-core unemployed and the poor. In many ways, the principles, regulations and practices of the manpower training program operate in such a way that the majority of resources are channelled toward those who would likely be successful on their own and away from those who really need the help.
Like the training program, the scheme of mobility grants has been proven guilty of favouring the best pros-

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems pects for success and of leaving the poor and hard-core unemployed where they seem always to have been, at the bottom of the Trudeau government's list for receiving federal aid. One survey of workers receiving mobility grants found that 75 per cent of the movers openly stated they would have moved even if the government had not offered them mobility grants. Therefore, only 25 per cent of the people were really influenced by the grants.
The catalogue continues in similar fashion. Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives, all are schemes oriented to the young, middle-class generation that have the information and education necessary to dream up a project and present it to the federal government, using terminology and phraseology that civil servants understand and the regulations demand. The poor and the hard-core unemployed lack this essential background. Consequently, the manpower policies and programs of the Trudeau government are a failure in helping the 13 per cent of the poor who are in the labour force, and that is the estimate of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as well as the other poor people who could join the labour force if there were an appropriate strategy geared to meeting their needs. Indeed, an appropriate manpower strategy has many times been suggested by reputable persons.
As the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out, the federal government's strategy in the field of manpower policy is primarily a growth strategy, with the objectives of equity and stabilization clearly being secondary. I refer hon. members to the Eighth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada, page 98. Recently several prominent economists have been suggesting a shift in our priorities in manpower policy goals so that equity is more directly sought. The Trudeau government is urged to heed this advice. What about the other urban poor, the ones who are not helped by either family allowances or by manpower policies? According to the Lithwick report, a large number of these are the aged and female family heads with children. What is the Trudeau government doing for these people?
The Liberals' efforts to help the aged are now generally recognized as miserly and hypocritical. After boosting old age pensions by 42 cents and removing the 2 per cent cost-of-living escalator, they rationalized this move by loudly proclaiming how generous they were being in raising the guaranteed income supplement. Yet people receiving even the maximum supplement, in cases of extreme poverty, still are not brought up even to the poverty line. A single person in 1971 received OAS and GIS payments at a rate of $1,620 per year while the poverty line for them in that year was $2,013. Likewise, a couple receiving maximum OAS and GIS benefits at a rate of $3,060 in 1971 still got less than the 1971 poverty line of $3,355. Consequently, the Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement legislation fall far short of helping the aged poor.
The hypocrisy of the government is again shown by its attitude toward females'who are heads of families. Where is the massive day-care centre plan needed to help poverty-stricken mothers who wish to get off the welfare treadmill and back into the labour market, but cannot afford to do so because of the cost of boarding children during the day? The new tax deductions for day care may help the

middle income working wife, but they are insufficient in themselves to help the poverty-stricken mother who must raise her family alone. These women also need other supportive services from the federal government.
Throughout its term of office, the government has consistently turned a deaf ear to the valid criticisms of many Canadians with regard to its anti-poverty programs. Many of these faults could be corrected without too much fuss, yet the Prime Minister and his cabinet are so stiff-necked with pride that they refuse to accept most criticism directed at them. Instead, they righteously parade their list of so-called accomplishments, and sulk with hurt pride whenever they are chided for errors and inadequacies in these accomplishments. Many issues facing the nation today are too urgent to permit such time-wasting. Urban poverty is such an issue.
The problem of urban poverty is a growing one. Present welfare and manpower programs are inadequate to deal with the problems. New initiatives, a new approach and a new commitment to solve the problem are needed. Mr. Speaker, if this government is not willing to provide these, the Progressive Conservative party is.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-Highways; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford)-Drugs; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Veterans Affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield:
That this House, alarmed at this government's inability to deal with the accumulating problems of urbanization in Canada, declares that a federal government must co-operate in good faith with provincial and municipal governments in planning and in implementing policies on revenue sharing, inter-urban transportation, housing, urban poverty, pollution and rural depopulation.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Official Opposition for moving the motion which is before us; it gives us an opportunity to take part in a general debate on a whole range of questions. The difficulty about the resolution and about the
March 13, 1972

debate so far is that both are so far-ranging. The matters mentioned in the resolution include revenue-sharing, interurban transportation, housing, urban poverty, pollution and rural depopulation. In such a form it amounts to a kind of motherhood resolution asking the federal government to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in examining a wide range of urban problems. None of us in this House would deny the need to look at these matters. The minister, replying to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), drew attention to the record of the government in showing initiative in these fields and in bringing about co-operation on a broad front in the course of these activities.
Today I shall not attempt to deal with the generality of these questions, some of which are extremely serious and will be with us for some time. Instead, I shall attempt to place one specific matter before the House and call attention to the need for further initiative with regard to it. I believe the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, should institute a program of grants for capital and operating costs in connection with a system of underground rapid rail transit in all our metropolitan cities. If we were to pick one single priority which would contribute most in terms of an improvement to the quality of life in our cities, I think it should be this one. As a starting point, I would take every metropolitan area with a population of 500,000 or more.
The story is the same in case after case. The automobile, which made the suburbs possible, is slowly strangling urban life. I am proud to see present in the chamber some of my colleagues who have co-operated when other motions have been before the House on other occasions. I go back to the question of public transport. The automobile creates a most difficult situation for those who are responsible for municipal affairs. It distorts budget priorities. As a member of the Ottawa City Council I never heard a single taxpayer complain about the million dollars a mile it cost to build a thruway, the Queensway, for example, or about proposals for a never-ending series of rapid, limited access expressways to bring yet more automobiles into the centre of the town and put them on streets inadequate to cope with them. But many taxpayers complained loudly about suggestions that a modest subsidy be granted to the operation of a public transport system. The automobile not only distorts the budget but it benefits from an untold number of subsidies, subsidies to build those expressways, off-street parking, traffic signals, a whole range of facilities. Public transportation does not receive the same kind of subsidy or encouragement.
Apart from this, there is the whole question of pollution to be considered. Anyone trying to take a walk, even in Ottawa which I consider to be a relatively unpolluted city, finds himself plagued by exhaust fumes, the waste products of lead fuels used in internal combustion motors. They are inescapable. We learn from recent studies that more than 50 per cent of the nitrous pollutants in the air of our cities come from private automobiles. There are conditions in which fumes from private automobiles and other industrial sources of pollution can be deadly. In certain conditions, sulphuric acid droplets are created in the air, droplets corrosive enough to erode the stone of these very buildings.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
In the course of the great efforts which have been made to improve the national capital, some tentative steps have been taken toward improving public transportation. I had the honour to sponsor a resolution calling upon the government to enter into negotiations with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec with a view to establishing a national capital region public transportation authority. This resolution was cast not in terms of solving the problems of a relatively small area, however important. It was designed to permit the federal government to set up, as a demonstration, the sort of arrangement which could be carried out in all our large cities. This motion was debated on March 6, 1970 as reported in Hansard at pages 4494 to 4504 and again on May 17, 1971, as recorded on pages 5872-5875. On the latter date I enjoyed the rare honour of seeing a private member's resolution passed in this House. I am still waiting to learn what consequences follow from such a signal honour. Nevertheless, it was a source of some satisfaction to me.
Today, I welcome the presence in the House of my colleague, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who supported me in the earlier debate. He has favoured the idea of a monorail. I have an open mind on that matter. Possibly monorail transit is the solution. But this leads us to the second aspect of the question, which is that the federal government should take the lead in an area in which the municipalities themselves are powerless to do so. It must lead not only with grants and programs but with some basic research as well.
The technology of moving men and women in vehicles other than the private automobile in peak hours from the centre of cities has to be examined through a series of research grants. Some years ago when I was a member of the Ottawa Transportation Commission I had an opportunity of going to a United States transit association convention in San Francisco, and there we looked at the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. They were building something like 75 miles of rapid transit in one fell swoop, giving rapid transit to a city that had almost forgotten what public transportation was. Before embarking upon that system they had had to establish test laboratories to find out what kind of motors should be used. They were testing two kinds of alternating current motors and two kinds of direct current motors. They had to design coaches and do some fundamental research before making the decisions appropriate to their conditions.
The reservations that I have about a monorail system are twofold. First, there is a major switching problem of going from one line to another. The system seems to be adaptable for use as an airport line; for example, going from the centre of a large metropolitan area to the airport serving the community and back again.
Then, there is a major question concerning weather conditions. We are faced with ice and sleet, which is a severe test in wintertime, and these conditions do create problems for public transportation systems. I note that the famous Turbo train which operates between Toronto and Montreal ran into continuing technical difficulties, and had an accident resulting from weather conditions a few days ago.
774

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
Surely one of the very specific areas in which the government of Canada can take the initiative, consistent with our constitutional position and with the rights of provinces and municipalities, is in the area of public transportation. If a city is desirous of establishing an underground transportation system, such as Montreal did for Expo, the provision of some research grants would produce some conclusive and reliable evidence as to whether to develop a rapid transit system consisting of steel on steel or rubber on steel. Montreal made its decision based on the fact that they had to meet a serious time factor, and as a result their system was a costly one.
I am glad to see the minister is paying careful attention to my remarks, and I am delighted to see him here. I think that federal initiative in this area should be geared to the specific conditions prevailing in Canada, to the kind of cities we have and the kind of population densities we have in those cities, and to the immense difficulties we have to face in trying to plan forward in cities when we do not know what the fixture holds. An underground rail rapid transit system, could be the key to the kind of densities that you would have in centretown, to the use of the most expensive real estate, to the patterns of transportation which flow from the centre of metropolitan areas through an interurban pattern. The technology has to be established, and it can be established only with financial assistance at senior levels of government.
I have touched on just one problem. I am sure members on the other side of the House are interested in this matter and will give us their views. In my submission, this is one specific area in which it will be possible to make a positive contribution to the quality of life in our cities.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which reads as follows:
That this House, alarmed at this government's inability to deal with the accumulating problems of urbanization in Canada, declares that a federal government must co-operate in good faith with provincial and municipal governments in planning and in implementing policies on revenue sharing, interurban transportation, housing, urban poverty, pollution and rural depopulation.
I should like to put some emphasis on the question of rural depopulation. The nature and extent of rural depopulation in Canada has severely damaged the quality of life in rural Canada and has aggravated many of our urban problems as well. The Progressive Conservative party has committed itself to revitalizing rural Canada. This is an important aspect of providing more humane and manageable urban development. The following resolutions were formally accepted by our policy convention at the Progressive Conservative annual meeting on December 5, 1971.
1. Federal policy should recognize and develop the importance of Canadian towns and other communities under 10,000 population, in the following ways:
(a)	Present national policies which in fact now hurt or with change could help Canadian small communities should be systematically reviewed and changed.
(b)	Meetings should be convened with the provinces to develop a national policy for the towns and rural communities of Canada.
(c)	There should be consideration of establishing an objective "Towns Test" to determine the effect upon smaller communities

of every piece of new legislation proposed for consideration by parliament or for implementation by order-in-council, and a National Council from the towns to ensure a liaison between the national governments and representatives or local government, to meet quarterly for two-week periods in Ottawa to review legislation and practices which affect smaller communities and rural Canada, and to make recommendations informally to standing committees of parliament and government departments and prepare a formal annual report to parliament.
(d)	Public servants whose decisions seriously affect Canadian small communities should, wherever possible, have personal experience in small communities and should be required to spend an annual two-week sabbatical in a different town or rural community, in a different region each year.
(e)	In consultation with the provinces, professions, and representatives of small communities, there should be established a small agency of lawyers, economists, and others, independent of federal government in the manner of a Crown corporation, supported in part by the subscription of local governments, and available to assist member local governments, when they are engaged in major confrontations with groups whose expertise or other power is disproportionately strong.
It Is now the unique good fortune of Canada to possess both great cities and strong smaller communities. Any serious weakening of Canada's smaller communities would involve a high human cost to the people forced to move, a high dollar cost to the cities forced to receive them, and a higher cultural cost to a country which values the qualities of life in smaller communities.
There is evidence that smaller communities can be both viable and valuable to Canada. Roughly 35 per cent of Canadians interviewed in the 1966 census live in communities of population less than 10,000, and the general quality of Canadian life is enhanced by the continued existence of communities where there is a sense of place, a sense of neighborliness, a tradition of responsible participation in local affairs, and a respect for environment.
While it is recognized that the provinces are responsible for municipalities, it is also recognized that many areas of federal responsibility nevertheless seriously affect smaller communities in Canada, and that it should be a conscious policy of the federal government to co-operate with the provinces in developing the full potential of these communities. Present national policies concerning transportation and transportation services, housing, industrial development, agriculture, taxation, trade and other matters often harm or fail to benefit smaller communities in Canada. The official harm done these communities, while sometimes deliberate, is often simply the result of policy makers ignoring or not knowing the interests of smaller communities. The limited budgets, limited experience and limited expertise of smaller communities often place those communities at a serious disadvantage in dealing with governments, agencies, corporations and other powerful groups.
There is now virtually no effective federal provision to help provinces or smaller communities meet the special problems and opportunities of smaller Canadian communities. Leadership by government in recognizing the potential and value of Canadian towns and smaller communities will encourage private industry, institutions and individuals to recognize the viability of such communities. A Progressive Conservative government of Canada will encourage and strengthen smaller communities, as a
March 13, 1972

necessary complement to the continued growth of large urban communities and attitudes. A Progressive Conservative government will undertake a systematic review and amendment of all national policies which in fact now harm but which with change could help smaller communities including, specifically, policy respecting housing, industrial development and incentives, resource development, railroads and other national transportation, the Canada Council, the CBC and other national cultural institutions, agriculture, manpower, taxation and trade.
A Progressive Conservative government will convene meetings with the provinces to work out a national policy for the towns and rural communities of Canada. A Progressive Conservative government will consider, as one step, the establishment of a special small communities branch in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to, first, maintain in co-operation with the provinces and local communities an up to date inventory of industrial opportunities in Canadian smaller communities; second, to ensure the inclusion of small community representatives in certain Canadian trade missions and government-industrial briefings; third, to circulate to local officials the latest information on trading and industrial developments of importance to small communities; fourth, to prepare and circulate an annual report on technological and other changes which allow modern industry to move outside cities, and a list of the kinds of industry so liberated; and, fifth, to otherwise assist the development of a modern industrial base in Canada's smaller communities.
A Progressive Conservative government will consider the establishment of an objective test, perhaps to be called a town's test, to determine the effect upon smaller communities of every piece of new legislation proposed for consideration by parliament or for implementation by order in council.


Gerald William Baldwin: This government would fail on that score.


An hon. Member:: The echo over there is significant.


Steve Eugene Paproski: These are all real suggestions for the government and I want the minister to take note of them so he may implement them in his new work.


Gerald William Baldwin: He will not be here long enough to do it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There will be more chance for me to do it than for the hypothetical government they are talking about.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I hope you do something in respect of that bridge in British Columbia; they are still asking for a little loan. A Progressive Conservative government will consider the establishment of a national committee from the towns, appointed for short, fixed terms by elected local councils through the provinces-under the representational formula pertaining to the Senate-to ensure liaison between the national government and the representatives of local government, to meet quarterly for two-week periods in Ottawa to review legislation and practices which affect smaller communities and rural Canada and to make recommendations informally to standing committees of parliament and government departments and to
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems prepare a formal annual report to parliament. Isn't that great stuff!
A Progressive Conservative government will consider the appointment of a five-person secretariat, along the lines of the office of the commissioner on bilingualism, to assist the national committee from the towns and to work with standing committees of parliament whose deliberations concern rural Canada. The hiring policy of a Progressive Conservative government will consider the personal experience in towns of each public servant whose decisions would seriously affect Canadian small communities and will further consider sending public servants in such sensitive positions on an annual two-week sabbatical to a different town or rural community, in a different region each year, to help develop in Ottawa an adequate perspective on small communities and to help forge human links between national policy and local requirements.
In recognition of the serious lack of relevant expertise in small communities dealing with governments, corporations and other powerful groups, and in a consequent attempt to give David a slingshot, a Progressive Conservative government will consider establishing, in co-operation with the provinces and professions, a small agency of lawyers, economists and others independent of the federal government in the manner of a Crown corporation, supported in part by the subscription of local governments and available to assist member local governments when they are engaged in major confrontations with groups whose expertise or other power is disproportionately strong. A Progressive Conservative government will, through its appointments and other means, act generally to utilize the talents and potentials of Canadians from smaller communities so they might better make their indispensable contribution to the quality of life of modern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is my part in the debate and I hope the minister has taken note of it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Have you run out of notes?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No. I have a lot of material, but other hon. members wish to speak this afternoon. I thank hon. members for allowing me the time to speak.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment as Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I would remind him that when he was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I tagged him as the national shadow-boxing champion of Canada, for the simple reason that under his ministry Canadians had the highest priced drugs than ever before. He has assumed the mantle of Minister of State for Urban Affairs when Canadians are paying the highest prices for housing we have ever experienced. I hope that when he re-reads the speech he made today he will, in all humility, appreciate that Canadians are paying the highest price for housing that we have ever experienced.
We in the New Democratic Party agree with the motion presented by the Progressive Conservative party and we share the alarm expressed because of the government's inability to deal with the problems of housing and urbani-

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems zation. Indeed, we share the alarm of most Canadians, not only in respect of the inability of the federal government to deal with these problems of urbanization but the inability of the provincial governments.
I think it would be fair to say that this federal government to the present time has shown lack of leadership, slowness of response and lack of co-ordination and planning in respect of the problems of urban life. It could be said that the provinces also have been guilty of lack of co-operation, participation and determination as well as lack of appreciation of the magnitude and urgency of urban problems. Having blamed both federal and provincial governments, I would imagine most Canadians would say, "Plague on both Houses", but I am a charitable person and would like to think that these problems are not directly the responsibility of either the federal or the provincial governments: they are an accumulation of problems as a result of urban growth in an industrial society. When one realizes that by the year 1980 two-thirds of all Canadians will be living in 29 major Canadian cities, one appreciates the impact of these problems and the necessity to tackle them. This also indicates the urgency of the need for co-operation and co-ordination.
When I heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) speak about the mandate of his government I was reminded of the year 1967 when the federal-provincial conference on housing and urban development met. At that time Mr. Pearson took the initiative and suggested the establishment of a national urban council to take on the problems of the big cities through a tri-level approach. I was also reminded of the rejection of this proposal by most of the provinces. It was the predecessor of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who reintroduced the idea in 1970 and then, rather cautiously but persuasively, tried to impress upon the provincial governments the need for a tri-level approach to our major problems. In November of 1971 all the provinces made a commitment to form a national urban council. From that time to today, when the minister announced that there will be a meeting in April of this year of federal-provincial-municipal representatives, we have been left in the dark with regard to the problem.
As has been indicated by some of the provinces, there has been a change of attitude. The province of Ontario has attempted to approach the problem from the point of view of tax sharing revenue, which would probably scuttle the structure of a national urban council. Today we find that the minister has announced the meeting for April. One wonders just how long it would have taken the minister to announce the meeting if the opposition had not brought forward this motion today. One wonders what political advantage he was attempting to gain by holding off and keeping quiet.
I should like to deal very briefly with one of the major aspects of this resolution, that is, the aspect of housing. May I remind members of the House that in April of 1969 we witnessed the resignation of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) because the government refused to implement the recommendations of the task force report on housing. From that time there has been no legislative program on housing by this government and we have had
[Mr. Gilbert.)
very little new programs in the housing field: no legislative changes have taken place since.
The predecessor of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was a man who dedicated his time to research rather than to action. He surrounded himself by academics and consultants, and instead of tackling problems he attempted to research them. We now find that the problems are still with us, but the minister has left us. The previous minister appointed Harvey Lithwick to make a study. He came forth with a report entitled "Urban Canada-Problems and Prospects". Today, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs called it the bible. I might say that probably he and many others have not read Harvey Lithwick's report. I hope that after the minister reads it he will take some action on it, because when he calls it the bible this might mean that, like the bible which usually sits on the shelf and accumulates dust, the same might be happening to the report.
As to Harvey Lithwick, he resigned in disgust because of lack of initiative of this government with regard to implementing the ideas that were set forth in his report. He revealed the bureaucracy and empire building that goes on within the department and then took the obvious course and resigned.
The minister's predecessor appointed Walter Rudnicki to set up a new policy and planning division. He also appointed Michael Dennis to prepare a report with regard to social housing, in particular low cost housing. He also had a task force to report to him within one year on what changes should be made to the National Housing Act to meet the needs of the seventies. None of these reports has been made public, although the minister has had them in his possession for some time. I call on the minister to exercise participatory democracy by divulging to all Canadians what was contained in that report.
Canadians should know what they have paid for in obtaining consultants to prepare reports concerning the housing and urban problems in Canada. I do not think the minister should take upon himself the decision to keep these reports secret. He should make them public and refer them to the appropriate committee for study and discussion. It is only by hearsay and from articles that we know what the reports contain. In a recent article by Michael Audain, entitled "Housing and People", published by the Canadian Council on Social Development in the December 1971 issue, he attempted to point out the gist of some of the recommendations which Canadians have paid for and which the government is keeping secret. The first recommendation is as follows:
CMHC should be restructured and reoriented to change its role from that of primarily serving as a public lending institution to one capable of devising comprehensive and socially sensitive housing policies for the federal government, the implementation of which might in many cases be devolved to provincial and local agencies.
We have seen the performance of this government in the past few years, namely, that of a friendly banker being slowly pushed into developing a program to assess the comprehensive needs that Canadians have with regard to housing. We agree with this principle and we urge that the federal urban council be set up immediately because it is needed to assess, to plan and to co-ordinate housing needs across Canada and, as the minister said, not only housing
March 13, 1972

needs but the impact with regard to pollution, transportation and many related problems. We agree with that and we ask the minister to change the role of a friendly banker to one of active participation in developing a comprehensive program of our social needs in housing. The second recommendation in the report is as follows:
The federal government should undertake an aggressive land assembly program to stem the most inflationary factor in housing costs: the price of land. This program would involve a considerably greater financial commitment than the $100 million that CMHC has spent on land assembly in the last ten years and a much more direct relationship with municipalities.
Of the three cost items with regard to housing today- land, building materials and interest rates-the greatest increase in cost has been in land. It is high time that the government took the initiative with regard to a land assembly program initiated by them in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments. I am reminded of the experience of the hon. member for Trinity when he attempted to direct moneys to municipalities for housing, and the storm that he encountered: it was probably one of the major reasons he resigned. For the edification of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs may I quote the words of a British expert, Professor John Donnison of the London School of Economics who, speaking in Canada in 1968, said:
Municipal authorities must act quickly to acquire large tracts of land, before they are actually needed, and under compulsory powers if necessary, to counteract the problems of fast-rising land prices in urban centres. Buy more land now, rather than try to control prices. The land thus acquired can be leased to private developers, for example, when the time is right for development. Such programs may call for a large initial investment by the government, but thereafter they generally cover their costs or make a profit.
The government, even though it has had the mandate, has not acted with regard to land assembly. It is time the minister set forth in his capital budget the amount of money he is prepared to make available to the provinces and municipalities with which to acquire land. If he does not, we will have a continuation of the speculation that prevails with regard to housing and we will experience ever higher costs of land.
The third recommendation of the task force is that a new section regarding housing rehabilitation should be written into the National Housing Act. Under its provisions, low-interest rate loans would be made available to landlords and homeowners prepared to improve their homes without displacing present occupants. May I remind the minister that home improvement loans in Canada have been on a steady decline for the last four or five years. It is high time that grants and low-interest loans were made available for people to rehabilitate and rebuild their homes. It is not sufficient to give such grants and loans to landlords without taking into account the necessity for rent control or strict adherence to housing maintenance bylaws: otherwise, the money goes to subsidize slum landlords who do not pass the benefit on to their tenants.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has often asked for the provision of such low-cost loans and has told us of the experience of old age pensioners who
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems live in cities and who want to repair their homes but do not have the necessary money to undertake repairs. Surely it is time for the minister to make available to municipalities moneys so that it can be loaned to houseowners, who in turn will repay these loans at very low interest rates as part of their taxes. It is not the duty of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to protect the banks and insist that people go to banks for home improvement loans. He has a duty to take care of people who cannot obtain loans from banks and cannot pay the high interest rates that are demanded. I urge the minister to take note of this suggestion.
The fourth recommendation that might be incorporated is an important one: it is that the federal government should reduce its spending on subsidized public housing to a point that might lead to eventual abandonment of the program. This is a recommendation in the report that the government has in hand. It seems that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is still haunting us!
In his task force report on housing development, he said, "Away with public housing!" He made it the whipping-boy. Instead of attacking the problem which shows that housing needs cannot be met through the private market, he made public housing the whipping-boy. I hope this minister does not fall into the same trap and follow that line of argument. The so-called stigmatization of the social environment by public housing is something that is completely false. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that only 10 per cent of all 1970 starts were in public housing. I remind the minister that the Senate Committee on Poverty has urged an expanded program of public housing. Surely it is time that we built public housing which would be satisfying for people to live in, embracing some of the ideas and initiatives that have been tried in European countries? As in England, we could have municipally-owned public housing. We could develop co-operative housing as they do in Sweden and adopt the idea of rent allowances as in Germany.
I notice that my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I wish to direct my final remarks to the interest rates that people pay for housing. The minister expanded his chest and boasted that legislation has been prepared with regard to a residential mortgage bank. Isn't it high time that he directed his efforts to our high interest rates, the highest we have ever experienced in Canada?
There are four things we need in Canada: a right to housing, a right to medicare, a right to employment and a right to education. It has been said many times that every Canadian is entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of basic human right. I call upon the minister to forget the banks and lending institutions and direct his attention to lowering interest rates so that all Canadians may live in decency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation'in Urban Problems
Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister had assumed the functions of Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In his three years as consumer and corporate affairs minister he brought in 12 new pieces of consumer legislation-more legislation in the consumer field than we had seen at the federal level in the last 20 years. His experience in consumer affairs is the right kind of background for the public housing role which has become the pre-eminent concern of CMHC during the past several years. Just to show how important that role has become, in 1971 the government of Canada made $306 million available for public housing. The public housing impact has pushed housing unit starts to new records-to 233,000 starts last year and over 200,000 completions in 1971, while at least 240,000 starts are forecast for 1972.
There is no lack of activity, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to pose the question about the quality of this activity in terms of the kind of living conditions we will find in all these new subdivisions, condominiums, limited income and various low-cost housing five or ten years from now. I represent an area which reflects the accommodation and living problems which plague major Canadian cities. What I find most frustrating is that we seem to know pretty well the way in which most of the problems should be solved yet we continue to commit the same errors of planning, the same unco-ordinated, unaesthetic development of subdivisions and apartments that characterize most of our suburban landscape whether it is outside Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver.
The Speech from the Throne indicated what the minister reiterated today, that the government intends to introduce new measures to provide a wider range of assistance to improve the quality of urban neighbourhoods. This program will replace the urban renewal program which the previous minister dropped last year because it tended to encourage the bulldozer approach to urban renewal. The new program will stress urban rehabilitation, a concept of which I heartily approve.

However, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the result-certainly unexpected-of the decision by the department to drop the urban renewal program.
Two municipalities in the riding of Laprairie, namely Greenfield Park and Laprairie, had undertaken some rather expensive studies under the urban renewal program with the idea that they would receive subsidies from the federal and provincial governments. When the program was suddenly terminated last year, these municipalities, which has undertaken these studies in good faith, found themselves saddled with considerable expenditures which were unexpected and not provided for in their estimates.
I think that it is altogether unfair, on the part of the federal government, to refuse to honour the obligations that it had agreed to assume when Laprairie and Greenfield Park ordered studies under the urban renewal program.
I strongly advise the minister to make sure that the department recognizes what I consider to be its moral obligation toward Greenfield Park and Laprairie.

While it appears from the Throne Speech and from what the minister said today that much will be done to improve the quality of urban neighbourhoods, I ask: What about suburbia? When will we realize that by giving a stronger social animator role to CMHC we could, at practically no additional cost, vastly improve our expanding suburbs. This social animator role on the part of CMHC would necessarily reflect the needs of any given area.
I do not think the corporation could expect to play the same sort of role in all areas across Canada. For example, in the national capital region it is time that CMHC, in co-operation with the National Capital Commission, started pushing for underground electrical wiring and underground telephone cables. A street not far from Parliament Hill was completely ripped up last summer. I happened to travel over it at that time. A few months later I noticed that although the street was fully repaired, one side of the street was a tangled network of telephone and electrical cables. I am sure, since the city of Ottawa had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars repairing the street, that at very little additional cost it could have put these electrical and telephone cables underground. However, it is not possible, apparently, for the National Capital Commission or CMHC to force these kinds of measures on the city.
We who are in public life find that too many people take too many things for granted. For instance, to the average citizen it seems that governments think out solutions to all kinds of problems more thoroughly than is the case. Such an assumption is in error, as is evident when one comes to this place. I also think that different levels of government assume that other levels of government are thinking more about problem solving than is the case. Here we find the city of Ottawa allowing overhead wiring to exist even though opportunities present themselves for placing these wires, at low cost, underground. I feel that in an area such as this the National Capital Commission and CMHC in concert ought to exert some influence. These bodies should adopt an innovative, social-animator role in the Ottawa area and put pressure on the municipal council to act.
In other parts of Canada the role played by CMHC might differ. Along the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in the federal electoral district of Laprairie which I represent, one finds that many things have not been done that should have been done. For instance, many municipalities are still encouraging new housing subdividers to come in without properly capitalizing the costs of all services related to such subdivisions.
The municipalities look at obvious things such as sewage, water, perhaps sidewalks, and capitalize the cost of those services; that is, they apportion over a fixed period the capital costs against people who will live in the neighbourhood or subdivision and will have to pay these capital costs through taxes. However, the rest of the people in the municipality end up paying for a whole host of other costs associated with the development of any particular subdivision. I am talking about things such as interest charges, street lighting, police services, fire services and administrative services as well as the many small items that do not look very large when provided for
March 13, 1972

a single house but which add up very quickly when provided for a 200- or 300-house subdivision. These costs become a serious tax burden for the taxpayers of a municipality.
Now, in some parts of Canada, provincial governments are requiring adequate capitalization to provide such services so that they are included in the price of the lot. This, however, is still not occurring in Quebec. I suggest that in areas where provincial governments do not take on the necessary innovative or social animator role CMHC should exert indirectly the kind of pressure that is necessary to protect the average municipal taxpayer.
Let me talk about planning. Generally speaking, I feel that there is lack of local and regional planning because we are still putting low-cost housing into areas that really cannot afford to support it. Houses go into a small municipality: taxes are low when they first go in; however, by the time people start paying through taxes the various costs associated with the development of such low-cost housing, the people who first went to that municipality to take advantage of such low-cost housing find they are paying astronomically high tax bills. I feel strongly that CMHC, the organization for which the minister is responsible, should not allow low-cost housing to go into a municipality that does not have a sound tax base. In the long run we are only inflicting higher costs on the people we are supposed to be helping if we allow that type of housing to go into a municipality which does not have a sound tax structure.
There are several other areas in which CMHC can act in an innovative and animator role. We should concentrate more on architectural standards, for example. The amount of space which CMHC insist on being devoted to green areas is not large enough. In Montreal, at least, this green area rule has not been vigorously enforced. In many cases we find that designated green areas have been rezoned by towns after a period of years. There appears to be no real guarantee in law that such green areas will be kept green or as park areas for the benefit of local populations. CMHC should be very much more vigorous in enforcing this green area rule and in eliminating from its list of acceptable municipal areas any towns or municipalities that renege on their original green area agreements. This has happened in almost every municipality of the south shore that has benefited from CMHC or NHA funds.
Also, CMHC does not protect the consumer enough. They do not appear to regard themselves as the protectors of house buyers. They feel that their legal obligation is to make sure that a house bought with CMHC guaranteed funds is structurally sound and it ends at that. I feel that under the guidance of the minister, CMHC can become much more consumer conscious and more of a protector of the house buyer no matter whether that buyer buys a low-cost house or a more expensive suburban house that is backed by an NHA guaranteed loan.
More public input into CMHC decisions is needed. It would be distinctly to our advantage if there were more public input into deciding where subdivisions are to be placed, into what areas around any large city are to benefit from CMHC funding of public housing, etc.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
We hear a great deal about the quality of life these days. The minister has more potential for upgrading the quality of the living conditions of Canadians than any other individual in this country. I am confident that this is the kind of challenge the House relishes and I implore hon. members to take hold of CMHC with both hands and mould it into the innovator, social animator and consumer protector role which this country needs.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, one of the specific failures charged to the government in the motion we are considering is that of dealing effectively with the problems of pollution in the urban environment It has become fairly obvious that pollution goes hand in hand with urbanization. The problems we face in our cities are such interrelated parts of a vicious circle that no single thread can be found and no problem can be easily pinpointed without including in that the question of pollution control. Since 1968 the present administration has enacted some legislation relating to pollution. In a sense it can be said that the government has acknowledged its obligation to the Canadian people to deal with pollution problems in this country. However, if we look at the bills that have been passed and the effect they have had in the 31 years of this administration, we find we have made very little progress in pollution control per se and much less in terms of pollution control of the urban environment.
We have had amendments to the Canada Shipping Act regarding marine pollution. The government has created the Department of the Environment with the express intention of co-ordinating all pollution control efforts. We have had the Clean Air Act, the Canada Water Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and several others-but none of these pieces of legislation deals directly with the problem of pollution in urban areas. Not only that, none of these bills has yet become an effective part of the law of Canada. I could go through them one by one, but I will not do that at this time except to mention the Canada Water Act which was brought in with great fanfare in 1969-70. However, to my knowledge it has not resulted in any agreement in the two years it has been in existence to effectively create pollution control projects. There have been some studies but no actual accomplishment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You did not listen to my speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The same goes for the Clean Air Act. It has not yet been effective. The control of urban pollution has been largely left to the provinces and municipalities. This has resulted in a very unco-ordinated attack across the country on pollution control and urban centres. When it comes to the field of pollution, the federal government seems to hide behind the constitution. Thus, the activities of federal departments for airports, expressways, bridges and public buildings seem to be immune from urban planning and environmental control. So are the activities of federal enterprises responsible for harbours, railways terminals and corridors, power plants, telephone and other utilities.

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
However, taken together, the significance of federal involvement in urban areas is very high because more and more the federal government is taking over large segments of the economic life of this country. There are more federal departments, federal buildings, harbours, airports and everything. In large part this is causing a problem rather than helping to solve it. The presence of the federal government as employer, developer and taxpayer in our larger urban regions will almost inevitably increase in the future. If urban problems at all levels of government are to be harmonized with environmental and related urban problems, it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that relevant federal agencies must participate actively in community planning. Until this time they have managed to be exempt, in large part, from community planning and regulations that control everybody else.
I would now like to get down to specifics. Water and air pass freely within, between and over all political jurisdictions in Canada. They know no boundaries. Hence, all jurisdictions have a necessary role to play in their management. The sad part of the whole mess is that most cities do not know how much air and water pollution they actually have. If they do know, they are not telling their citizens. People who live in Toronto happen to know about air pollution measures because the Ontario government both monitors its urban air and takes corrective measures after monitoring. The federal government recently announced it was undertaking a national survey of air pollution sources and the amount it would cost for clean-up. I hope this survey produces fruitful results-but surveys are only the beginning. We have had air pollution problems for many years, but the federal government has always backed off them and has said it has no responsibility and, therefore, has taken no action.
Under constant pressure from pollution control groups, members of this House and members of the public, the government has admitted it has responsibility in connection with air pollution: it has undertaken to expand its air control facilities. It is only now, at least ten years too late, that it has expanded its control system far enough to even know the whole picture across the country. Even if cities are ill-informed on air pollution, about which there has been some argument, every city should know what it is doing to its water because of sewage. Given the increasing urbanization trends in Canada, the sewage treatment situation in our larger centres is of the greatest significance.
Quebec City and Montreal treat virtually none of their sewage, while Vancouver treats only 30 per cent. In fairness it can be said that over the years these large cities have had the sea at their door and the sea has been considered a wide-open and limitless dumping place for all kinds of waste and sewage. We are now finding that this is not true; it is not limitless and there are areas where sewage comes back on people further downstream. These responsibilities are now beginning to be recognized. The remaining large Canadian centres such as Toronto, Edmonton, Ottawa, Hamilton, Calgary and Winnipeg treat up to 100 per cent of their sewage at least in a primary way, but only Toronto and Edmonton, as far as I know, provide more than primary treatment for their sewage.
Expenditures on urban water treatment facilities have been growing at the rate of 8 per cent per year nationally.

This is faster than the national population growth. However, much higher levels of expenditure are necessary if our urban areas are to catch up with their backlog and treat waste-water discharged by their new populations and industries to minimum acceptable standards. Not only do we need an air monitoring survey, as I mentioned previously, but we must conduct a national industrial survey to determine the exact breakdown of the wastes from every plant in this country which is discharging waste. This information is not available to us. Work has only just begun in dealing with some of the major pollutants. It is true that several bills have been passed in this House, but they have not yet become effective.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) shows great interest in his department and a real concern for the quality of the environment-but it takes more than one minister in a cabinet of 30 to provide the impetus and the funds which are required to control pollution. There must be a commitment by the government as a whole to give priority to pollution control. It is not sufficient just to set up a Department of the Environment and allow one minister to make speeches and bring down legislation: financial backing is necessary, and this has not yet been accorded.
I wish to consider for a few moments the case of the automobile. The automobile is about the worst polluter of the air. In the larger population centres, it is the worst. Conditions in Montreal dramatize the situation facing all Canadian cities, in some of which carbon-monoxide levels are higher than they are in many large United States cities. Statistics relating the total number of vehicles in Canada to the number of miles of highway are not sensible, inasmuch as motor vehicles in Canada are concentrated in relatively few areas-within half a dozen of the major urban centres. This is where the threat is developing. Little has yet been done. City planners have been telling us for years that private automobiles have no place in the centres of major cities. As long as automobiles cause pollution, cars should be kept out of the central cores of urban areas where, in any case, other pollution levels are high. Experiments are taking place in an attempt to produce vehicles which do not cause pollution. They show promise, but obviously it will be a number of years before there is any hope of our seeing these vehicles in common use.
As to getting industry to clean up its own mess, the budget of last June announced the withdrawal of sales tax on anti-pollution equipment. This is a step forward, one for which our party and others have been asking for a long time. The government has shown wisdom in taking this course. I understand there was to be a loan fund to assist industry in meeting the cost of installing new pollution control equipment. The Minister of the Environment has been talking about such a fund, but we have not seen evidence of it yet. I hope something may be done soon along these lines. It is generally accepted that if a corporation operates a plant which regularly discharges pollutants into the atmosphere, it should be punished. Before punishment is imposed however, the firm concerned should be given a chance to improve the situation and see that no offence occurs.
March 13, 1972

I wish to mention, in passing, another aspect of pollution in urban areas-the disposal of garbage. This is the ugly side of plenty. Solid waste produced in Canada is estimated to be 673 million tons a year. Industry produces 67 per cent of this total, agriculture 30 per cent and the municipalities about 3 per cent. The average Canadian in an urban area generates 4.3 lbs of solid waste every day, or 1,500 lbs a year.
This represents a tremendous volume of garbage and suitable methods of dealing with it have yet to be developed. I might add that every day increasing numbers of plastic products, which cannot be broken down or recycled, are reaching consumers. This, of course, cannot but add to the difficulty. This is a situation which must be dealt with effectively, but so far I have seen no movement on the part of the government to do so. This is not just a problem which affects one city or a few cities; it is a national problem and is one concerning which the government should be taking action. I submit the government is not doing so.
I wish to conclude with this comment. Disregarding the several gestures which the government has made in response to the demands of the public, it has not yet shown real concern about pollution in Canada and the need for measures of pollution control as a priority: control of pollution is not rated as a first priority, as a second priority or even as a third priority. As I see it, it tags along as an addition to the various areas of responsibility which the government exercises. It is attached to fisheries, it is attached to transport, it is attached to water, it is attached to public health. The intention originally was to centralize responsibility in one department so that effective measures could be taken. I say that though the form was changed and a new department set up, action by that department has been restricted through lack of wholehearted support.
Presumably, the government as a whole believed that the problem would go away or that the people would forget about it. I assure hon. members opposite that neither of these things will happen. The problem will not go away, and as long as people are troubled by evidence of pollution which they can see every day for themselves, they will not forget about it. The challenge to the government is great. I commend the government for the efforts it has made so far in preparing the ground and bringing down legislation. But so far none of this work has been followed up. Regulations putting teeth into these laws have yet to be passed. The large sums of money necessary to make them operative have yet to be provided. The form is there; the shell is there: but to this point it is a hollow shell, devoid of substance.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech this afternoon the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) outlined just how the tripartite discussions between the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments are once more back on the rails with the meeting in Hull on April 10 next. He also outlined our housing successes of last year consisting of 230,000 housing starts, with great
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems emphasis being placed on public housing, and the hope and expectation is for 240,000 starts this year.
Toward the end of his comments the minister also made reference to our proposed new policies regarding mortgage banks, which are designed to make a mortgage a more liquid security, and to our policy regarding improving drastically the quality of urban neighbourhoods. I thought that tonight I would make a few comments, not so much in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the minister but more in my original capacity as a member of parliament from the metropolitan Toronto area.
In my first speech in the House of Commons on November 12, 1968, I said I was completely in favour of a new department of urban affairs being established. As reported at page 2652 of Hansard for that date, I said:
-I believe first of all that a new federal department of urban affairs should be created. Such a department would be able to be an effective liaison not only between the various federal departments interested in urban matters but would be able to direct and increase the co-operation among the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, which is so necessary because of the overlapping constitutional jurisdictions in this field.
Such a new department would also be able to focus federal interest and concern on urban areas and also stimulate research, both in our universities and in the department itself, on urban problems. We have had departments of fisheries and agriculture ever since confederation and now, when most Canadians reside in our cities, I strongly submit that a department of urban affairs, with its own minister in the cabinet, is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.
As I say, I made that speech in this House about 31 years ago and at that time a great many Members of Parliament from different parties, both from Toronto area and elsewhere, were saying somewhat the same thing. I confess that at that time I was not too optimistic about our government's attitude in this respect. It seemed that we had real constitutional problems. As the minister stated this afternoon, it was not a question of using the excuse that the municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction-there is no question of that. It was more a question of how we could become involved more significantly in the field of urban affairs without treading on the toes of the provinces, or at least seeming to do so. However, I must say that with the appointment of the then minister responsible for housing, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras), to that portfolio in the spring of 1969, I believe it was, he quietly and effectively came to stress in his speeches, both in the House and outside, the importance of urban matters to the national scene.
The minister also mentioned earlier today that Mr. Harvey Lithwick and other consultants were commissioned to make an in-depth study of the problems facing urban Canada. When that study was published a couple of years ago the statistics and facts contained in the report were enough to convince the government that the time had indeed come to appoint a minister of state for urban affairs. According to the statistics, about 70 per cent of the Canadian people today live in cities. As of 1980, about 80 per cent will live in the cities. Even more significant than that, by the year 2000, if present trends continue, approximately 73 per cent of Canadians will live in our largest 12 urban cities, about 45 per cent of these-almost

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems half-living in the cities of Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.
According to a projection to the year 2000, the city of Toronto will then have six million people, as against only about two million now, a figure which most people regard as too many. Without being facetious, the fact that by the year 2000 Toronto will have six million people living in the city is enough to demonstrate to the federal government the necessity for a ministry of urban affairs. One has now been created.
As illustrated in the speeches of the former minister, as well as the new minister of the department, 27 federal departments and agencies and 112 federal programs directly relate to urban Canada. Therefore, we have to be able to co-ordinate all of these federal departments and agencies and, more importantly, federal programs, and direct their thrust at the urban areas. We must also stimulate liaison between the provinces and municipalities, which is one of the objectives of the new ministry. Then, of course, we must facilitate urban research both at universities and in the urban ministry itself.
It is quite easy to say that we do not need studies of this kind or that kind, but may I remind hop. members that that it was the study conducted by Mr. Lithwick, as well as studies of a similar kind, that graphically showed just where the country was heading as far as urban Canada is concerned and underlined the importance of urban affairs to the national scene. So I suggest that studies of this kind are very important.
As I have said, liaison between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities is very important, especially when there are municipalities the size of Toronto within which some two million people are living under a system of regional government. There are other municipalities in Canada of similar size, which means that in terms of population they are larger than some of the provinces. It is extremely important to maintain close co-operation with large municipalities of this kind.
If I may say something about the Toronto area and federal concerns in the field of urban affairs, I suppose the classic and most recent case is the proposed new airport to be constructed in the Pickering area. The history of this airport is quite well known but perhaps I could refer to it briefly for a minute or so. The House will recall that in the fall of 1968 the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), announced that the federal government intended to expand the area of Malton airport, increase the terminal facilities and also runway facilities so long as any land expansion in the area met with the approval of the people living in surrounding communities. That was the basis on which the minister's plans were presented.
Led by members of parliament from the area west of metropolitan Toronto, such as the hon. member for Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson), the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie), who is presently Minister of State for Science and Technology, the then hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), the federal government was persuaded that an expansion of this area would be too detrimental to the people living in the surrounding district. This area was entirely built up to the west and south, and also somewhat

to the north and east. After a great many consultations with the municipalities in the area, the federal government kept its promise and while it decided to considerably increase terminal and runway facilities at Malton it did not expropriate or acquire any more land in the Malton area.
During the last three years, about $80 million of federal money has gone into the Malton airport and into improving transportation facilities there. A new terminal is to be opened on July 1, I believe, of this year with much additional runway space to be completed at the same time. However, there is still great need for a second airport in the Toronto and southern Ontario region.
The federal government made an extensive search of potential sites in the southern Ontario region from Lake Simcoe past Hamilton toward Lake Scugoc in the east. With the co-operation of the federal government and the general desire of the provincial government, the site was finally located, as announced a week or so ago, in the Pickering area. Why was it located there? This is a project involving $350 million or so and, in addition, at least as much provincial money will probably be involved, before the project is over, through acquiring the surrounding land for commerial and housing purposes. It was placed to the east of Toronto in order to coincide completely with the provincial government. The Toronto centred regional plan-the blue book which the provincial government brought out in May, 1970-stressed that the area to the west of Toronto was being built up quickly and there was no need for further stimulus in that area. Instead, the provincial government would like to develop the area east of Toronto which had been going forward fairly slowly, comparatively speaking. I may say that the new ministry of state for urban affairs had considerable input, as it should have, in this particular decision.
The members of that ministry and the ministers themselves-the former and present ministers-were very strong in agreeing with the general concept for the plan for urban development in the Toronto area. They wanted to co-operate with the province in this regard because they thought it was by and large a good concept. Therefore, after considerable negotiation and some delay caused by the provincial leadership campaign and the provincial general election, we heard in the past couple of weeks the announcement of the location of the second Toronto airport. This was a joint announcement of the provincial and federal governments. They agreed 100 per cent with this particular location. I do not think there is any question that the second airport is needed, because the Toronto-southern Ontario area is the most populous area in the country. We are the business centre of the country. Also, because of the multicultural nature of so many of our people there is considerable air traffic between the Toronto area and countries in Europe.
I do not believe there is any doubt that the people in the region as a whole will be happy to see the airport develop. However, at this time I believe we must exercise great care in respect of the people in Pickering and the surrounding area who will be affected by the airport. Under the Expropriation Act passed a few years ago in this House, the people in this area, and indeed many others in
March 13, 1972

the country who have objection to a second airport, will be given the right to attend hearings particularly set up for this purpose, at which they will be able to argue as strongly as they wish that the airport should not be located in the Pickering area but somewhere else.
However, if the courts should rule that the governments concerned may expropriate the area in question, I believe it will be up to the people themselves, including their representatives and local members of parliament from the area, to make sure they receive the highest compensation the law will allow, not only for the land itself but for disturbance and moving expenses as well as anything else for which an allowance might be made.
There is no doubt that the airport in this region will create a hardship for many people in the Pickering area. If an airport in any part of southern Ontario is to be of any use to the people as a whole, it will be a hardship to the people located in that area. I believe the people will have every opportunity to present their full case to the boards or courts in question and will be treated very fairly so far as compensation is concerned.
What are some other federal projects of interest in the Toronto area which come under the general urban affairs connotation? We have the problem of commuter rail transportation to the Toronto area. As we know, in many cities in North America, and in many cities in Europe, commuter rail transportation to and from our large cities is quite a common occurrence. This, however, has not been the case in the Toronto area. Our people have been accustomed to coming into the city by and large by automobile; they have not used trains because train service has not been available. Under the aegis of the chairman of metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Campbell, a joint commuter rail study was set up in the spring of last year between metropolitan Toronto, the railways and the provincial government. This study involved, in considerable detail, an examination into the various options so far as rail service to the Toronto area is concerned. I understand this study is to be completed by May of this year and I trust the report will be made available at that time.
We, of course, have the same difficulties as other major cities. As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) indicated, there is the difficulty of cars coming in great numbers into the downtown area and choking it. We may be able to use our excellent railway lines coming into the city in order to take some of the pressure off the highways.
We also have the question of the somewhat controversial metro centre project in Toronto. The federal government would be involved in the metro centre concept because the two Crown corporations would be quite heavily involved in the project if it proceeds. The CNR is a partner in the project with the CPR, and the CBC has a considerable interest in it. The CBC would like to locate its main transmission centre in that location and consolidate its other services in the Toronto area in this central location. The CNR and CBC, I understand, would look to the federal government for financial assistance to help them locate in the new metro centre area. As hon. members are aware, the city government has approved the plans and the provincial government has referred the
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems metro centre plan to the Ontario Municipal Board for final determination.
The metro centre concept has come under attack from national groups, including the amalgamated group known as CORRA which is protesting some aspects of the plan. I think it is excellent that the ratepayers' group in particular is taking a direct interest in this plan which would change completely the downtown area, with heavy federal financial assistance. This should be considered carefully. It is interesting to note that on one hand the federal government will be heavily involved in the plan and on the other the federal government has in the past, through CMHC and other federal departments, financed CORRA is some of its activities. So we are seeing direct citizens' participation in this project. If the municipal board decides that the plan can go ahead, perhaps with some amendments, we will see great changes in the downtown area of the city.
I might mention the possibility of a dome stadium in the Toronto area and of the federal government being involved in such a project. Again, this is a controversial matter, a matter of federally-owned land in the Downs-view airport area which might be made available by sale or, more probably, by lease to an organization or to a non-profit group for sports purposes. I could mention a number of other projects, but my time is rapidly terminating.


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


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, if the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), made under mysterious circumstances on the weekend, have any truth to them, he would be the only prime minister in history who would go into an election campaign with a rather interesting statistic to lay before the people-that is, if this parliament lasts until next year into the fall and the government has gone its full five years plus. He would be able to say that over one million housing units have been built in his term of office, an impressive statistic but also one that has paradoxical disadvantages for the government because that sort of statistic would quite easily prove that the right hon. gentleman has not succeeded in establishing the merits of his so-called just society.
I shall proceed to explain the paradox in a moment, but first let me warm up with the reflection that housing has many economic ramifications. It is one of the largest single industries in the country; it is an enormous consumer of capital and resources and it is the livelihood of many professions and trades. It is also very much a social enterprise in that it supplies a commodity without which men cannot live in this climate. We all know what the great Canadian winter is all about, something to be endured and generally not enjoyed, and without which families cannot enjoy feelings or well being, security, dignity and social justice.
Housing is a necessity. Yet too often federal policies submerge this necessity or make it play a secondary role


[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1972
Fedpral Co-operation in Urban Problems to temporary financial and credit measures. In his interesting speech to the Canadian Conference on Housing in 1968, the English expert in this field, David V. Donnison pointed out:
-housing is too big a sphere of responsibility to be cornered by one department, and it could not be dealt with effectively if it was. Housing policies are a matter for governments as a whole, and many departments and levels of government-federal, provincial and local-must play a part in formulating and implementing them. The task is a complex and continually changing one which each country must pursue in ways that suit its own needs and resources.
We all recall the tremendous efforts that have been made in this Parliament over the years to get government to take even the timid step of appointing somebody as minister of one of these new state creations, let alone putting him in charge of a fully-fledged department of urban affairs as would be done very quickly under a change in the prime ministership of this country.
The former and first holder of that ministry has said that the government has been the driving force behind 750,000 new housing starts, yet a CMHC survey in 1970 revealed that less than 16 per cent of all new houses for sale in that year were priced at under $20,000, and the average that year was $28,614. Fewer than 7 per cent of Canadians can afford homes with that kind of a price tag upon them. That is where, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is the paradox of the just society which enters into the housing picture.
Let us examine further illustrations in this field. Let us take the statistics of CMHC and borrowings under the National Housing Act. 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 5.3 per cent in 1970-an almost incredible statistic and an almost incredible indictment of the government in the housing policy that simply does not permit the little Canadian to have his share in home ownership. I think this is the most serious problem that could possibly be faced in the overall housing field.
Therefore I say that there must be a greater federal role in enabling home ownership for the lower income groups of Canadians. There are some provinces, namely Ontario, Nova Scotia and others, that are waging this battle to give the lower income Canadian his place in the housing sun. On several occasions I made the suggestion to the former minister that more had to be done by him and by his government. I give him fair notice that this plea will be followed up when he takes his statistics into one of the House committees for study. That is one area where a change must be made; but it is the most obvious one where a change of heart, a change of direction and a change of the money flow is needed.
Let us examine briefly some of the other points with which a Conservative administration would concern itself

in this very important field. One is the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, one of the most iniquitous levies ever put on a social necessity. Also, we must realize that there are one million substandard homes in Canada, 250,000 of them in a state of serious disrepair. Leaving the centre of cities rotting until it is too late to do much about them, and then entering into costly clearing schemes, has simply proved to be an insufficient answer. A better cure, and one that is available, is a revamping of the home improvement loans plan.
The fourth thing that should be done is to provide greater tax incentives for the developers. The fifth thing that should be done is to make CMHC regulations easier for the man or woman who wants to live in rural Canada, to make it easier for that person to obtain mortgage financing. In my province there is only one company, privately owned, that does a real job in that field and one other company that does part of a job. Guess where the great, Crown lending agency fits in, Mr. Speaker? It fits in with the also-rans that really do no job at all. CMHC and housing policy must recognize the realities of rural living and needs.
Sixth, if one gets to the problem of growth in the cities and we accept the idea of designated growth areas, as some government departments have done, then surely CMHC and housing policies must recognize such growth concepts. That is why I mentioned earlier the absolute need for a housing policy that not only reflects an increased stature for this strange ministry that has been created in recent months but that will put some hair on its chest, if I may use that expression when speaking to the minister.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That isn't fair.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has come alive.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Some people wish they had hair in other places.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As my seventh point, I suggest putting hair on the chest of the department. The eighth thing that needs to be done is to establish a national urban council to work on and advise the government on a national urban policy. Perhaps the closest we have to that is the Community Planning Association of Canada. Last year it conducted a survey of people interested in urban affairs problems and came up with a six-point synopsis of the major issues. I wish to put them on the record, quoting from a brief that was submitted to the former minister of state for urban affairs:
1.	That Canadians have a major concern for the future of their cities.
2.	That Canadians are anxious to express their aspirations for the city but do not know how to do so.
This is a brief for Information Canada. This is a real challenge for them.
3.	That Canadians are entirely convinced that government must listen to the citizen's viewpoint on urban affairs and that it must be able to utilize such a citizen input.
March 13, 1972

4.	That, although Canadians are aware of the various levels of government, it is the local level (because of its immediacy) to which they relate.
5.	That most Canadians demand a strengthening of local government.
6.	That Canadians, as citizens, are insistent upon their involvement in the development of a Canadian urban policy and that government provide for them to be so involved.
With the kind of attitude shown in that survey it is quite obvious that the government, and particularly this minister, are considered to be a long way from meeting the needs of our times. Further, Sir, to strengthen the need for the development of an urban national council to give advice may I make this argument briefly, one which I have made time and time again, namely, that it will be difficult for any government to solve the problem that is bursting upon us with almost frightening rapidity, that is, the growth of the megalopolis stretching from Montreal along the St. Lawrence Seaway to Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee which by the turn of the century, and probably before then, will have a greater concentration of people than the Atlantic seabord megalopolis stretching between Boston and Baltimore. Those of us who have travelled through the latter area know that it is really one large city: you cannot tell one place from another except by the landmarks. It is an antheap of humanity crying out with problems concerning transportation, crime, housing, health-every type of problem under the sun-aggravated because people are living together in almost inhuman conditions.
That is exactly what is developing in Canada. And there is a lesson to be learned. How effective has the American federal government been in co-operating with the states and the huge cities that make up its megalopolis terrain area? At least we have an example to learn from, an example of what is happening. I suggest that the problems there have not really been successfully handled. From this example we can see the handwriting on the wall for the present government and the government that will succeed it. The federal government must do something, and do it quickly, to involve all levels of government in tackling this problem. This involvement perhaps may be harshly different from anything that has been attempted up until now. It is a problem that has to be solved, otherwise the Canadian way of life that we talk about so much will be no better than the American way of life, and perhaps we will be worse off simply because we have not been bright enough to learn from the experience that the Americans are undergoing.
The Americans have hang-ups about transportation in their crowded corridor. In this context it was interesting to hear the remarks made by speakers in this debate on transportation matters. For instance, the preceding speaker and others put in a thoughtful plug on a very serious matter indeed. All these things, transportation, housing needs, planning needs, health needs, the use of water resources and the fight against pollution-all those creations of a Frankenstein that should frighten hell out of any government-point out the necessity for a lot more zip, a lot more consideration by the government and by this particular minister with respect to something we are rapidly facing, a change in our Canadian way of life.
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, we have heard-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Joe, I heard you were going to speak.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is indeed a pleasure to see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) coming in here to listen. I appreciate that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where is your leader, Joe? Is he crossing the floor?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you but I repeat that my answer is "No" to any suggestion of the sort. Many members on both sides of the House have spoken about urban problems, about the problems of local governments. I do not think anyone spoke with any great experience of the actual problems facing local governments in various parts of the country. Some have probably made a study, and I would excuse the minister in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I think many of the problems facing local and provincial governments have not been spelled out in detail. For years the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities have been making these studies, though not on a continuing basis, and have reported to the government. At the end of this month they will present a brief to the minister and probably will want to know if he has a different policy in regard to their requests.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or whether it is the same old thing.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The same old bunch, Joe.


An hon. Member:: The same old bunch, and the same old speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If anybody from the other side is going to say the same old thing, I do not have to hear them because once their leader speaks I know what they are going to say. Even so, he will stumble on that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Now, now, Joe; don't be nasty.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members from the other side used quotations from newspapers in their speeches and I want to follow their example.
1	refer to the brief dated April 26, 1971, which was presented to the government by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. They make representations from time to time and they are real contributions. At page
2	the brief reads:
-we must now set goals for a balanced socio-economic program, giving due importance to the quality of shelter, to open space and recreation, to health services, to conservation measures for water, air and other natural resources, to balanced systems of transportation for people and goods in and around urban areas and, not least in difficulty and expense, to the disposal and recycling of wastes.
They go on to give many details. Some hon. members who have spoken mentioned underground wiring, other

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems underground services and such things which are a requirement in any new development. In fact, they are necessary and should be provided as we go along so that we do not fact the same problems as were faced 30 or 40 years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how it is done, it is always the same taxpayer who pays the bill- the fellow who purchases the house or rents it. He has to pay for all the services, the schools and parks, whatever is provided. I agree with many things that have been said, and possibly lower rates of interest should be considered. One thing that should be considered once and for all is the elimination of school taxes, at least in my province. This would be a great change and would certainly help newcomers who are just going into housing and senior citizens who are moving into senior citizens' homes. The latter should not be paying the heavy cost of development and should get some relief from taxes.
Referring to an intergovernmental council on community development, the brief continues:
Under conditions of increasing insecurity for the citizen, and in the face of threats of environmental deterioration, it is the local officials who feel the first impact of public concern. Mayors and councillors, being of the level of government closest to the people, are very often blamed and held responsible for programs and policies, or lack of them that originate at the federal and/or provincial levels. Many Canadian citizens claim they are the victims of economic dislocation, technological change and the kind of misallocation of resources that gravely threaten their standards of living. Local government has no choice but to demand a co-ordination of the efforts of all levels of government toward the attainment of economic growth and improvement in human well-being.
This is what the federation had to say last year. They also made some recommendations which I think are important, as set out at pages 4 and 5 of the brief as follows:
1.	"areas requiring special measures" be redefined to rid us of the anomaly of the ineligibility of urban slums for federal-provincial financial assistance by virtue of their proximity to affluent suburbs. The principle of equalization which is the keynote of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion reflects the true character of Canada but its application leaves much to be desired. The deprived in Victoria suffer as much hardship as those in Halifax.
2.	the current freeze on urban renewal funds be lifted immediately for programs of neighbourhood improvement-
3.	the federal government pursue its objectives of creating a ministry of state responsible for urban affairs-
The brief continues:
We are also concerned with the apparent intent to exclude nonurban communities from the anticipated trilevel consultations.
The concluding paragraph in that section reads:
For these reasons we endorse the proposal for a trilevel forum- an intergovernmental council on community development-to provide for the free exchange of views by federal, provincial and local policy makers; a forum that would enable all governments to clarify their roles in providing leadership, direction and action in response to the real need of our citizens.
I think this spells out what local governments all across the country are concerned with, and I think they know the problems better than anybody else. They have often made good representations which possibly have been overlooked at times. When they make their recommendations at the end of this month, I hope due consideration will be given to them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am sure this will be the case, because last fall the then minister of urban affairs said, as reported in the Globe and Mail of October 21:
The federal government is willing to reduce its powers in the field of urban development, if that reduction leads to federal-provincial co-operation-
That is what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about this afternoon.
-in the redevelopment of Canadian cities, urban affairs minister Robert Andras said in Montreal yesterday. He said in a luncheon address to the Canadian Real Estate Association annual convention that in effect this was what the federal government was doing in seeking new methods of working with the provinces.
"For reasonable men, the answer (to urban problems) must lie ... through consultation, the sharing of knowledge, and the commitment to seek new mechanisms of collaboration.
And in this sense, by putting its urban policies and programs on the table for discussion, the federal government is, if anything, permitting a lessening of its powers rather than the reverse: seeking to intrude into an area of provincial jurisdiction."
He went on to make several comments along the lines on which I have been speaking tonight. I hope that the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities will continue to apply pressure when they present their briefs because I think we could benefit from many of their recommendations.
When the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) spoke a short while ago he said, among other things, that consideration should be given to building a dome stadium in his area. I did not think I would be standing up tonight and saying that since the government is to build a second, multimillion dollar airport in the Toronto area, why does it not build a domed stadium for mine. Surely to goodness western Canada needs one or two facilities like that, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like nothing better than to see a domed stadium built in Winnipeg so that we could see all sorts of finals and football games in our area without being snowed out or rained under.


An hon. Member:: What about Vancouver?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: An hon. member mentioned Vancouver. I thought we might begin where the west begins and go on from there. They did that with the railroad, by the way. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think a domed stadium should be considered for that area. Many other facilities might be considered. The point is that as was spelled out this afternoon the area municipality, in co-operation with other levels of governments, might solve some of the problems affecting the area. No matter whether proposed projects involve slum clearance, urban renewal, new development-call them what you will-all the citizens of the area and of the country will benefit if money is spent in that way. I think there is no better way of spending money than on programs which municipal governments at present most earnestly need. Those programs can be carried out in co-operation with provincial governments. If the minister-who is here-takes my representations into consideration as well as the represen-
March 13, 1972

tations which will be made to him shortly, he will go a long way toward meeting the demands of certain municipalities and we shall solve many of our problems to the ultimate benefit of all Canadians.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when I heard that the minister to whom we listened this afternoon had assumed the portfolio of urban affairs, I felt a degree of sympathy for him because of the awesome task that he had taken upon himself. The problems of the cities are formidable and growing ever more formidable as time goes on. Problems of unemployment, poverty, housing, pollution, financing, as well as many more, call for Herculean efforts of leadership if there are to be solutions.
As I listened this afternoon to the smooth-flowing discourse of the minister, I realized once again that what this government says and what it does are worlds apart. Indeed, the minister's speech made me realize that the policies of this government are made by comfortable people for comfortable people who delude themselves into thinking that while there may be a few unemployed, sick or handicapped people around, with a little more effort on their part they could join the ranks of the affluent instead of allowing themselves to depend on the taxpayer for social assistance.
The minister waxed lyrical over our urban possibilities and over the opportunity to "create a society of exceptional excellence" in Canada, yet he overlooked the need to take the first urgent steps to that end. One of the most urgent of those is the matter of housing for low-income people in the big cities, although rural areas have also been shamefully neglected. He boasted of what he calls the government's colossal housing program and of the number of housing starts in 1971. I ask, housing starts for whom?
Less than 10 per cent of housing starts in 1971 were for subsidized public housing. That is the only kind of housing the poor can afford. Long lines of them wait patiently for clean, warm shelter while the National Housing Act serves those who are in less need of help. The National Housing Act was supposed to help people on low income. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? As the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said, in 1970 the lowest income third of families borrowing under the National Housing Act amounted to only 5.3 per cent of the total. These were people with incomes of up to $7,000. So we have a National Housing Act that under this government's policy provides almost 95 per cent of its resources for the service of people with incomes of $7,000 and over. The other 5 per cent of resources go to those with incomes of under $7,000. Clearly, the poor get only the crumbs.
The minister may say all he likes about research into housing, new products and new ways of doing things. The fact remains that those on low income are getting the short end of the stick and are very likely to continue doing so. And it is a very short end indeed. The only satisfactory way to provide for the needs of the poor is to provide them with income.
Mr. Speaker, income and options go together. When those who are poor can get income and the means of earning it, they can and will decide on the kind of place in
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems
which they want to live; and it will not be a high-rise, urban ghetto. There are already far too many of these areas in Canada.
In January of this year a four year-old boy was fatally injured when he fell from a seventh-floor balcony in Toronto. He was still conscious when his mother picked him up. He was crying, "Mummy, Mummy." He died three hours later. That was the seventh time this year a child has fallen from an upper storey window or balcony in metropolitan Toronto. Studies have shown that housewives and children living on the upper floors of high-rise buildings are far more prone to illness, physical and nervous, than those living near the ground.
Meanwhile, until poor people cannot obtain the kind of income that will enable them to get the kind of housing they want, let me urge upon the minister that every sort of public housing ought to provide adequate play-spaces and facilities, both indoor and outside, and that there should be child-care facilities either in the project or in a community centre nearby. The minister knows Vancouver very well. He knows the need is there and he knows it is not being met. I urge him to use the National Housing Act and make the provision of such facilities mandatory.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, what did we do at Reilly park?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, one swallow does not make a summer, and one raindrop does not make a rain-shower.


Stanley Ronald Basford: What about Britannia? We spent half a million dollars there.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Did the minister mention Raymer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Britannia.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Because if he did, let me remind him that the people there had to fight like fury to make sure their children were able to go to school without the danger of being run over by trains on the way.


An hon. Member:: The government is still crowding people into ghettoes.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I suggest that the minister explore the possibility of introducing a number of low-income families into co-operative housing developments, such as is being done now in the De Cosmos village co-operative project in the Vancouver area. Let them enjoy the fresh air and decent surroundings of such a project. The low-income families that went to -the De Cosmos village project were very happy over the prospect. Actually, they were overjoyed at being able to get away from the stigma that is attached to the residents of ordinary low-rent projects.
Every report we get from every committee and authority concerned with urban problems stresses the need of adequate income for those who are poor. Enough income means a chance to live in modern, well planned neighbourhoods, a chance to get away from the heavily congested core areas and a chance to give their children an opportunity to associate with other children free from the stigma of poverty and insecurity. And, Mr. Speaker, that is a very real stigma in the minds of people receiving social assistance or on low income.

March 13, 1972
Federal Co-operation in Urban Problems


An hon. Member:: Especially in the minds of the young.


Winona Grace MacInnis: We are beginning to realize the social costs of keeping poverty. The Lithwick study refers to the way in which women heads of families are rendered particularly immobile because we have no day-care system to help them. The elderly, the handicapped, the unemployed and chronically ill are chained remorselessly to their situation by lack of income. They are chained with all the cruelty of chains in a medieval dungeon. Their options are non-existent and their numbers are growing. If the minister will not use the National Housing Act to provide daycare facilities in each project or, where that is not desirable, in community centres nearby, he should do something which would cause his name to be inscribed on bronze plates around Vancouver. I would take pleasure in seeing that he got one or two.
What about the dollars and cents cost of keeping poverty? The welfare system at all levels costs the Canadian taxpayer more than $6 billion a year. The Senate Committee on Poverty said:
The welfare system, at all levels, costs Canadians more than six billion a year, yet it has not significantly alleviated poverty let alone eliminated it. The problems grow; costs go up and up and will, in time, suffocate the taxpayer. The welfare system is increasingly unable to deal with the needs of its clients. It has failed to acheive its humanitarian goals. It deprives its recipients of dignity and provides no incentive or rewards to escape from poverty. It has become punitive and demeaning. It is a mess-a social wasteland and an economic morass.
So much for the Senate Committee on Poverty. Poverty is a waste, an intolerable frustration and a soul-destroying torture to those caught in the morass. We can no longer afford it. The only way to wipe it out is to provide income for the poor. All the housing reports say so, a decent income based on the cost of living index and rising with it. Along with this must go opportunities for useful activity in the community according to the measure of one's ability to serve.
My earnest suggestion to the minister is that he approach his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and any other colleagues necessary with a view to finding ways and means of building an income floor beneath which no Canadian will be allowed to fall. In my view, this would be a major step in dealing with one of the most serious urban problems, the problem of poverty and insufficient income. It would lighten enormously the burden of the minister in dealing with other urban problems if he could make a frontal attack on this core problem of poverty. It is not going to stay in the core; it will spread in ever-widening circles to get people enslaved.
There is also the problem of urban traffic. I feel sure that in his heart the minister knows we should now consider the moving of people rather than providing endless transport facilities for cars. I feel certain he realizes that to divide and destroy neighbourhoods by great, noisy freeways is to move away from the dreams of a society of exceptional excellence. The remarks of the minister at various times in Vancouver have shown that he is aware of a rising feeling in the community, that what is immediately required is not a third crossing of Burrard Inlet which would benefit only a limited number of citizens, but

a well planned system of rapid transit which would serve the whole metropolitan area. Why then does he not involve himself as Minister of Urban Affairs? He must involve himself because some of his colleagues are taking the opposite side of the coin and saying that we must have a third crossing of Burrard Inlet. They say this must be the first priority. The minister owes it to the people of this country to take the initiative and say where he stands.
The minister has talked of the need for rapid transit. He has indicated that even though a certain portion of the population wants a third crossing, Ottawa should not be content to give a grant for it but should use it for rapid transit if the majority wants that. Why, then, as Minister of Urban Affairs can he not become involved and take the initiative in getting that rapid transit system instead of the third crossing?
The minister has talked of the need for tripartite consultation and planning in these matters. Let him now take the initiative and convene a meeting of the other levels of government to discuss the best course to follow from the standpoint of the whole community rather than that of special groups and interests. I am sure that such action on his part would be infinitely more impressive than hours of talk about the need for co-operation.
If the minister announced that he was seeking the cooperation of provincial and municipal authorities for this purpose, I am sure that neither of those levels of government would dare refuse him a meeting. If he does not do that, he is open to a charge of fence-sitting and staying clear because he wants to stand well with certain groups and interests. He can smile pleasantly and look like the smiling Buddha all he likes, but the people are likely to discover that smiling Buddha is not what they need right now. They want a man of action, a man who will act in the interest of the whole community of Vancouver, someone who is not afraid even if he is called a hamburger by the head of the city or runs the risk of being called a bigot by the premier of that province. I do not know the danger in that regard.
In my view, in addition to tripartite consultation there should be a fourth level, those interested community groups which are becoming the counterweight to the pressures of special privilege which exist on every hand. We discovered the value of such volunteer community groups during the debate of the Canada Water Act when the efforts of anti-pollution groups all across Canada succeeded in stopping the great detergent companies from continuing to ruin the waterways with high concentrations of phosphates. In that instance, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was exceedingly glad of the pressure of those volunteer groups which helped to get the anti-phosphate provision into the Canada Water Act.
This minister can, if he will, discover the value of such voluntary groups in the stiff battles that lie ahead to preserve and improve the quality of urban environment. He should welcome the pressures which have fought for things like keeping the quality of the environment in the entrance to Stanley Park and preventing such horrors as the Four Seasons which would block the entrance to Stanley Park, cut off the view and make the traffic far more contested at that point that it would otherwise be.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I fixed all that up last week.
March 13, 1972


Winona Grace MacInnis: The minister may have fixed all that up, but will it stay fixed? Mr. Fix-It may have fixed it for a while, but he is no white knight on a white charger coming to clean up things in the way the advertisers claim. Ajax will not work without public opinion and public organization behind him.
As I say, this minister can, if he will, discover their value in the stiff battles ahead to preserve and improve the quality of urban environment. Problems like air pollution, industrial and domestic waste, the proper use of land, the saving of recreational areas and many others can be solved satisfactorily only with the co-operation of all levels of government plus the growing strength of well organized and well informed community groups. The minister is well aware of this. He also knows how to take advantage of those groups when there is pressure, if he wants to do the job. I hope he wants to do it.
Looking at the unplanned chaos of our great cities, we are becoming aware that unless something far-reaching is done soon the whole population is headed for serious trouble. It is in the cities that we see the full impact of poverty and pollution, the effects of bad housing and an unwholesome environment on whole areas of chronically unemployed people, their families, the unskilled, poorly educated, crippled, aged, one-parent families the idle young people, thousands of individuals doomed to struggle uselessly in the trap of poverty, condemned to raise their children there and in turn watch them struggle vainly to escape, only to subside into frustration and bitterness or to gamble desperately with law breaking and revolt. One can look at the great cities south of the border to see what happens when cities get bigger-the numbers of poor people increase and nothing adequate is done about it.
If the home is to be the cradle of citizenship, let the Minister of Urban Affairs take as his first priority the giving of leadership in the building of homes and neighbourhoods fit for the future citizens of this country, beginning with those whose need is the greatest, the people with low incomes. Let him not rest content until every Canadian has enough income to lift himself or herself out of poverty and enough opportunity to contribute something of value to the Canadian community. Let him not take refuge in quoting statistics which tell only part of the story. Let him get busy and make statistics of his own, figures which can stand the light of day and which can be divulged without fear of the consequences to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege before I address myself to the subject of the adjournment debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member knows that in connection with the debate on the adjournment, no question of privilege can be raised.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wished to draw to the attention of this chamber the presence of two distinguished guests from the University of Arizona, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, who are with us tonight having travelled all the way from Tucson just to watch our proceedings in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I agree that we have distinguished guests, but in order to keep the record straight may I say this was not a question of privilege.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on March 8, as reported at page 638 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube):
Would the minister please advise the House why his department made the decision to twin the southern part of the Trans-Canada Highway in Alberta leading to Banff and discriminate against the Yellowhead Trans-Canada Highway which is the northern counterpart.
Although briefs have been presented by the interdepartmental highway and road co-ordinating committee to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and to the former minister of public works, I find the government playing politics and spending money twinning the Banff-Jasper highway while forgetting to upgrade the Yellowhead highway to trans-Canada standards so that other communities might enjoy a new recreational, commercial and industrial communications corridor. This highway will have a great bearing on the future development of Canada as a viable and expanding nation. It will play a vital role in the development of the vast areas of natural resources it serves, and the efforts which have been expended on the roads to resources program by all levels of government will bear this out.
The minister should be made aware of the tremendous difficulties being presented at this time in connection with the route which was accepted as the trans-Canada route, particularly through the Rocky Mountains section of that highway in Alberta and British Columbia where, due to heavy snowfalls, the danger of avalanches is always prevalent during the winter months. This, combined with high railway transportation costs which result from these unfavourable conditions, presents an economic picture

March 13, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which must affect not only the transport facilities available to Canadians but the development of our export trade.
The key to the Yellowhead route is that it takes advantage of the finest pass in the Canadian Rockies at an elevation of some 2,000 feet less than that of Rogers Pass. At its highest snowfall level, this route experiences less than 50 per cent of the snow recorded on the other route over a long period. Climatic conditions along the two routes vary widely. The most undesirable of climatic conditions affecting motor travel is doubtless snowfall and its accompanying hazards. Along one path of the Yellowhead the most severe snowfall occurs at Blue River, approximately 146 miles northeast by road from Kamloops where an average 159 inches falls annually over the long term. Secondary to this, the average annual snowfall at Red Pass, some 42 miles west of Jasper, is 137 inches. These two spots represent the only two major areas where snowfall is significantly greater than would be encountered across the Prairies. At no point along the entire route is snowfall heavy enough to present the danger of an avalanche. Thus, the danger of snowslides does not exist along the Yellowhead.
This is not the case, however, along the Rogers Pass section of the trans-Canada highway. Rogers Pass experiences one of the highest recorded annual snowfalls in Canada. The long-term average is 370 inches per year. Further, even at Lake Louise, only 50 miles or so into the Rockies, snowfall approaches 200 inches per year, greater than at any point along the Yellowhead route. Road closures due to avalanches or to the danger of avalanches are a frequent occurrence along the southern route, seriously hampering the scheduling of passage of vehicles using it during the winter. An analysis of the statistics makes it obvious that on a year-round basis, due to elevation and grades, and on a seasonal basis due to snowfall, the Yellowhead route is not just an alternative route between the Prairies and the coast: it is, indeed, a much superior one.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight to answer, in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), the very talkative member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Articulate is the word.


Gustave Blouin: Here is the information I have obtained. The trans-Canada highway through Banff National Park was financed and constructed by the Department of Public Works originally as a two-lane facility, the majority of the work being done during the 1950s. With the completion of the trans-Canada highway through Rogers Pass to Revel-stoke and with the increased tourist activity, traffic volumes increased considerably.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was in 1962.


Gustave Blouin: I suppose it was previous to the time you were minister. Extensive traffic studies were carried out by the department which indicated conclusively that there was need for a four-lane facility from the east gate of Banff to mile 47, and that recognized warrants for such a
(Mr. Paproski.]
facility were greatly exceeded. The large traffic increase was compounded when the province completed its section from Calgary to Banff east gate as a four-lane facility. It should be noted, however, that under the trans-Canada highway agreement Canada shared in the original construction of a two-lane highway on this section but the later improvement to a four-lane facility was planned and financed solely by the provincial government. Thus, the decision to twin the trans-Canada highway from the Banff east gate westerly was based purely on need and there was no discrimination against any other highway.
I am glad to have been able to supply this information to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, and there is more detail that could be made available to him if he wishes it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the Yellowhead route? You have said nothing about the Yellowhead route.


Gustave Blouin: I have the information here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Mr. Speaker, the Le Dain interim report of May, 1970, and the latest part of the report entitled "Treatment" have many well documented errors and inadequacies. These are the product of bias and incomplete research. I suggest to this House that we must insist that the expected publication and distribution of the Le Dain commission's forthcoming major study on cannabis be withheld from public distribution until a team of leading Canadian medical scientists has examined it carefully.
Ten prominent Canadian doctors proposed this measure in a Canadian Press statement of October 14, 1971, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the federal and provincial ministers of health and welfare, and justice. "Silence must end," they said, denouncing the interim report of the Le Dain commission. "In our judgment, the Le Dain commission showed both bias and social and scientific irresponsibility" in some of the evidence presented, while "evidence of the harmful effects of this drug, cannabis, was buried under hundreds of pages so that no clear warning could be derived by an uncritical reader". The signers included the former head of the Canadian Psychiatric Association and doctors associated with six prominent Canadian universities and hospitals.
I also have a 70-page study of the interim report prepared by Dr. Fred Lundell, eminent practitioner, associate professor of psychiatry at McGill University and head of a hospital drug research team, which criticizes the interim report in these words: "The studies selected for discussion were highly edited and hardly current" and, further, "Serious reactions-to cannabis-do occur with greater frequency and more severe consequences than suggested in the report".
Dr. Conrad Swartz, prominent drug research specialist and chief psychiatrist at the student health centre, University of British Columbia, in his study of the interim report
March 13, 1972

cites an example where the report "omits some of the prime statements of the 1968 British commission study entitled 'Cannabis' which would discourage any suggestions that cannabis be legalized".
Dr. Andrew Malcolm, a well known practising psychiatrist of Toronto, who has devoted the past ten years to a study of the illegal use of drugs as a senior officer with the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation, gave to the Canadian Press and the Canadian Medical Association on January 31, 1972, a detailed analysis of the first volume of the Le Dain commission's final report entitled "Treatment", followed by a highly detailed medical criticism of chapter VI of the treatment report on February 20, 1972. Admitting that the treatment report contains much information that is perfectly acceptable, it is, he states, "frequently out of date; it contains a staggering amount of misinformation; its proposals are often misquoted and unrealistic". Dr. Malcolm then detailed 22 major and minor errors.
Equally serious is the February 14 Canadian Medical Association's press statement about the treatment report. After mild praise and acceptance of some recommendations, the CMA statement makes the startling request "that the federal government consider attaching a letter to the report to bring it up to date and to make the important corrections that are required" before sending it out to Canadian doctors and medical institutions.
Imagine the implications when medical experts say we should correct the Le Dain report before sending it out for doctors to use as a "manual of treatment" on Canadian citizens! I am informed that proper information was available to Le Dain in ample time to have been included in the manual. This is inexcusable. The British Columbia Medical Association in a statement to the press on March 10 said;
In our opinion the section on short-term medical management contains so many confusion and questionable points that its distribution to physicians, hospitals and agencies in its present form would only tend to destroy the credibility of the commission in the eyes of many professionals. We request that this chapter VI of the report be not sent to physicians in British Columbia until either it is rewritten or accompanied by a detailed list of corrections of the points which we and others have noted.
It further added:
We are concerned at the rather casual approach in this document to LSD and cannabis.
I am informed that certain other provincial medical associations are equally critical and will soon make their reports public. These documents, and the one to come, cost the Canadian taxpayer $3 million. The British Columbia Medical Association also strongly criticized Le Dain for not making use of the important work of Dr. Andrew Malcolm. I am disturbed that immediately following his public criticism of the Le Dain treatment volume, Dr. Malcolm was fired on one day's notice by the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation, after ten years' service, on the grounds of budget requirements. The March 10 edition of the Toronto Sun states the firing "was the latest in what critics claim is a dispute over the foundation's alleged tacit support of legalizing marijuana."
In view of the Commission's bad track record in its first two publications, I fully support the insistence of the ten eminent Canadian doctors when they say:
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Our most immediate and grave concern is the possibility that the Le Dain commission may publish a highly permissive fact-hiding and vacillating final report similar to its interim statement of a year ago. Like other commission reports it would be freely available throughout the country and as with the interim report, readership would be promoted and encouraged in some cases by government departments.
And further:
Should the document fail to identify clearly the harmful effects of cannabis use, immense pressures would be created, especially on youth, to increase use of the drug.
It goes on:
If it is placed before the public it must contain a clear and unequivocal statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointing out the extremely serious problem which arises from the taking of soft drugs and the necessity of abstinence at this stage of our knowledge and experience.
For example, the month-old study of the National Institute of Mental Health, reported in the February 28, 1972, edition of U.S. News and World Report, warns, as do the ten doctors, that women of child bearing years would be unwise to use cannabis due to abnormalities found in a few children born of marijuana-smoking mothers, possibly due to the drug and also from experiments with rats which demonstrated serious deformation of offspring as reported in the statement of the ten doctors.
I have also been informed that the so-called leak of the United States President's Commission on Cannabis which appeared in the February 28, 1972, edition of Time magazine does not properly represent the findings of the commission, which are to be published in Washington in late March. To further support their concern, the ten Canadian doctors strongly condemn the recent commission on youth report prepared for the Secretary of State for its "inexcusably dangerous claim" that, in the words of the youth commission, "soft drugs are relatively harmless or at least so they seem in the absence of any medical evidence to the contrary". The doctors point out that large amounts of available research suggesting harmful effects are available.
What happened to this youth report? Thousands of copies were distributed across Canada by the Secretary of State's department, including Information Canada. I have a newspaper published by the Canada YMCA last fall called, "It's your turn". It was distributed to all its branches across Canada calling on youth to buy and study this youth report, with special emphasis on its inexcusable drug recommendation and calling on youth to write to the Secretary of State encouraging him to pass laws supporting youth demands.
I therefore implore the government to withhold the public presentation of the cannabis report of the Le Dain commission until a team of appropriate medical experts has examined it. On the team must be Dr. William Craig, head of research for the Department of Health, as well as Drs. Swartz, Malcolm and Lundell. If their findings warrant it, an appropriate, cautionary foreword should then be written warning all readers of the biases, inaccuracies and incomplete information and advising them of the danger of soft drug use in the light of our present incomplete knowledge. Such action would be one of responsibility toward one of the most vital social problems of the day. If soft drugs are not harmful, we should not restrict

March 13, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their sale. If they are harmful, the law should contain certain restrictions.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in his question of March 9 the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) asked the government to withhold publication and distribution of the next report on cannabis until it has been carefully scrutinized and a proper precautionary foreword prepared by a team of medical experts. In his submission tonight the hon. member has re-emphasized the position he took at that time.
The commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs will shortly make public its final report on cannabis. It does not seem to us to be in the public interest to delay publishing the report on such a controversial subject.
On such an important matter involving the health of so many Canadians, the minister and his department would be expected to consult, if necessary, members of the medical profession and would also rely on the collaboration of those national bodies specializing in the health care of Canadians. The final report on cannabis will be made public in the near future and, as in the case of so many other reports of this kind, interested bodies will certainly make their views known. Surely that is one of the points of financing such a report. The government will also study very carefully the recommendations of the commission before taking any action.
In order to reassure the hon. member I would like to refer him to the example of the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) of February 24 on government action to control abuse of methadone and amphetamines. The hon. member will see the extent to which the minister went in consulting the medical profession.
Finally, the hon. member should remember that the commission itself has been consulting over the last two years dozens and dozens of experts in the field of the non-medical use of drugs and has received a great number of briefs from interested groups and individuals. A glance at the interim report and the treatment report will show the hon. member the seriousness of these studies.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On February 29, as reported at page 357 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) whether he would investigate the incident of discrimination against an Ottawa veteran. To that he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much that interference on my part or on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs would be very helpful in this particular case.
Not being satisfied with the answer, I am now pursuing the matter on the "late show" this evening. I think that a case such as this incident should be investigated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and if not by them by the

Department of National Health and Welfare which has some interest in health clubs, or by the Department of Justice, because in my opinion this is a case of pure discrimination on the basis of the physical disability of a person who lost a leg in the Second World War.
The facts of the case are pretty well known, but I want to give a brief history of them tonight. Harold Mullins is an Ottawa veteran who lost his leg in the Second World War. In April of 1967 he joined the Carlingwood branch of the Ottawa, Vic Tanny's health club. A year later he bought a life membership and in total spent $500 in membership fees for himself and his wife. Vic Tanny's knew when Mr. Mullins purchased his membership that he was an amputee: he did not try to hide it. Mr. Mullins is quoted in newspapers as saying:
The first thing I told them when I signed up was that I had an amputation. My disability was discussed at the time and the fellow that sold me the membership said in my case it didn't matter.
Mr. Mullins then used the facilities, I am told, on an average of about three times a week. He had no problem with the facilities, he used most of them, and this is vouched for by members of the club to whom I and those in my office have spoken. His membership was revoked by Vic Tanny's because, as they said, he did not meet certain regulations outlined by the club. Mr. Mike Mundy, Ottawa director, said, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of March 23, that the decision was prompted by the regulation requiring members to have all four of their limbs. He said:
-we have nothing against amputees. We simply were not covered by insurance.
I decided to investigate the case, and on March 9 I telephoned Mr. Mundy's office. He referred me to the general manager of Vic Tanny's at Toronto, Mr. Leizer. The general manager in Toronto told us that insurance was not a factor, and he did not refer at all to the regulation that a person should.have four limbs to participate in his club. As a matter of fact, we are quite sure of the reason he did not refer to it. I have here a cbntract signed by Mr. Mullins when he joined Vic Tanny's and it states quite clearly that a person with his type of disability can participate in the club. The only part of the contract that refers at all to a disability is paragraph 6, and I want to put this on record:
Buyer and member warrant, represent and agree that member is in good physical condition and that he has no disability, impairment or ailment preventing him from engaging in active or passive exercise or that will be detrimental or inimical to his health, safety, comfort, or physical condition if he does so engage or participate.
The type of disability Mr. Mullins had would not have prevented him from participating in activities at this particular club. The general manager of Vic Tanny's health club in Toronto said that his membership was revoked, not because of the regulations but because it would be very hazardous for a disabled person to get around the club. He said there were "steps leading to the various facilities". He offered to fly to Ottawa to show me around the club. This was unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, because I and my office had already talked to club members who had said tliat this was not the case and that there are no steps once you get into the club.
March 13, 1972

Why, then, was Mr. Mullins' membership revoked? From our investigation we see that the reasons originally given by the club were not valid at all. Instead, it appears to us that officials of the club panicked after a certain incident occurred. We are told by Mr. Mullins and by other people that on February 8 a 70 year-old amputee died of a heart attack after swimming in the pool in the club in Ottawa. That very evening Mr. Mullins was told that he would have to hand in his membership card in order to prevent a repetition of such an incident. It was at this point the club decided that Mr. Mullins could no longer participate. There is no relationship at all, I suggest, between amputations and heart attacks. In fact, the 70 year-old gentleman who died that day had a long history of heart condition.
On the other hand, Mr. Mullins is fit and healthy. Even though his leg is amputated below the knee, last summer he bicycled eight miles to work from his home in Aylmer. He is active and participates in swimming and weight-lifting. There is no reason for his membership to be revoked. This is why I am asking the government to investigate the case because this type of thing should not happen in our country.
The fact that his money has been refunded is not the point. Because of certain pressures, Vic Tanny's have refunded his money. He wants to be reinstated in the club. He does not want this type of incident to happen to other veterans or to other people who have physical handicaps of this nature. Mr. Speaker, there should be regulations to protect people from this type of discrimination. I would like to encourage the veterans of the country to protest against this type of discrimination. I am looking forward
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to a reply from the minister, and I hope that something can be done.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the statement of the hon. member. Without question, the individual concerned is an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is a man in good physical condition who prides himself on his regular program of exercise and he is a well regarded citizen of the community. In the circumstances, I cannot help but feel that the incident is deplorable in the extreme. However, I would like to point out a few facts so far as the government's position is concerned.
There is a contract between the individual and the particular club. That contract was referred to by the hon. member in his statement tonight. The contract is the basis of his claim against the club. I think there is sufficient reason for his wishing to consult his private lawyer in terms of the contract and whether or not it was breached. So far as the government is concerned, however, I am not aware of any basis on which the government can act on what, on the face of it, is the matter of a private contract.
As I have said, however reprehensible the policy of the club is, it does not appear to be a basis for intervention by the government. I believe that the publicity associated with the case has, in the sense of public interest, been good publicity. As was indicated, Vic Tanny's refunded the full membership fee and the individual had used the facilities for some time. It appears to me that this matter involves a private remedy. There is a clear contract, and I think the individual could consult his solicitors and take appropriate action in the courts.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Tuesday. March 14. 1972