1973-09-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of pressing national importance, namely, the report that the United States administration has, in effect, rejected any overland alternative to the use of supertankers at Cherry Point to provide crude oil for the Puget Sound area and the revelation from Washington that the Canadian government has not yet formally proposed any alternative overland scheme. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House expresses its unalterable opposition to use of the Cherry Point terminal by oil supertankers and requests that the minister of external affairs make a full statement outlining the government's formal position and what measures the government will undertake on this critical matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES ACCORDED NEW DEMOCRATS AS OPPOSITION PARTY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to request the permission of the House to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). In view of the New Democratic Party's continued support of inadequate government economic policies resulting in the inability of parliament to deal effectively with the high cost of living, this House requests an examination be made as to whether the New Democratic Party is entitled to continue receiving the extra benefits and privileges customarily accorded to parties in opposition to the government and not customarily accorded to groups or parties in coalition with the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has considerable doubt whether this kind of motion ought to be placed before the House. I think hon. members will agree that the matter should be taken under advisement.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to all the people of Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor):
That this House resume immediately the debate on food prices which adjourned at 10 p.m. last night.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the Minister of Transport's statement to the House on August 30, 1973, that he would ask the railway companies not to increase their rates for 18 months, and in view of the fact that on September 1 of this year, one day after his statement, the railways put into effect a 6 per cent increase on all agreed charges affecting our largest volume shippers, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kin-dersley (Mr. Horner):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to advise the railways to immediately remove their increase of September I as per the minister's suggestion to them of August 20.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

September 18, 1973
[ Translation]
Oral Questions MANPOWER


SHORTAGE OF FARM WORKERS AND JOBS FOR STUDENTS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of an undoubtedly urgent and pressing necessity. It refers on one hand to penniless students and, on the other, to the shortage of agricultural manpower.
I move, seconded by the member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That a special committee of the House be asked to study the shortage of agricultural manpower as well as employment available to students and to report to the House, in order that the Department of Manpower and Immigration may have up to the spring of 1974 to draw up a program which would provide at least a partial solution to those problems and which would be implemented as soon as the spring of 1974 so that for once, the government would be introducing a timely and appropriate program.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that since July the government has utterly failed to make any proposal to the United States guaranteeing Canadian oil to Puget Sound refineries in order to end tanker traffic in those waters and in view of the brave words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in July that we have just begun to fight-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should ask the question. I remind hon. members immediately at the beginning of the question period that it is the responsibility of hon. members to ask questions without prefacing them with statements, preambles or allegations.


John Allen Fraser: Can the Prime Minister advise the House why no official communications have been made to the United States setting forth a specific proposal when everyone in the House has known that such communication is

imperative in view of the legislation now before the U.S. Congress?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Canadian government on this subject are well known to the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mitchell William Sharp: They have been announced in the House of Commons, and I can think of no more authoritative a place in which to state government policy. Moreover, I have had occasion to remind the United States of the Canadian position. As the hon. member knows, the Alaska pipeline will not be completed for some years, so it is not a matter that has to be settled today or tomorrow. I do intend, when I meet the Secretary of State of the United States in New York next week, to remind him of the Canadian position.


John Allen Fraser: In view of U.S. Secretary Morton's letter to the house interior committee setting out the administration's opposition to additional Canadian oil to Puget Sound and because the key clause in the U.S. legislation being studied calls for U.S.-Canadian negotiation on this very point, does the government intend to do nothing until the meeting to which the minister has just referred or the meeting about which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us a few days ago which will take place some weeks from now Detween thOminister and Governor Love?


Mitchell William Sharp: Provided that the appointment of the Secretary of State is confirmed by the Senate, I expect to see him on Tuesday morning at nine o'clock.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday last that it is government policy to propose Canadian oil to Puget Sound to end tanker traffic there, can the right hon. Prime Minister assure the House that he will forthwith make a statement on motions setting out in detail the Canadian proposal and give the House an assurance that such proposal will be immediately communicated to the United States government, because nobody believes any longer that the government cares what happens on the west coast?


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the joint statement of the moderator of the United Church, the primate of the Anglican Church, and Bishop Power of the Canadian Catholic Conference dealing with the overthrow of the democratically
September 18, 1973

elected government of Chile, which I presume the minister has received, will the minister tell the House whether he will accept the recommendation of the churchmen that recognition of the new military regime by Canada be withheld until it is clear that the new government is prepared to accept fundamental international principles and the recognition of human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can reply by reading the words that were addressed to me by the moderator of the United Church, the president of the Canadian Catholic Conference and the primate of the Anglican Church who said, "We warn against precipitous recognition of an unconstitutional regime." That is also the view of the Canadian government, and that is why we have not replied to the request of the Chilean junta that we recognize it now. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are watching events very carefully. Our policy is not one of approval if and when we give recognition, but we want to make sure only that there is a government we can deal with confidently and that it is in effective control.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of the fact the statement of the churchmen further calls upon the government to give support and assistance to all refugees from Chile, including Chileans who may wish to come to Canada, will the minister state what is government policy in this regard and whether it is willing to grant asylum to the victims of the violent overthrow of the Chilean government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that there are some Chileans who have sought safe haven in our embassy in Santiago. There are three adults and one child there at the present time, and we are hoping that we will be able to arrange safe conduct for them because they wish to go to Mexico. We have had no requests whatsoever from Chileans to come to Canada, but in view of the Canadian government's record with respect to refugees, whether from Uganda, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or many other places in the world, I am sure we would give very sympathetic consideration to any such request.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood on a final supplementary, to be followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I believe there are other supplementaries to the first question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South. We will return to that subject when we have completed the first round.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether the government will refer to the appropriate committee of the United Nations the question of large numbers of people being detained by the military regime in Chile pending military trial by court martial, thus depriving them of the fundamental right to trial by the courts? Will this be put forward by the government to the appropriate committee of the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Cuban government has already brought this and related questions to the attention of the Security Council and that a debate is beginning today.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


INQUIRY RESPECTING ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he give any indication as to whether we shall again have to move our families for the continuation of this session in order to enable the Progressive Conservative members to play politics or whether it will be possible for us to get back to our parliamentary vacation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, that question will be discussed between the leaders of the various parties. I am pleased to find out in advance the position of the Social Credit Party of Canada. Within the next 24 hours, I believe, the acting parliamentary leader of the government, the Minister of Justice, is going to meet the leaders of the other parties.
[ English]


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the government House leader. Will he advise the Leader of the Social Credit Party that if he thinks they need longer vacations he has the right to put down a motion to that effect?


PRICE AT WHICH CANADA PREPARED TO SUPPLY OIL FOR CHERRY POINT REFINERY AS ALTERNATIVE TO TAPS TANKER ROUTE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since the Prime Minister is not accepting questions on the subject. With regard to Canada supplying oil to Pacific northwest refineries in the vicinity of Cherry Point has the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his conversations with the Secretary of State of the United States indicated that such oil will be supplied subject to the export tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the difference between American and Canadian prices is represented by the tax, but I am quite sure that the American administration understands, even if the Leader of the Opposition does not, that the price would have been the same whether there was a tax or not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it the answer is yes, although the minister skated all around the subject. I should like to ask the minister what assurances he is prepared to give to the Secretary of State of the United States with regard to the price at which Canada is prepared to supply oil to the Pacific northwest? Is it to be, as the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources indicated the other day, a domestic price based upon oil landed in Montreal plus the export tax? What firm proposition does
6668

September 18, 1973
Oral Questions
the minister intend to make with regard to pricing to the Secretary of State of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the price will be in line with prices within the United States. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want us to sell our oil for less than we can get for it in the United States.


REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES FOR REMOVAL OF CHERRY POINT REFINERY TO SITE FARTHER FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is supplementary to those asked earlier about the Cherry Point refinery. Having in mind the fact that the Cherry Point refinery is approximately 18 miles off the lower mainland of British Columbia and also the fact that the potential oil pollution from tankers is almost assured in that area, have representations been made or will they be made to the United States for either the removal of the Cherry Point refinery to a greater distance from Canada's shores, or has the subject been raised with the United States government of preventing this pollution so close to the lower mainland of British Columbia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this subject has been raised on many occasions. As I said in answer to questions earlier in the session, the Canadian government was not opposed to the Alaska pipeline as such but was opposed very strongly and remains opposed to the pollution of those beautiful inland waters of British Columbia. Whichever way we can achieve this purpose, we will follow.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the same subject but perhaps a little more detailed than the one just asked. Will the minister now consider the Conservative suggestion and recommend to the United States that the major terminal for the Alaska-U.S. tanker route should be relocated away from Cherry Point to less dangerous waters such as Neah Bay or Grey's Harbour, and will the government move expeditiously on this matter so that this time the request may precede the refusal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would deny the premise of the question that this is particularly a Conservative idea. This is an idea that has been floated around for a long time by many people and has been shared by many members of this party. It certainly would be one that we would explore.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, moving to the other end of Canada, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the backlog of some 600 freight cars at North Sydney destined for Newfoundland and as officials of Canadian

National Railways have indicated that the situation will persist until after the new year, what action is the minister going to take to direct emergency measures necessary to clean up this backlog and help to relieve the situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I could do, of course, would be to ask Canadian National to try to clean up this backlog as soon as possible. I can ask CN what measures they are actually taking.


Jack Marshall: After the minister has asked CN or directed CN to take action, will he make a statement on motions in the House by Friday indicating the action that is going to be taken?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will let the hon. member know what Canadian National's answer is.


STEPS TO ENSURE THAT FERRY SERVICE TO NEWFOUNDLAND NOT INTERRUPTED IN FUTURE BY STRIKES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact this backlog is largely the result of the strike, and in view of the resolution passed at the Liberal convention and the representations by members of the House, may I ask the minister what immediate steps the government is taking to ensure that this vital lifeline to the province of Newfoundland will never again be disrupted by strikes or in any other way?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important question. I believe I answered in the House the other day that, of course, workers have the right to strike in this country and I think that nobody should deprive them of that. Can we, in the circumstances, have a parallel service during an emergency situation? This is something we are going to look into.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. We are talking about an emergency facing the province of Newfoundland, which happens to be part of Canada. Can the minister indicate whether he is prepared to go beyond asking Canadian National Railways what they are willing to do and direct CN to make available extra service to that province in order to ensure that we do not have to wait until after Christmas to have goods delivered which have been in place in North Sydney for the last couple of months? We are talking about an emergency facing part of Canada and we are certainly not willing to accept the answer the minister has given us.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I will be asking Canadian National. As soon as I have the report I will give it to the hon. member.
September 18, 1973


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the takeover in July of a Canadian company, Bruck Mills of Quebec, which I believe employs over 2,000 people, by two Japanese companies, and also in view of the fact that Bruck Mills since 1971 has received over $900,000 in DREE grants, can the minister say whether he was consulted about this takeover and, if so, can he guarantee that it is of significant benefit to this country?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted about the takeover. As the hon. member knows, there was no requirement in law on the part of the Japanese interests to consult me, but just as soon as we get Bill C-132 through the House there will be.


Gerald William Baldwin: When?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Has the minister considered approaching the two Japanese companies about the $900,000 in DREE grants, and will he also undertake to table in the House a list of all companies that have been taken over by any foreign concern or enterprise during this calendar year?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that information has been made known to the House on an earlier occasion with respect to DREE grants.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister inform the House what he intends to do now with those persons who are not covered by the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act and who come or are due to come before that board?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will be aware, when Bill C-197 was made law it did not include a special adjustment for those people who had already been ordered deported, but I did undertake at the time in the House to cause the department to review administratively all those cases under appeal to the board which might otherwise have been eligible for consideration under the relaxed criteria involved in Bill C-197. That process is under way now. Some 8,000 or 9,000 cases have been reviewed and many of them have now been referred to the Immigration Appeal Board. We will proceed with these measures with dispatch.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES-EXTENT OF FREEZE
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As on August 30 the minister stated in the House that the railways had agreed to an 18-month freight rate freeze and as on September 1, one day later, the railways increased their rates by 6 per cent on all agreed charges, can the minister advise the House what happened to the 18-month freight rate freeze?


Jean Marchand: Something very simple, Mr. Speaker, that was explained to the House, that when I asked the railways not to increase their rates I mentioned their normal rates, but I said that does not prevent the railways modifying their agreed rates. That means that if they and a company agree I cannot do anything.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the prices of farms, livestock and equipment have nearly doubled since 1965, and that federal officials and advisers responsible for granting and administering the loans secured through the Farm Credit Corporation must still apply appraisal criteria set in 1965, thereby preventing the sons of a great many farmers from purchasing their family farms, does the hon. Minister of Agriculture or the government intend to do something about this during the next session?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the present farm credit legislation.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister actively seeking means whereby Prince Edward Island's constitutional right to transportation links with the rest of Canada will not again be abridged? In particular, can he advise if he is looking favourably upon the suggestion that these ferries, which are owned by the government of Canada, be operated directly by that government which has responsibility therein?
26454-57 J

September 18, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question three times. I believe that Premier Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister on this matter. At the same time, we have to consider the right of the employees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: It is the law of the land that they have the right to strike. If hon. members want to remove that right, O.K.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries. I would hope we could try to move to another subject.


MEASURES TO CLEAR UP BACKLOG OF FREIGHT CARS AT NORTH SYDNEY DESTINED TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked earlier by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for St. John's East. In view of the fact that responsibility for providing the link between Newfoundland and the Canadian mainland rests with the Canadian government, as agreed to in the terms of union, will the minister undertake to provide further ships if Canadian National is unable to clear up the backlog of freight cars? Will he agree to have additional ships moved in to help alleviate the situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a full report on this from Canadian National and my department. I cannot say yes or no. I do not know if there are any ships available at this stage. I cannot-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: What about the Bonaventure?


Jean Marchand: Why don't you learn to swim?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that the noise and fury are not very conducive to a happy and fruitful question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Transport. Instead of the minister asking Canadian National or sending one of his officials to discuss this matter with CN, as though they were running the country, would he be prepared to have a completely independent inquiry set up immediately through his departement to investigate the aspects of the terms of union referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East to see whether in fact the government has a superseding responsibility and also investigate why Newfoundland, which is part of Canada, will have its transportation links cut off for six months just because CN is not willing to put on the equipment to carry out their responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this problem. I have already stated in the House we are looking into forming some kind of agency to operate the ferries so that in future it will be possible to avoid this kind of situation, which I deplore as much as any member in the House. During the strike I even applied pressure so that the ferry operations would be maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. After we have disposed or attempted to dispose of the question of privilege I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway and the hon. member for Bellechasse.


John Howard Lundrigan: I can only attempt to dispose of my question of privilege. The east coast of this country is faced with an emergency that is damaging and ruining the first good economy we have had in years. We stand in our places today to ask questions about a situation announced today which will mean a backlog in freight until after Christmas. This has been admitted by Canadian National We have been sincere in directing questions to the minister. He says, "why don't you learn to swim?" That is a most derogatory comment. Newfoundland is the newest part of Canada and we suffer the most severe problems of any part of Canada. The least Canada can do, through the Prime Minister and the government, is to try to respond to this emergency with some kind of leadership. The minister should rise in his place and apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As usual, I will hear the minister on the hon. member's alleged or suggested question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is a damn shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his speech.
[ Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see that, apparently, they are trying to pass censure on the government and especially the Minister of Transport for a situation they could not prevent, the union leaders and railway company officials having agreed to maintain the ferries in operation even during the strike. The service was discontinued because the strikers disregarded their union leaders' instructions. Therefore, I am not to blame for that. At that time, we did everything we could and shall strive to prevent any repetition of this; that is, we shall work towards the maintenance of a normal situation.
September 18, 1973

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I feel that some people here may die from anything, but certainly not from an overdose of humour!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate and all hon. members will, I am sure, appreciate that is not a question of privilege. When we talk about privilege we are talking about parliamentary privilege. The hon. member feels that his rights-


John Howard Lundrigan: The rights of Newfoundlanders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled there is no question of privilege. I make this ruling now.


John Howard Lundrigan: This is getting to be a dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the action just taken by the Supreme Court of Alberta in ordering Canada Safeway to reduce its domination of the retail grocery market in Calgary and Edmonton, is the minister's department investigating the operations of Canada Safeway in other provinces where it is established with a view to determining the need to protect the consumer from this domination in other provinces?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act it is not possible to indicate what investigations are in progress. I am sure the director and the staff are actively carrying out their responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: You have never given a decent answer in this House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the Alberta court order restricting the amount of money Canada Safeway may spend on advertising, particularly saturation advertising in Alberta, does the minister contemplate similar investigation and restriction of Canada Safeway elsewhere?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not think there is anything I can properly add to my previous answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Finance during the weekend that a serious economic recession will occur in Quebec in 1974, may I ask the Prime Minister if he dealt with this subject with the Quebec premier so as to take the proper measures to face such a possibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this statement from the Quebec Minister of Finance. I shall take note of it and if need be, provide the hon. member with an answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the policy of the minister and his department to allow service personnel bandsmen to entertain in civvies or uniform at political conventions as was the case during Senator Molgat's election campaign last weekend?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to. He will have to give me more details before I can answer.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the minister now consider allowing the Queen's Cameron's Reserve Pipe Band of Winnipeg to participate in the Pasadena Rose Bowl Parade on January 1, 1974?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of National Defence was prepared to answer my supplementary question but was not given the opportunity.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. In view of the United States prime bank rate having risen to an historic 10 per cent and the falling Canadian dollar, indicating that the rise in interest rates in Canada is not sufficient to

September 18, 1973
Oral Questions
prevent the flow of money to the United States, has the Bank of Canada indicated to the government that there will be a further rise in interest rates here?


Mitchell William Sharp: Is the hon. gentleman speaking for his party when he advocates a higher interest rate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In doing so I make no reflection on the Chair, but when ministers of the Crown break the rules of the House I think it is only right they should be reminded of the fact in the same way as anyone else. The Acting Minister of Finance is forever doing it. He is always abusing the rules.


An hon. Member:: Take it easy, Donald.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Walter D. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the importance of preserving the merit principle in the public service, would the minister inform the House whether the government has decided to launch an appeal against the excellent decision of Professor Abbot in which he condemned the practice of red circling in the Morency case?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of maintaining the pre-eminence of the merit principle in the public service an appeal will be made.


Walter David Baker: In view of the basic unfairness of the practice of red circling, will the minister undertake to review this practice immediately and bring appropriate legislation oetore the House at the earliest possible date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will undertake to look into this matter and review it to determine whether there is indeed unfairness. At the same time, I believe we should proceed to appeal the finding of a single adjudicator in this case.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the statement made by the right hon. gentleman in the House four months ago that he would look into the government's practice of opening tenders in secret, and having regard to the statement made by the Minister of Supply and Services on May 23 that he had been studying this irregular practice since December, will the right hon. gentleman tell us whether this questionable practice has now been

stopped and when he intends to make a statement to the House on the matter?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, none of my officials has been responsible for irregular practices in my department, but if the hon. member will be more specific in his question, I shall answer it. As for the standard practice in the department, as I have said, it is now being reviewed; I intend to announce a new policy in this regard in the very near future.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, you would think that we were in other legislative assemblies.
I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of his constant desire to improve the conditions of life for the citizens of the national capital area, on whose behalf I thank him, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he intends to set up shortly a parliamentary committee to again study all questions relating to the National Capital Commission, or will he wait for the Fullerton report on these important matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my intention is rather to wait for the Fullerton report, to study it with the cabinet and then, if appropriate, to submit it to a parliamentary committee.
If the hon. member has other representations, I would be happy to hear him because I share his wish to improve conditions in the national capital since I intend, as he does, to go on living here for a long time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to virtually every question which has been asked this afternoon. In light of the strikes that affected the island provinces, higher freight rates, allocation of world air routes and everything else, will the minister please refer the annual reports of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for study so that we may go into some of these matters?


Jean Marchand: As soon as those reports have been checked, Mr. Speaker, according to the law, they will be handed over to the cabinet.
September 18, 1973

[ English]



DIVORCE

[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
indicate to the House the nature of his reply? In other words, has he accepted the request or will he deny it?

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In view of the resolution recently passed by the Canadian Bar Association recommending that marriage breakdown be the only ground for divorce and that one year of separation be conclusive evidence of such breakdown, and in view of increasing public concern about delay and costs in this field, is the minister considering the introduction of amendments to the divorce law along this line?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: We have this matter under consideration, but it is also being considered by the Law Reform Commission and I am inclined to await the report of that commission on the subject matter, at least if it is not too long delayed.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION SETTING FLOOR PRICE RELATED TO FARMERS' COST OF PRODUCTION

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since the minister has stated that at least a portion of his domestic wheat policy is to be introduced by way of legislation, may I ask whether he intends to forgo the floor price of $3.25 which has been announced and bring forward legislation making provision for a floor price related to the cost of production to western farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the range of $3.25 to $5 does reflect the cost of production. What I did say to the House was that I would be considering this question and discussing with the House leader in due course the question of appropriate legislation, particularly to deal with the treasury payment which is involved as a consumer subsidy to keep the price of bread from going higher.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have been in contact with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces concerning those ships, the Darling report and the Commonwealth agreement. I am going to meet with them next Monday. This is one of the subjects I should like to raise with them before giving a final answer to the SIU.



OPEN QUOTAS AND PLUGGED ELEVATORS-INQUIRY AS TO COMPLAINTS

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and arises from the fact that some farmers cannot deliver grain to plugged elevators. Is the minister receiving any complaints because of the almost wide open quota situation early in the crop year, while elevators are already plugged at some delivery points?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, most farmers faced with congested elevators are quite aware of the fact that this is a result of the railway strike. I do not, therefore, receive complaints from them. They are also aware of the fact that, while quotas are open, the record movement of grain throughout the rest of the year should soon relieve the congestion.


Donald Craig Stewart: Will the minister instruct the Wheat Board to assist farmers who have not been able to make deliveries, thus protecting the equal quota principle of the Wheat Board for all farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board will, of course, be attempting to place grain cars particularly early and in large quantities in those places where there is congestion. In the meantime, the cash advance program is available to allow farmers to obtain some cash in advance of delivery. As the House knows, we intend to increase the limit available under the cash advance plan.
* *
*
*
* *



SHIPPING


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport related to matters arising between the Seafarers' International Union and the government. Has the minister received a telegram from the SIU requesting that the Spanish-crewed ships, Ro Ro Newfoundland and Ro Ro New Brunswick, not be granted the validating licences and certificates they need and, if so, can the minister



AIR CANADA


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On June 21 an explosion destroyed an Air Canada plane on the runway at Toronto International Airport. The minister ordered an investigation and promised to table the report in the House. Can he tell me now whether he has that report and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the report is not completed and is not on my desk.

September 18, 1973
Oral Questions


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. On June 26, when the minister was further questioned about the explosion, he stated that Air Canada opted for JP4 fuel because it was more efficient and more adapted to our climate. He also said he did not know the type of fuel used by Department of Transport planes. Now that he has had time to investigate, and in view of the fact that climatic conditions are the same for both Air Canada and the Department of Transport planes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. I am sure the hon. member who has the floor knows there are 25 other members seeking an opportunity to ask questions and we have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his supplementary as quickly as possible.


Duncan M. Beattie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now inform me why the Department of Transport does not use the same fuel exclusively as Air Canada uses?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I answered exactly the same question last week. I said at that time that the previous day I boarded a Jetstar of the Department of Transport which was refuelling at the time I was boarding it with GP4.


Duncan M. Beattie: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to hon. members but perhaps we have to hear the hon. member's point of order, after which I will regretfully have to call orders of the day.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the possibility or probability that because of my accent the minister did not understand my question. I asked why Department of Transport planes do not use JP4 fuel exclusively if it is as safe and efficient as he claims it to be for Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I did not understand the question correctly. In my answer I referred to "GP4" and I should have said JP4. I must state that all the technical advice we have indicates that it is not dangerous to the point that we should switch from one to the other.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is rising on a point of order he will be recognized for that purpose, after which, as I said, we will call orders of the day.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I think my point of order is reasonable. I asked for the referral of some documents and the minister said, "when they are ready". These documents that I want sent to the committee have been on the table since last spring.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, September 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the period immediately prior to private members' hour on September 14 when we last had this bill under consideration, I had suggested in respect of one aspect of the bill that this House should proceed with extreme caution when providing for exemptions from the bill's general application.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Order. Allow me to point out to hon. members that it is rather difficult to hear the hon. member who now has the floor. The interesting conversations now going on could easily be held behind the curtains.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of this bill on which hon. members have touched and with which I find no quarrel, but I do feel that the question of exemptions for a special group or groups is a matter which should receive careful scrutiny by the standing committee before the bill is reported.
As was indicated, the government apparently had a change of mind on this matter, and I suggested that possibly this is one case where the government was making a mistake by changing its mind. Hon. members may recall that immediately prior to the commencement of my speech the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) gave us a very carefully phrased submission expressing his support of this exemption with special reference to the Old Order of Mennonites.
In the course of the hon. member's remarks he indicated that, according to his understanding, at the time this group entered Canada there was some agreement either expressed or implied which provided certain exemptions, and this was one of the conditions on which they immigrated to Canada. I would be willing to agree that there may be circumstances under which a form of special convenant was entered into, and that is a matter of valid consideration in relation to any legislation. Certainly, if there are such covenants or understandings their existence or otherwise should be carefully examined by the committee in all aspects, in order that the real facts can be ascertained. It is only after that kind of careful examination that the House can really have a clear picture of the right course of action to be taken.
September 18, 1973

My concern, and I think the concern of other hon. members from time to time, is that if we open a door of this kind we lay ourselves open to all sorts of demands for various kinds of exemptions from various groups under certain legislation. Therefore, the matter requires very careful study and examination. I do not know exactly what examination the government may have given the matter before recommending this bill to the House, but only in the standing committee can the considerations of the government be documented.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge indicated that the members of this religious group were willing to accept in some form their responsibility to the community as a whole. In other words, they were not merely seeking to evade the imposition of a tax, either directly or indirectly; they were in fact prepared to have their contributions go to some charity rather than the Canada Pension Plan. My feeling is that contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, either directly or indirectly, are for the common welfare of the Canadian people. Consequently, it might be that we should indicate to the members of this group that contributions to the plan should meet the criteria it is felt is required. If the Canada Pension Plan required the compulsory acceptance of a pension, then I would think their request for exemption from receiving benefits would be a different matter. But as we all know, taking a pension under the Canada Pension Plan or under the Old Age Security Act does require an initiative on the part of the individual citizen. It is only after the taking of that initiative that the benefits of either the Canada pension or old age security apply. This being the case, compulsory participation in the benefits of the plan does not really arise.
These are some of the issues that I feel are involved in this particular aspect of the bill and are the reasons I felt I should intervene briefly in the debate on second reading to express my views. I hope that after due consideration in committee the whole matter will be clarified, and we may be in a position to assess whether or not the government proposal is a wise one.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act before the House in the form of Bill C-190, there are a few thoughts I should like to place on the record which I feel it is incumbent on members of the House to keep in mind as they view the proposed amendments.
One of the objections that has been aired in this House concerns universality. One of the hallmarks of the Canada Pension Plan was its universality; all Canadians participated, and by exempting specific groups this concept of universality would be broken. I should like to deal with that point a little later, but the Canada Pension Plan clearly makes exceptions to the concept of universality, if there is such a thing as an exception to universality. That point has been brought out constantly by speakers who have said the amendment should not pass.
The second point is in connection with security. I want to relate my comments not to the Old Order Mennonites or the Mennonite people in particular. I am not speaking for myself or representing people of Old Order Mennonite or Amish background. The point that has been made in favour of those people does not apply to my constituents.
Canada Pension Plan
The question of security has been mentioned. It has been pointed out that a pension plan builds up security for people in their old age or in case they become disabled. It gives them a fund so they do not become wards of the state. Under the Hutterian principle of common holdings, it is the responsibility of the communal society as a whole to take care of those who cannot help themselves, such as the elderly or those who suffer misfortune and are unable to contribute in a general way to the economic well-being of the colony. So I do not believe that the second point, namely that their security would be hampered or tampered with and that we must provide them with security by legislation, applies to the Hutterian Brethren of which I speak.
The matter that disturbed me the most about the opposition to the amendments to Bill C-190 was the direct statement that the Hutterian people were not loyal to the country or were not loyal citizens. I reject that statement completely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just because groups think differently from the way I think or might have a different system of dividing its members' goods and providing the services they need, does not mean that they are not loyal to this country, that they are not loyal citizens. Under the tenets of faith of the Hutterian Brethren, when they talk of loyalty to a country their first loyalty is to God. Under the precepts governing their religious beliefs, the precepts of God cannot be violated by the laws of the country in which they live. So that is their concept of loyalty so far as citizenship is concerned.
That being the case, what are the facts of the matter? The Canada Pension Plan did not provide for universality; it clearly exempted groups of people who are members of religious orders and who took the vow of perpetual poverty. It also exempted those who were church employed. These were the two basic exemptions and the Canada Pension Plan did not apply to such groups.
Since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, certain groups have not had to contribute under the terms of the act. I suggest that the Hutterian Brethren fall within this class of exemption in light of their tenets of faith. First of all, they do take the vow of perpetual poverty. Second, they hold all things in common. Third, they are church employed, the church being the communal administrative body of every Hutterian colony.
I should just like to quote their vow of baptism, and every person who becomes a member of a Hutterian society must accept this vow:
That no one shall have any private possessions any more: for one gives and surrenders himself to the Lord and his church with all that he has and is able to do, as it was in the original apostolic church, when no one said of his possessions that they were his own, but all things were common to them.
In order to be a Hutterian you must take this vow of baptism; you cannot be born a full-fledged member. Therefore my point is that, the Canada Pension Plan having already made exceptions, the principle of universality is debatable. Then, under the terms of the exemptions made under the Canada Pension Plan I submit that the Hutterian Brethren are just as much entitled to exemption from
6676

September 18, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
this plan as the religious groups which are now exempted from it.
I should like also to point out the basic premise on which I will be basing my support of the amendments to the act contained in Bill C-190. I believe that the Canadian Bill of Rights passed in 1960, as well as the Alberta bill of rights, takes precedence in respect of this whole area of freedom of religion. This means that this basic freedom must be honoured and take precedence above the principle of universality which the Canada Pension Plan purports to adopt.
What is the case? Why, for instance, do the Hutterian Brethren object to the Canada Pension Plan and to pension plans in general? They object because a person belonging to that group took the vows of perpetual poverty. He cannot hold any possession, privately or individually. So based on their religious vows, they believe that by building up a pension they are building up personal equity. Whether the pension plan is administered by the government or by an independent insurance company, the person who takes out the pension plan is building up an equity for the time when he is old or disabled. This is entirely contrary to the religious beliefs of the Hutterian Brethren and contrary to their vows of perpetual poverty. So, it is not a matter of escaping taxes or escaping a responsibility but rather a violation of the basic right enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, that is freedom of religion.
I think further that very clearly when the Anabaptist groups came to Canada the letters patent of 1873 were not enshrined in the law, but the government of the day let it be understood that those rights and exemptions for which they asked would be maintained in perpetuity. This has been done, and from that point of view the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan in Bill C-190 are valid and do not violate the principles which underlie the bill.
Further, the present government, I believe, has an obligation which goes back to the former minister of national revenue who stated in a letter to the Hutterian Brethren of Canada that as of January 1, 1972 the Hutterian Brethren of Canada would be exempted from paying the Canada Pension Plan premiums. That is the basis of the amendments now before us. There is still the question, whether or not the amendments to the bill carry, of what position should be taken in respect of the premiums that have not been paid from 1966 to 1972. In some provinces they have been paid under protest by the Hutterian Brethren, but in other provinces, specifically in Manitoba, they have not been. Those premiums, in part, have been paid in that the government withheld moneys which were claimed by the Hutterian Brethren of Manitoba from Department of National Revenue at the end of the tax year.
Since 1972, when they received a letter from the then minister of national revenue, the department has again withheld moneys, either coming through subsidies under the agricultural programs of the Department of Agriculture or from the Department of National Revenue in rebates for income tax payments. Despite the assurances which they received from the minister effective from

January 1, 1972 the policy has not yet been altered so far as the actual collection of those premiums is concerned.
I do not believe that you can approach this case from the point of view of universality or from the point of view of security, because both those premises of those who oppose the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan are not valid. In so far as Universality is concerned the Hutterian Brethren have been exempted from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, and they do not demand from the state security payments or welfare payments which the rest of society receive from the government at the age of 65 or whatever the case may be.
In defence of the case that all goods are held in common I refer you to a case in Manitoba. Without a doubt most members of the House know that all children born to Hutterians do not remain in the colony, and there is a period of time when a certain number of them will leave the colony. They might come back or they might not. In Manitoba, a case came before the courts in which a certain number of Hutterian Brethren had left the colony in which they lived and then asked a court to rule that they could receive that proportion of the assessed goods of the colony to which their number was equivalent. In the judgment in Manitoba, the court very clearly decided that because of the vows of perpetual poverty and communal holdings, a Hutterian did not own anything; the goods were held in common and could not be divided as members left. So, the members did not have a specific proportion or ratio of the total goods of that community. If the decision had been the other way, it would have destroyed the very tenets on which the religion of these people is based.
Canada is a democracy and it is made up of various people. We come here with various backgrounds. I also subscribe to the idea that every citizen should accept responsibility to the nation. On the other hand, the strength of a democracy lies in the freedoms to which we give lip service. If these freedoms exist and are allowed in practice, then I believe that the amendments in Bill C-190 strengthen the democracy and give credence to the principles on which that democracy is based.
Bill C-190 still does not clear up the question of the backlog nor what will be done about those premiums from 1966 to 1972. I believe that the government, in bringing forth these amendments, is fulfilling an obligation which it has toward these people. I do not believe the bill is in direct conflict with the basic principle of universality, and I am happy to state clearly that I will support these amendments when they come up for a final vote.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to direct the following question to him. Would he be prepared to support an amendment to the bill which would allow any religious organization, whether or not it was founded before 1966, to have the same opportunity to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan payments?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I believe that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and I could come to a common understanding.
September 18, 1973


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill and I believe I can be brief. My personal concern with the exemption provisions of the Canada Pension Plan arises out of the fact that I have a number of Old Order Mennonite and Amish in my riding. The position that I take is to try to reflect, as best as I am able, the feeling in the hearts and consciences of these people. I believe, Sir, that this feeling was best expressed in a short sentence in a letter from a member of the Old Order of Mennonites which read as follows:
We believe in trying to live by the honest labour of our own hands and not accept handouts from the public treasury.
I find a great deal to support in that position, and frankly I find very little to criticize or question. I suppose one could argue that this violates the principle of universality in the pension scheme, and indeed it does. I do know the advantages of the universal welfare and insurance schemes, but I am not prepared to accept the principle of universality as the single criterion upon which legislation should be based. From time to time, and probably on too rare occasions, we in this House have the opportunity of expressing that which is in the hearts and consciences of one of our minority groups. We have the privilege in certain cases of overriding part of a universal scheme which is supported only by technicalities and bureaucratic expediency. I suggest to Your Honour that Bill C-190 affords us such an opportunity.
This bill does not open any great floodgates to Canadians wishing to escape the obligations of the Canada Pension Plan. It permits a few very small groups to escape a burden that is placed on their consciences. It will not destroy the Canada Pension Plan. It will not create a bureaucratic nightmare. I must reject immediately the argument that this infringes upon the fair financing of the Canada Pension Plan. If one wishes to reduce this debate to a matter of debits and credits, I think we will find that the Old Order of Mennonites and the Amish are certainly not the winners, and that the public treasury is certainly not the loser.
My position on this matter of finances can be supported at every level of government, not just the federal level. At the municipal level these people pay substantial realty taxes, a large portion of which goes to education and welfare costs, yet their children are educated in their own parochial schools entirely at their own expense, and these people do not accept welfare.
At the provincial and federal levels of government I point out that these people contribute to such plans as workmen's compensation, family assistance plans, old age pensions, and yet they accept no benefits from any such plan. As an aside I would point out that it is a matter of record that these people have repeatedly offered to pay the equivalent of insurance premiums into any worthy charity. Therefore if one wishes to argue on the basis of economics, certainly the public treasury comes out far ahead of the Old Order of Mennonites and the Amish.
In this connection may I emphasize one very important point. Contributions by way of taxation do not place the same burden upon the consciences of these people. They contribute substantially, and indeed willingly, although
Canada Pension Plan
they accept no benefits. However, a contribution by way of an insurance premium, such as under the Canada Pension Plan, is a philosophical burden. It violates their principle of mutual aid. It means that they are being compelled to support a government welfare program as against a church centred program, which naturally arouses a fear that over a period of time the loyalties of their people could be diverted away from the church toward a dependence on government. I believe it behooves us to respect this principle of mutual aid where, for example, buildings destroyed by fire are replaced by willing neighbours, and where plowing, seeding and harvesting of crops are performed for those who are the victims of illness or accident.
Therefore I support this bill, but in doing so I remind the minister that this legislation was promised two years ago by the then minister of national health and welfare and the then minister of national revenue. The timing of this legislation is a pretty good indication of what we have come to expect from those who choose to govern by press release. I confess that I doubt that we would even have this legislation now had it not been for the minority position of the government resulting from the election last October. Nor do I suggest that the government or the minister should take any pride in the fact that Canada Pension Plan premiums were collected from the Old Order of Mennonites and the Amish by way of garnishee of milk, cream and grain cheques.
As pointed out earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), we in this House often find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sitting in judgment to some degree on our fellow countrymen. We have judged that those who contribute to government welfare schemes and collect benefits in return are good citizens. Who among us is to say that those for whom I speak today, who contribute equally but take nothing in return, are not good Canadians?
In closing may I quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the June 14, 1973, edition of Mount Forest Confedera ter.
So determined was the government to tell Canadians how they should save for their old age that they deducted premiums from Mennonite farmers' cream cheques. Henceforward the Mennonites will be permitted to provide for their sunset years by personal frugality and the raising of devoted families-as they have been doing quite successfully for the past 300 years. In fact it would be just about ideal if the government could find a workable law which would make all the rest of us do the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to put on the record certain comments concerning the scope of the bill and of the various clauses contained therein. I have listened with great interest to the points of view expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House. I note that the debate concentrated mainly on the clause that has raised most questions, and on which we heard two speeches this afternoon. But, Mr. Speaker, the bill has other provisions in it, and I thought it might save time in the standing committee if I took a few minutes to say a few words about the bill in general.
6678

Canada Pension Plan
With the introduction of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans in 1965, a program was begun whereby people could and would make financial provision for their retirement, and at, the same time, protect themselves and their dependents or survivors in the event of severe disability or death. Aside from this primary goal, the plans have, during the first years of operation, provided provinces with a significant source of capital at very favourable interest rates.
As hon. members know, this is achieved by loans to the provinces of the amount by which the operating balance in the fund exceeds the amount required to be paid in benefits and for administration. As of March 31, 1973, for example, the total amount of investment in all provincial securities, other than Quebec, was $5,589.6 million, bearing an average interest rate of 6.9 per cent, or roughly $5 Vi billion in provincial securities.
The benefits provided by the Canada Pension Plan for contributors and their dependents include a retirement pension, a widow's pension, a disability pension, a death benefit, and a benefit for the children of deceased or disabled contributors. Because the plan, as designed, has a ten-year maturation period for retirement pensions, the maximum retirement pension will be payable in 1976 when, under current provisions, it will be approximately $122 a month.
The Quebec Pension Plan was designed with the same benefits payable, the same maturation period and the same qualifying periods. However, the Quebec plan was substantially changed with effect from January 1, 1973, so that the maximum monthly retirement pension in 1976 will be $133.
In 1970 the government felt that action should be taken to amend the Canada Pension Plan to have the benefits more accurately reflect the economy in which the plan was operating. Accordingly, in that year the white paper on income security for Canadians was published with several proposals for improvement in the plan including a suggested increase in the maximum pensionable earnings for contribution and benefit purposes for 1973, 1974 and 1975, the last three years of the maturation period. All the proposals were discussed with the provinces who indicated at that time that firm decisions on specific items should await an appreciation of the whole direction of national social security programs.
[ Translation]
The working paper on social security in Canada released in April 1973 was the starting point for the joint federal-provincial revision of the whole social security system. It was followed late in the same month by a meeting of federal and provincial ministers of social welfare. At and following that meeting my counterparts from the provinces studied the proposed changes. It was agreed not only that a general agreement was going to be reached on some of the major issues but also that immediate steps were necessary.
Before year's end I hope to introduce in this House the legislation to enact those major amendments while at the same time ensuring compatibility with the Quebec Pension Plan.

However, there are a number of technical amendments which should be made in the meantime and can be brought about without the assent of the provinces. It is for that reason that before the July adjournment we introduced Bill C-190 which is being considered today on second reading.
First, the government proposes a technical amendment to exclude from the plan the Hutterites and Mennonites as well as others similar groups because of the fact that their participation in the plan is incompatible with their religious beliefs. This is a measure to which we publicly committed ourselves in December 1971.
Furthermore, certain amendments to the Income Tax Act have made certain changes to the Canada Pension Plan necessary; those changes will ensure that the interest payable or refundable on overpayments or contribution deficits to the plan correspond to similar amounts paid under the new Income Tax Act.
Moreover, the transfer of the U.S. base at Goose Bay, Labrador, called for a third amendment aimed especially at ensuring retroactive protection under the Canada Pension Plan for Canadians who were employed by the government of the United States at that base and who were excluded from the plan under the present agreement. [English]
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for his conscientious efforts to see such an amendment brought forward for the benefit of the civilian population on the base. His interest and support in our negotiations are warmly appreciated.
[ Translation]
Another amendment is related to the appeal procedure and would permit the administration to pay reasonable fees to the lawyer at the second stage of the procedure when the administration brings the case before the Pension Appeals Board-third and last stage of the appeal procedure.
The last technical amendment gives the Auditor General the explicit right to audit the Canada Pension Plan Account. Until now he was doing it under the powers implicitly attributed to him by the Financial Administration Act.

Taking these points in order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to amplify them briefly for hon. members and explain why these amendments are necessary.
The first proposed amendment concerning the Hutterite and Mennonite communities is intended to honour a commitment made by my predecessor and the then minister of national revenue, as I said, in December, 1971. At that time they indicated that an amendment would be introduced exempting certain religious groups from converage and any contribution to the plan. This commitment was the result of representations made to the government by the Old Order Amish, Mennonite and Hutterian sects.
The government believed then, as it does now, that the Canada Pension Plan, in its present form, places an unintended penalty on these groups for the practice of their own particular religions. This amendment is designed to
September 18, 1973

correct the situation. The communal nature of the Hutteri-an colonies was recognized in 1969 when it was agreed that members of the colonies were to be considered as partners in the business of farming for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. The colony members live according to the tenets and teachings of their religion in small, self-contained communities in various parts of Canada. According to their beliefs, members of the colony should not acquire interests or rights to property of any kind, and they feel that the Canada Pension Plan gives contributors such rights. Although eschewing Canada Pension Plan benefits, Hutterian colonies make their own provisions for dependent members when they are no longer capable of physically contributing to the welfare of the community as a whole. This provision is such that dependent members are maintained for the rest of their lives in the manner to which they are accustomed, at the expense of the whole community.
The Old Order Amish Mennonite sects hold similar beliefs and although members do not live in colonies, they have consistently stated that their religious convictions are such that they may not, in good conscience, accept benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The United States government recognized their special status in 1966 and amended their social security legislation to exempt them from coverage.
Despite the fact that the members of these religious groups mentioned are prevented by conscience from accepting any benefits, they are required by law to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, and the Department of National Revenue is required by law to collect those contributions. Under the legislation now in force, liabilities for 1972 contributions have been generated in the accounts of self-employed members of the sects and many returns have been automatically set aside for collection. In effect, the government had no choice but to apply the law as it stands now.
During the last session, there appeared to be a consensus in the House that this amendment should be given priority in order to allow these religious groups the freedom to practise their religion without any question of law-breaking. I think most hon. members will agree that the amendment is still necessary today, and even more urgent.
I understand the reservations and the serious questions raised by some members who feel that this amendment should not be put forward. The government has had to answer in its own mind questions that have been raised on this subject, dealing on the one hand with questions of freedom of religion and the respect that we have in this country for fundamental freedom and, on the other hand, the necessity of ensuring equal treatment so that all citizens of this country, as much as possible, are put in the same situation under the law. As one hon. member said last Friday, the government has felt that if we were to err we would rather err in the direction of supporting and maintaining basic freedoms rather than supporting the general principle of universality in the application of certain types of laws.
Under the terms proposed, therefore, a member of a religious sect prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury), may elect to be relieved of the obligation of making self-employed contributions to the plan. If
Canada Pension Plan
the election is filed within six months of the date the new section comes into effect, the election is effective from January 1, 1972. An election filed at any later date takes effect on January 1 of the year in which it is filed-a retroactive date in both cases.
An election can, in the prescribed manner, be revoked with effect from January 1 of the year following the date the Minister of National Revenue receives the revocation. A person may revoke his election whenever he wishes, and for whatever reason, though once he has made a revocation, he can never again elect not to make self-employed contributions. In addition, the new law guarantees a refund of any contributions paid with respect to a period to which an election relates, though not preceding January
1,	1972, because of the effective date of the amendment. Pre-1972 contributions will eventually generate a retirement pension, or disability and/or survivor benefits, if the persons involved wish to accept them.
The second proposed amendment, dealt with in Clauses
2,	3 and 4, is more administrative in nature than the first. Before tax reform, the rate of interest payable in monies owed to the Department of National Revenue, and by the department, were specified in the Income Tax Act. For reasons of flexibility this was changed in the revised act, to the effect that the rate of interest would be decided by governor in council. The provision for interest payable in the Canada Pension Plan, however, was not changed, and thus the purpose of the present amendments is to give the plan the same degree of flexibility that is now part of the Income Tax Act. The rates of interest will, in all cases, be the same as those prescribed by governor in council under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Clause 5 of the present bill deals with international agreements. As hon. members will know, the United States Air Force, at its base in Goose Bay, Labrador, employed a number of local Canadian civilians on the base. These people were employees of the United States government and, as such, many of them were covered by either the U.S. Civil Service Retirement System or a private pension plan financed by the government of the United States. In 1967, an agreement was signed between Canada and the U.S.A. whereby the employment in Canada of locally engaged civilians by the government of the United States was included in pensionable employment for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. At the request of the United States, however, a clause was added to the agreement stating that the government of the United States was not required to contribute to the plan on behalf of those employees covered under the above U.S. pension plans, but would contribute on behalf of those not included in the U.S. plans.
As hon. members know, the United States Air Force has now relinquished its lease on the base, which reverted to the Ministry of Transport as of July 1 of this year. Negotiations leading to the transfer of control and operations included discussions of the coverage of those employees included in U.S government pension plans, and, as a result, the government of the United States reversed its position and indicated willingness to cover these employees under the Canada Pension Plan from July 1, 1972 onwards.

September 18, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
Unfortunately, Article 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act (1971) states in effect that it is not possible to make a regulation retroactive if the act pursuant to which the regulation is made does not provide for such retroactivity. The Canada Pension Plan does not, and so an amendment is necessary to give effect to the back-dating of coverage.
This problem may well arise again in the future. Any international negotiation is lengthy and detailed, which invariably means that the effective date of the agreement is prior to the actual signing, and consequently the general power provided in the amending clause will also sanction this combination of circumstances in the future.
[ Translation]
As regards clause 6 of the bill, this technical amendment relates to the appeal procedure. In certain cases the decision rendered by the review committee-second stage of the procedure-is favourable to the claimant but the administration cannot approve it because this is found contrary to the law and jurisprudence established by previous decisions. Therefore, those cases can be brought before the Pension Appeals Board made up of judges which is the third and last stage of the appeal procedure. As a rule and until now the board has confirmed the decisions rendered by the administration.
However, it is admitted that within this process some respondents may be disadvantaged, mainly because of a lack of resources since at those hearings the Crown is represented by a lawyer from the Department of Justice whereas quite often the claimant cannot afford a lawyer and pay for the fees. It is therefore proposed to make a technical amendment which would permit the administration to pay reasonable fees to the lawyer chosen by the claimant to represent him. In effect, under the current law, the claimant is unfortunately not entitled to such compensation.

In this respect, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House who, on numerous occasions, have drawn this point to my attention. Their representations mainly concerned the fact that the Canada Pension Plan authorities had appealed decisions, which had been rendered at the second level of appeal, and which were so to speak, in favour of certain citizens. Unfortunately, as I say, the administration had no choice except to appeal some of those decisions, because they did not appear to be consistent either with the act or with the established decisions in this area. It was not always found possible to go along with the decisions made at this second level of appeal as some of those decisions were contrary to the provision of the Canada Pension Plan itself. I think that the present approach at least will permit any citizen of this country to avail himself of the appeal process under the Canada Pension Plan. No longer will he find himself unable to go before the highest appeal tribunal because he himself has not enough resources to pay for the services of counsel.
[ Translation]
Finally, clause 7 is related to the Auditor General's authority. During a meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General's office requested that the Canada Pension Plan include a specific provision calling

for an audit of accounts by this office; in this connection, they pointed out the recent amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore, the last clause is the counterpart of the provision already included in the unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, what I have just said shows that the amendments I have outlined-some of which rest on humanitarian grounds, others on administrative grounds-will contribute to provide for a Canada Pension Plan that will work better and that will meet Canadians' needs. Of course, more important amendments are being discussed with provinces and, as I said earlier, we hope to be able to introduce soon a bill in this connection. In the meantime, we must concentrate our attention on the technical amendments that were proposed today. I hope that when these amendments are considered in committee, we will have the opportunity of debating in depth other problems that were raised, particularly about the possible exemption of specific religious groups.

Once more, in conclusion, I wish to think hon. members for their contributions in this debate and their thoughtful remarks both for and against certain amendments. I am convinced that discussion in committee will clarify certain points. I am sorry that certain members on the opposite side feel that they cannot support this particular amendment. I am happy to see that, at least, the official spokesmen of all parties are supporting this particular amendment and this particular bill. I hope it will receive quick and early approval by this House.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Will the minister permit a question?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Perrin Beatty: First, I apologize to the minister for re-opening this subject after he has concluded his remarks. I have one short question. It arises from the concern expressed to me by a number of members of the Mennonite community about some of the pressure on those who followed the tenets of their religion and did not make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan for the taxation year 1971. They have asked that the government give consideration to the possibility of, not refunding the money of those who paid in for 1971, but simply excusing the money owed by those who did not pay in 1971. I want to ask the minister whether this would be acceptable and whether further legislation will be brought in along this line. In other words, if it is just and humane to recognize the religious freedom of minority groups after January 1, 1972, why is it not just and humane to recognize it before that date?


Marc Lalonde: I thank the hon. member for his question. He asks why January 1, 1972. It is because we have to set some date at some stage. With regard to the possibility of the amendment which the hon. member has raised, I would like to discuss this with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury), who is responsible for collecting the contributions. When this matter is discussed in the standing committee, I will be in a position to
September 18, 1973

answer in more detail the point raised by the hon. member.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on clause 7, the minister said that the Auditor General has been designated now in the same way as provided in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Could the minister inform us who was previously responsible for auditing the Canada Pension Plan Account?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I understand that until now the Auditor General audited the statements of the Canada Pension Plan, even though there is no specific provision in the law providing such an audit by the Auditor General and he had raised the matter in his report to the Standing Committee of PUblic Accounts. Indeed, after that request by the Auditor General, we included in the bill a provision providing that in any case he would have the responsibility for that audit even though the practice followed until now has been consistent with the content of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-135, to provide additional financial mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was last before the House on June 12. Referring to the attitude of the party to my left concerning this important piece of legislation, I was saying how clear it is that that party has no ability to understand the mechanics of mortgage financing. Since this bill was last before us, that party had a convention in Vancouver at which time they suddenly decided that no one should pay more than 6 per cent interest on his mortgage. They were going to reduce the interest rate on everyone's mortgage to 6 per cent. I was very intrigued by that; I thought it was lovely. But, I wondered why they did not decide to reduce it to 4 per
Mortgage Financing
cent, 2 per cent or zero. Unfortunately, there are financial facts of life. This bill attempts to deal with some of them.
While I am not particularly pleased with some of the drafting of the bill and some of the details, especially in connection with the corporation which I understand will have in the neighbourhood of 10 directors, I am pleased the minister has finally decided to recognize some financial facts of life and make mortgage money more mobile. By making it more mobile, it will be more available and more competitive, thus reducing the cost of mortgage money.
Since this bill was last before the House, interest rates have risen from 8 V* per cent to 10, 11 and 12 per cent on first mortgage financing. Before coming to this House, I had a great deal to do with the mortgage business. I am shocked when I find that leading trust companies in this nation are refusing to lend money at 10V4 per cent, 103A per cent and more. Part of the problem is that this government has not seen fit to ensure that interest rates in this country are governed by this country and not by international demand. We in this party have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions. Be that as it may, this bill does not have anything to do with the level of interest rates. The objective of the bill is to ensure that mortgage money is available in the market place.
I am particularly pleased with the suggestion in the bill that approved mortgage investment corporations will be able to pass the income received from their portfolio directly to their shareholders, either as an interest taxable dividend or as a capital gains dividend. This whole concept of "pass through" is essential in the mortgage industry. The present corporate law discriminates and makes difficult the acquisition and collection of funds behind the screen of limited companies because corporations must first pay the corporate tax rate of 50 per cent and, when they make their distribution to their investors, the investors must pay further income tax. The effect of the "pass through" provision in this bill means that an investor will only pay one tax, not two. There will not be a corporate tax plus a further tax on distribution, but one tax payable by the investor on the distribution to him if the distribution is made within 90 days from the year end of the corporation. If, on the other hand, the company elects to make the distribution at a later time, there will be corporate tax, but the dividend will be treated as a capital gains dividend and subject to taxation on the basis of a capital gain rather than on the basis of a regular dividend.
It is imperative in this country that institutions be established to collect small pots of money, and put these small pots of money together in order that the mortgage industry can carry on with projects, making advances and loans. One of the consistent problems has been that an individual going into the business has been subject to rather heavy corporate and personal tax, with the end result that many who would otherwise have gone into the mortgage field have directed their money toward other forms of speculation, and I refer particularly to land speculation. It is imperative that money be collected in order that it can be lent to people who want to build homes. As I said earlier on June 12, as a young man I used to travel to the Capreol-Sudbury area where, as in many

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing
other areas in Canada, there was no facility for the ordinary guy to get a loan to build a home, so he had to go to the finance companies.
What this parliament is doing is creating the mechanism whereby savings can be accumulated and not subject to a horrendous tax, but subject only to the regular income tax, as should be the case. This money can be collected by a corporate entity and lent on the market at a realistic rate. It is competition that determines the rate of interest, except under circumstances where this government creates artificial interest rates in order to take care of international problems. Really within Canada it is competition that determines the rate, and one of the advantages of this bill is that it increases competition possibilities in the mortgage field.
This bill also makes it possible, without the horrible burden of corporate tax, for investors to pool their resources, each paying personal income tax on the profits, but without being stuck for both corporate tax and personal tax. It makes it possible for them to pay corporate tax but to avoid being almost raped when they pay a regular dividend, or pay a capital gains type dividend, and thus are induced to go into the field.
I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. As I said, I am not pleased with some of the drafting, as I am not pleased with the obtuse way in which draftman-ship is sometimes carried out in this country. This matter has been referred to earlier in the session by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I do not intend at this time to offer less obtuse drafting, but surely somewhere along the line it should be the obligation of those who draft statutes for us and for the public to read, to draft them in such a way that they need not be read 10 or 12 times before determining what they mean.
The principle and the concept of the bill are good and I cannot for the life of me understand why those in the party to my left object to it. Surely, their only objection could be that somebody is going to go into the business of lending people money. If they have any intention of trying to drive down mortgage rates, surely they should stand up and be counted as saying: Yes, let's get on with it and do something for the ordinary people of Canada. Members of that party do not understand what they are doing, so they simply say that because this is a business statute they cannot possibly support it, therefore they speak on and on against it. Would it not be terrible if the management of this country were entrusted to people with such a lack of sense and a lack of financial intuitiveness.
I commend the minister for introducing this bill. I hope it passes in a hurry, moves on to the committee where the drafting can be cleaned up a bit and we can pass it into law.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the NDP will not support the provisions of Bill C-135. I am sure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) finds it very awkward to be in the same bed with the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn).


An hon. Member:: It is a king size bed.


John Gilbert: After all the progressive ideas the minister has spouted from time to time he now finds himself in the

same bed with that hon. member for Peel South, and I am sure he must find it uncomfortable.
The bill does nothing to help the average Canadian purchase a home at a reasonable cost.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Except to reduce the interest rate.


John Gilbert: On the contrary, it imposes a financial hardship which is both cruel and unconscienable. The bill sets forth the philosophy of the Liberal and Conservative parties, that they regard housing as a commodity for profit, the amount of which is to be determined by the free play of market forces, with no regard to reducing the cost of mortgage financing for housing. In other words, it puts profit before people.
We in the NDP reiterate our philosophy that all Canadians are entitled to clean, warm shelter at a reasonable cost as a matter of basic human right. The philosophy of the Liberal and Conservative parties is to make this bill attractive in order to enhance mortgage investment. We in the NDP accept our responsibility to provide adequate housing at reasonable cost.
The two main items or factors in respect of the high cost of housing today are the high cost of land and the high cost of mortgage money. I am sure there will be no quarrel, even from the hon. member for Peel South, in respect of that analysis. When we look at the high cost of land we find that the government has introduced Bill C-133 in an attempt to find a solution to this problem. It has set aside $100 million each year for the next five years for the purchase of land to set up a land bank. Just a short while after the passage of that bill, the minister stated that the provinces and municipalities were not taking advantage of the provisions of that bill. This is very disappointing, and I guess it behooves the minister and members of this House to persuade the provinces and municipalities to take advantage of those provisions.
The hon. member for Peel South pointed out that mortgage interest rates have increased in the last while from 8 3A per cent to 10 per cent, 10 Vi per cent and 11 per cent. One wonders just where it will stop, but I guess there is no limit to the greed and avarice of investors in this country.
Who will gain as a result of the passage of the provisions of Bill C-135? Will it be the average Canadian worker who wants to buy a home?


Some hon. Members:: Absolutely.


John Gilbert: Will it be the average Canadian who wants to marry and establish a home who will gain by these provisions? I suggest that is not the case. With the interest rates we will have, we will be making it impossible for the average person to buy a home. The minister set forth the situation in his statement of February 1, 1973 when he said:
The effectiveness of the new financial mechanisms in generating new sources of residential mortgage funds will obviously depend on the degree to which private investors respond to them. During the development of these provisions, therefore, consultations were held with the financial community to ensure that the mechanisms were fully appropriate and would be effective in meeting their designed purpose. In addition, the research group that worked on the proposals included a number of experts from the financial community.
September 18, 1973

It is obvious to whom they went for advice. Did they go to the average working person and ask, what is the best way of setting up mortgage financing so houses can be bought at reasonable cost? No. They went to investors and to the financial community and asked what they could do to assist in making mortgage financing more attractive to them. This bill incorporates all of the ideas passed on to them by the financial community.
On Thursday of last week and on Monday of this week we had a debate on inflation and the high cost of living. The three main factors in that area have been the high cost of food, the high cost of clothing and the high cost of housing. Housing has ranked number one. Housing has been the foremost item in the cost of living and inflation. Is it any wonder that one hesitates to review the sad history of the Liberal government with regard to housing? Since 1965 when I came here, the whole philosophy of this government has been to treat housing as an economic valve, turning the tap on and then turning it off in accordance with the economic conditions of the day. As a result, we have had an increase in housing starts, then a shortfall, then an increase, then another shortfall, and the net result has been a shortage of housing at reasonable cost for the average Canadian.
May I remind the House of the lengths to which the Liberal government went in order to lift the rate of interest charged by banks? I remember the arguments of the then minister of finance, who said that if the 6 per cent ceiling were lifted money would flow into the market and there would be competition. As a result the rates would be as low, if not lower. What we have seen is mortgage interest rates rise from 6 per cent to 10 or 11 per cent. I would remind the House also that when the rate was at 6 per cent the banks refused to accept their social responsibility for housing and to put any money into housing. In the result the government was forced to take off the 6 per cent ceiling. The same government has also changed the maturity terms of NHA mortgages. At one time a person had the assurance that his mortgage would run for 20 or 25 years. Then, the financial boys persuaded the government to change the maturity term to five years. In sophisticated financial parlance, this was called the roll-over theory.
They then yielded to pressure to change the formula for setting rates for NHA mortgages through CMHC when related to the yield on bonds. I remember the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) telling me in committee that when that formula was lifted he foresaw a flow of money into the market and a downtrend in interest rates. How wrong he was, and how irresponsible was that statement. The Liberal government has placed total reliance on private builders and investors, and has fallen far short of its own responsibility for housing.
Another sad commentary about the Liberal government concerns the tax concessions the government has given to land developers across this country. In my speech on Bill C-133, I indicated how land developing companies, not only in Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver but right across the country, had gained control of land in the major cores and were selling it at unconscionable prices. The government assists them in this by giving them special tax concessions related to the application of interest rates
Mortgage Financing
related to their land purchases and fast write-offs. Is it any wonder that the people of Canada have lost confidence in this government's attempts to solve the housing crisis? Having seen what has been done, mortgage investors are asking for even more. That is their philosophy. Though we are experiencing the highest cost of housing in Canada, the highest mortgage interest rates and the highest cost of land, they want even more money. Their demand is for more and the government has yielded to them.
We have five major criticisms of this bill. The first is that Bill C-135 provides for the supply and control of mortgage funds for residential housing to be determined by the free play of market forces. The Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation will not attempt direct mortgage market intervention with the aim of stabilizing either the price or the supply of mortgage funds. Those are the words the minister used in his speech. This means we will have more of the same-higher interest rates and increased housing costs. The minister sits silently by and says the government will not interfere with the free play of market forces.
We in the New Democratic Party say that the federal government must assume responsibility for a strong and adequate supply of mortgage funds. It must determine with the provinces our housing requirements, set annual targets and obtain firm commitments from financial institutions to meet those housing needs. It is only when we take that approach that we will see a downtrend in the cost of housing and mortgage interest rates.
Second, Bill C-135 aims to enhance the attractiveness of mortgage investment on the part of financial institutions and pension funds. The purpose of the bill should be to reduce to the minimum the cost of mortgage financing for housing purposes. The tax advantage given to shareholders participating in mortgage investment corporations, together with the determination to enhance the attractiveness of mortgages, will tend to enrich the shareholders at the expense of home buyers.
I could not help but smile at the tears that were shed by the hon. member for Peel South when he referred to the rape taking place of the investors of this country. Is he not concerned for the people who are buying homes? Is his interest directed to the mortgage investor rather than to those people in Canada who want to buy homes? The theme he sang to the minister of state in charge of housing was that something must be done for the poor mortgage investors because they were being raped. He has his parties mixed. The person who is raping is the mortgage investor; the person who is being raped is the one who is buying the house or hoping to buy it. But I imagine that his statement fits within the philosophy of both the Liberal party and the Conservative party in this respect.
The third reason we criticize this bill is that the setting up of the mortgage investment companies under Bill C-135 will not ensure that adequate mortgage funds will be made available both for new and existing dwellings in rural areas. One does not have to come from the Maritimes to be aware of the shortage of funds for housing that prevails in the Maritimes and Newfoundland. In this bill,

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing
the setting up of the companies does nothing to ensure that an adequate supply of the moneys that are collected will be applied to rural housing. The hon. member for Peel South shed tears for people in northern Ontario, and spoke about the problems which they had in obtaining mortgage money for the purchase of a house. I agree with him and I might add that this situation applies not only to people in northern Ontario but also to people in Quebec and the Maritimes. The way to solve that problem is by making sure that the mortgage investment companies provide an adequate amount of money for new and existing dwellings in rural areas. Falling short of that, this bill is totally hopeless.
The fourth reason we oppose the bill is the fact that the mortgage investment companies would not meet the housing needs in areas of regional disparity. Again, it is areas such as Quebec, the Maritimes, Newfoundland and parts of Ontario which need those moneys. There is no assurance that those moneys will flow to these areas. The government must ensure an adequate regional distribution of mortgage funds within the over-all national allotment. If we are to permit the mortgage investment companies to distribute funds on a national basis, they will do it in the areas where the investment is most attractive. They will not touch areas, such as some of the rural areas in Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario where people will be denied the mortgage moneys which should be allotted to them.
The fifth reason is that the mortgage investment companies will not help the special housing needs of Canada's Indian, Eskimo and Metis people. On the news this morning, I heard that a representative of the Indian people appeared yesterday before the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and made a special plea with regard to the housing needs of the Indian people across the country. He painted a very sad picture of some of the houses in which these people live. I am sure that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) could reiterate what the hon. member said yesterday concerning the living conditions of Indians across the country. But Bill C-135 does nothing to help these people. The minister might glibly say that help was given them under Bill C-133. The token moneys under the provisions set down in Bill C-133 do not begin to meet the special needs of the Indian, Eskimo and Metis people. To depend on mortgage investment companies to make any allotment of the moneys that they collect to these special groups is really doing them an injustice and a disservice. I hope that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will use his good offices to persuade the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to ensure the allott-ment of moneys by mortgage investment companies to these special groups.
The sixth criticism that we have is that the mortgage investment companies will do little or nothing to assist the middle or low income people who do not qualify under AHOP, which is the Assisted Home Ownership Program, or RRAP, which is the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, to buy or to rehabilitate and repair these homes. We will have a group of people who do not qualify under Bill C-133 and who will not receive any of the benefits under Bill C-135. It seems to me to be a hardship and a cruel hoax to tell people that their mortgage financ-

ing will be improved when people in these special groups are not taken care of.
The eighth criticism is that the mortgate investment companies will be authorized to make residential and non-residential estate debt in equity investments. What does that mean? It means that not only must they invest in homes but they can invest in non-residential real estate, in other words in office buildings. One does not have to be an expert in the mortgage investment field to know that they will participate to a large extent in investment in the new office buildings that have been erected and the reason is the attractiveness of the high return on investment in office buildings, far higher than on houses. If there is one reason that this bill should be thrown aside it is this particular provision permitting these companies to invest in non-residential real estate.
I was rather proud and pleased when the hon. member for Peel South said that the NDP had a convention in Vancouver a short while ago and at that convention we set forth our philosophy and our objectives. We said that every Canadian is entitled to clean, warm shelter at a reasonable cost as a basic human right. We say that the financial institutions of this country have a social responsibility when they collect funds from Canadians to see that those Canadians are properly housed. Therefore, we would impose upon the financial institutions across the country an allocation of the moneys that they receive to cover the national housing commitments in this country, and the commitments can best be devised and set forth by the different provinces and municipalities and then conveyed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
We did say that interest rates on mortgages across Canada should be 6 per cent. The hon. member for Peel South said that perhaps we should have said that they should be 4 per cent or 2 per cent. If members of the Conservative party and the Liberal party would agree to changing the interest rates on mortgages in Canada and setting them at 4 per cent or at 2 per cent, they will get the full support of the NDP. When we talk about 6 per cent, even we in the NDP feel uneasy about that interest rate. When I started in the practice of law about 20 years ago I can recall interest rates being at 4 per cent and 5 per cent. There has been a gradual acceleration until now when interest rates are probably the highest that are paid throughout the western world. It is not something of which we Canadians should be proud.
When I heard the hon. member for Peel South saying that mortgage investments must be mobile and more flexible so that they may become more competitive, he reminded me of the arguments I heard in the past, from Liberals and Conservatives, when changes were made. All this does is increase the competition among the financial institutions. It does nothing to reduce the cost of mortgage financing. Surely, that should be the aim and the desire of all Canadians.
We should be demonstrating our concern with respect to housing. There should not be greed and avarice with regard to mortgage investments. I hope that the consciences of all members and all Canadians have been struck by what I have said that housing should be on an
September 18, 1973

equal basis with education and health care. To deprive a Canadian of the basic necessity of housing is to deprive him of a main element in life. I hope that the minister in charge of housing will rethink this bill and introduce legislation which will reflect federal responsibility in the field of housing. I hope he will direct that the moneys of Canadians will be used, at the lowest possible interest rate, to meet our housing needs.


Mr. Basford;: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I record that I believe there has been some discussion through the usual channels to the effect that if by chance, and only if, I had the opportunity of closing the debate this evening the taking of the vote would be deferred until the first order of business immediately after orders of the day tomorrow. I repeat that I believe that is the understanding through the usual channels, and I emphasize that it is only if I were to obtain the opportunity to close the debate tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that if there is to be a recorded division that it would take place immediately after orders of the day are called tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the speeches of the two members who spoke before me, we realize that the government is really in good hands. At one time, the members of the New Democratic Party submit to the minority government orders, at another time it is the Progressive Conservatives when they see that the New Democrats cannot do it. In any event, we can see that the situation has changed and this is probably contorting for the party in power.
When studying the explanatory notes of Bill C-135 we find that the main provision of this bill is intended to raise funds in sufficient quantities to grant mortgage loans to build family dwellings.
It would seem that what has been lacking in recent years is not so much the funds for new housing as the solvency of borrowers. We realize that the cost of both housing and living has been continuously increasing for several years. The price of materials has been rising steadily and we have reached a point where in most cases only a few wage earners can afford to borrow the necessary cash to build or buy a comfortable house, a house that meets the needs of their families. As a matter of fact, being unable to find a decent home we must limit the size of the family in order to house it in the small houses we have to build nowadays.
The main purpose of this bill is to gather the funds existing in private portfolios here and there in order to obtain a sufficient amount so that borrowers can be provided with the money they need.
At the present time, I am under the impression, unless there has recently been a change, that the funds offered by chartered banks, insurance companies or other lenders are not lacking. There seems to be enough, especially since the chartered banks are now interested in mortgage loans. We have come back to this system, especially since the amendment to the Bank Act was passed in 1966. At that time, I
Mortgage Financing
remember very well that our leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), kept saying that this amendment would allow chartered banks to lend approximately $4 billion more without having a penny more in their reserves; that was a nice gift for the chartered banks.
The report for 1967 revealed that the chartered banks then got interested in mortgage loans, and that in 1967 alone, they lent $1,023 billion for the construction of houses. In short it was part of the new credit which the government at the time, under the new Bank Act, had allowed them to create and which they had made available to borrowers at the prevailing rate.
Since then, it has been realized that when the borrower .could prove his solvency, it was not too difficult for him to obtain the necessary mortgage to build a house. However, what is still more important is that Bill C-133, which was implemented a few weeks ago, while enabling low wage earners to obtain loans, does not perhaps allow them to become really the owners of their house, but they are at least in the process of becoming so.
It is often said that one's automobile belongs to the finance company. Now in many cases, we live in a house standing in our name but which also belongs to a lending company. And when one undertakes to reimburse a mortage over a period of 25, 30 or 35 years, it means a whole working life. As it is difficult to get a mortage loan before the age of 25, it will be retirement age when the mortage is reimbursed.
During a whole working life, it is difficult not to have bad luck at one moment or another, owing to either work stoppage or illness. Then it becomes rather difficult and annoying for the head of a family to be forced, during a whole working life, to reimburse the price of three or four houses to own only one. Thus, it would be important to find a means of reducing the interest rate.
I was listening a few moments ago to a discussion between the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). One of them proposed an interest rate not over 6 per cent, whereas the other mentioned he should have proposed a much lower rate. As far as I am concerned, I can assert that the Social Credit, of which I have been a member for a long time, recommends the establishment of a rather low interest rate in order to enable the borrower to become owner of his house in a reasonable period of time, without having to pay for two or three houses to chartered banks or insurance companies. If we really stop to think out this housing problem, Mr. Speaker, we will find a solution.
There is another issue which surfaces once in a while. I should like to take this opportunity to mention it to Parliament and to the government: it is the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials and the 8 per cent provincial tax, in the province of Quebec, which is added on to the federal tax. This means that in Quebec, there is a tax on federal taxes. For instance, in the province of Quebec, the two levels of government collect between 21 and 22 per cent in taxes on all building materials. This is really too much, Mr. Speaker, and it is very costly, in taxes alone, to become a homeowner.

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing
I am going to give an example. In 1965-this is an example that I do not make light of-I bought 1,000 feet of lumber-1,000 feet of board-that were then sold $80 for
1.000	feet. Add to that the 11 per cent federal sales tax and you pay $8.80 more, plus the 8 per cent provincial sale tax, that is $7.10, which comes to a total of $15.90 in taxes for
1.000	feet of lumber in 1965.
Hardly two weeks ago, I bought some lumber from the same supplier. I paid $185 for 1,000 feet; this is a considerable increase. Yet, the federal tax on lumber and the provincial tax have not increased; they remained respectively at 11 and 8 per cent. But in adding, I found that in order to buy 1,000 feet of lumber, it is not $8.80 but $20.35 that I had to pay for the federal tax of 11 per cent. And the provincial tax amounted to $16.40, which means that instead of paying $15.90 for 1,000 feet of lumber bought in 1965, the cost is now $36.75. That is quite an increase in taxes: they have more than doubled in a few years only. The taxes our governments collect on housing are very costly and increase its cost considerably.
Once again I insist, on behalf of my party and Canadian families, in short, on behalf of all Canadian taxpayers, that the government completely abolish that 11 per cent tax which in fact is a hold-up, a highway robbery where Canadian families are concerned.
Borrowers who want to buy a house get a mortgage for 25, 30 or 35 years; they pay interest at 10 or 10 V2 per cent. In fact, they will be paying interest for 25, 30 or 35 years on the 11 or 8 per cent tax levied by our governments. This, Mr. Speaker, adds considerably to the housing cost increase.
Today, we know that low income families can benefit from certain advantages, under certain conditions; we also know that when we buy of house of let us say 1,200 square feet for $14,000 or $15,000, we do not get the same quality as we would get for a house of the same dimensions but costing $24,000 or $25,000. That stands to reason. However, because of his limited ability to pay, a man in the low income bracket must be satisfied with a cheap and not so comfortable house.
A while ago, I was listening to my New Democratic Party colleague's violent attack against profit-seeking lenders whom this bill aims at exempting from income tax payment.
At a given moment, it crossed my mind that, carrying out his philosophy and that of his party to its bitter end, he would suggest setting up a house building corporation to prevent contractors building dwellings within cities and elsewhere from making profits. I suppose that all contractors in the small northern towns of Amos, La Sarre, Rouyn and Val-d'Or as well as those in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa want indeed to make profits.
And I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Broadview urging the government to establish a Crown corporation to prevent construction companies from making profits.
So, Mr. Speaker, the idea of channeling private capital already available from various sources will, I think, though I am not sure, lead to competitive mortgages. Maybe we should hope for mortgages at a lower rate of interest than the one we have now.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this bill because we consider it to be simply a vehicle which endangers the system of trying to meet the housing needs of the people of Canada without making the fundamental changes necessary if we are to get control of the financial resources required to provide the housing that the people need.
Before going into the reasons for our opposition to this bill and what I think should be in the bill if it is to meet the needs of the people of Canada, I want to say a few words about the speech made a little while ago by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). In the last ten days we have had at least three days of discussion initiated by members of the official opposition to deal with the increased cost of living. We have heard repeatedly inside and outside the House simplistic calls by members of the official opposition for wage and price controls which, supposedly, would stop living costs from increasing rapidly. As my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said a few moments ago, one of the most significant reasons for the increase in the cost of living has to do with the sharp increase in the cost of housing, either owned or rented by citizens of this country. So, to say the least, I was astounded by the tears shed by the hon. member for Peel South on behalf of the poor people who invest their money in the lending institutions of the country, institutions from which most people who want to buy a house must borrow or obtain a mortgage.
In case the hon. member for Peel South thinks I am exaggerating, let me tell him that the figures I am about to put on the record all come from the financial pages of that radical newspaper which appears in his area, the Globe and Mail. On September 15, a few days ago, the Globe and Mail carried an article summarizing what has happened to the profits of Canadian banks, which are a major source of money in the mortgage field. According to the article, the profits of the Royal Bank of Canada in 1972 rose over profits in 1971 by 13.9 per cent. I shall be referring to the third quarter of each year, Mr. Speaker. In 1973, the bank's profits rose over those of 1972 by 27.8 per cent. The profits of the Canadian Bank of Commerce in 1972 rose by 17.7 per cent over 1971 profits. In 1973, their profits over 1972 increased by 23.1 per cent. The profits of the Bank of Montreal in the third quarter of 1972 increased by 18.3 per cent over that bank's 1971 profits for the same period. In 1973, that bank's profits, over the same period in 1972, increased by 45.4 per cent. The average profit increase for all banks in Canada for the third quarter of 1973, over the third quarter in 1972, was 31.9 per cent.
The banks are not the only institutions from which people who want to buy houses borrow money. If one looks at the Globe and Mail for June 29, one will see an article which summarizes what has happened in the first quarter of 1973 as compared with the corresponding period in 1972. One will see that the profits of trust and loan companies increased by 14.2 per cent in that period. One will also see that the profits of real estate companies increased by a small amount, 125.8 per cent. And these are the people about whom the hon. member for Peel South is
September 18, 1973

worried. I cannot worry about them. I worry about the people who have a need for and want to buy houses.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although I do not mind being referred to in speeches, I hate to hear my remarks misrepresented. I did not come to the defence of the banks-I never did-in what I had to say this afternoon. The hon. member is clearly misrepresenting my remarks. This affects my privileges as a member of this House, and misrepresents to this House the position of my party. Further, those remarks have nothing to do with this bill. I think the matter must be corrected on the record. My party and I have no intention of protecting any companies, in the way the hon. member suggests. What we are trying to do is to make it easier for people to enter the mortgage business, and to cut interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a point of debate. The hon. member had an opportunity to express his views and another hon. member who has the floor has expressed his views. The hon. member for Peel South may feel that his views have been misrepresented, but he cannot correct them in the way he has tried, by way of a point of order. Standing Order 37 provides that when this matter comes before the House later, the hon. member may take the floor a second time to explain what he said and correct the record; but he cannot do that by way of point of order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the point raised by the hon. member for Peel South was not a point of order, as Your Honour said, and was a spurious point, to say the least. We are discussing Bill C-135, an act to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada. I suggest to the hon. member for Peel South that the lending institutions of this country which provide the bulk of money for residential mortgages are doing very well and do not need the kind of defence which the hon. member for Peel South has advanced on their behalf. It was precisely for that reason that I put on record the kinds of profits which they have been making. They made them legitimately; I do not suggest for a moment that what they did was illegal or improper. It is precisely because we think that the bill we are discussing will enable them to make larger profits that we oppose this bill. That is why I put on record the financial positions of these institutions. Let there be no misunderstanding as to who needs protecting from whom.
The problem of providing adequate housing for Canadians is not new and has been with us for many years. Other members of the New Democratic Party who have spoken in this debate have raised something which warrants repeating. It was when the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who now sits on the front benches of the Conservative Party, was the minister in charge of housing for the Liberal government in 1969 that parliament agreed to his suggestion to lift the 6 per cent limit on residential mortgages. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. 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 York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Highways-Proposed road from Maine through New Brunswick to Quebec-Investigation of feasibility; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Regional economic expansion-Nova Scotia- New initiatives in light of resignation of provincial Minister of Development; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Regional Economic Expansion-Date of tabling of program for Northern Ontario-Hiring of personnel for northern Ontario offices.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to considering order No. 159, Bill C-222, standing in the name of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). This bill seeks to change the name of the hon. member's constituency. I think there is agreement to put it through all stages today. When that is completed we would return to the private members' bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: that Bill C-222, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


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


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions when members have introduced bills to change the names of their constituencies. For example, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) had the name of his constituency changed

September 18, 1973
Transport Commission of Inquiry from Waterloo to Waterloo-Cambridge. This will indicate that I do not make these remarks in a partisan way.
Having to move bills in private members' hour is a deplorable way of having to change the names of constituencies. This results in taking time from the private members hour. It appears this time the matter will be handled quickly. The last time we dealt with such a motion, it took much longer.
Members must use private members hour to change the names of their constituencies when we should be dealing with bills such as those of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) which are changes in substance related to the needs of this country. Although the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) has a legitimate reason for changing the name of his constituency, it is ridiculous that members must use the time allotted for private members hour for this purpose.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to take the bill through all stages, including committee of the whole and third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Iianiel):: Does the House give consent to allow the change to be made to the motion so that it may be referred to a committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO ESTABLISH COMMISSION On the order:
January 15, 1973-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill C-33, An Act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Some hon. members, including the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), know the Chair has some reservation about the acceptability of this bill. At first glance, it is the impression of the Chair that this bill seems to infringe upon the finahcial initiative of the Crown. I do not wish to prevent hon. members making points in defence of the acceptability of this bill. I invite hon. members to assist the Chair in its decision.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, without calling into question the very real problems which cause the Chair to have some reservation about this and other bills that come before this parliament, may I be permitted to make the observation that this bill, like a number of others, has been on the order paper for this and the two previous parliaments.
In most cases where the matter is dealt with, the urgency of proposing bills which attempt to infringe is, from the private member's point of view, clear. Impairment of the

initiative of the treasury benches to raise and dispense public funds is not really an issue in this bill. Indeed, the substantive matter of the bill in terms of the ability of the government to raise and expend funds is not involved. In fact, there is no additional expenditure apart from the salaries of the five-man commission.
I find it very difficult to argue the merits of that particular part of the bill. However, I would argue that in recent years conflicts have arisen in the area of general transportation in Canada, particularly aviation, seaborne traffic, transcontinental trains and interprovincial trucking. In recent years, there have been conflicts in a very real sense in interprovincial pipeline transportation. The bill is directed to this concern rather than any initiative of the government with regard to raising money. That is the argument I intend to make in the next few minutes rather than try to argue the merits of a particular clause which, I must confess, I would find difficult to argue with the Chair. If the Chair wishes to entertain other comments on this point, I would be prepared to accede to other hon. members for that purpose.
Following that, I would like to suggest to Your Honour the degree of concern I have with regard to all forms of transportation in Canada. Rather than take liberty with the initiatives of the treasury benches, I would like to bring before this chamber and the country the concern I have in relation to what I consider to be a very urgent matter.
The bill flows from a concern that a conflict of interest could arise when an investigative body is charged in a statutory way with the responsibility for investigating accidents in the transportation field in respect of which.it has some regulatory authority. It is this concern I offer as an argument in favour of allowing this brief debate this afternoon. There are other arguments one could use for or against the suggestion that the provisions of this bill might impair the right, prerogative or the ability of the treasury benches to raise money. I can only plead once again that we should be given the opportunity to discuss this matter without getting into the question of the salaries of those on the commission. A failure to accept the very general argument would preclude in a very serious way members of this Chamber from dealing with matters of urgency and great concern.
Your Honour is quite familiar with the citations in Beauchesne's which refer to the right of all of us to be heard. When that right is precluded by any technical argument, I find it difficult to argue in a general way, because that is a fatal argument which does not in my opinion relate to the substantive situation with which we are now faced. The urgency of this matter is very clear in a statistical way. The increase in the number of accidents in this country is creating an international concern which Canada is not presenting to the international transportation community, yet there is a positive indication that accidents in this country could be investigated without any threat of a conflict of interest.
From time to time governments are not prepared to recognize that ministries are fallible, or in fact that they do make errors. They often do not recognize the important
September 18, 1973

results that could flow from motions put before the House by members from both sides. If we fail to recognize that fact in respect of the private members' hour I think we not only do a disservice to this Chamber, we impair in the strictest sense the interpretation of the rules and prerogatives of the Crown in respect of raising and spending money.
A close examination of the bill would indicate a proposed transfer of professional expertise from the ministry of transport to an independent commission which would, in turn, report to another level of government. It could be argued that this commission would in fact not spend an additional five cents. If the bill in its present form is imperfect or is lacking in a technical sense because of the rules of this House, I am sure that we would be only too pleased to accept any appropriate change.
What we are pleading for is an opportunity to speak publicly to Canadians in respect of the transportation industry, while at the same time speaking to members of the treasury benches and our colleagues in the House. I suggest there is a sense of urgency because we have such accidents as the dramatic and tragic one that occurred near Wabush not so many months ago. I suggest this accident was the result of an error situation. The investigation of this accident indicated that there was an internal error. The difficulty involved is that the regulatory body charged with the responsibility for investigating the accident might be said to be encumbered by a real possibility of a conflict of interest. Even if that conflict of interest was imaginative, I suggest our attempt to discuss this matter this afternoon is fully justified. The number of deaths in air accidents in recent years has been on the increase, just as the number of deaths has increased in respect of railway accidents and accidents involving buses and trucks engaged in interprovincial commerce. In 1971, for instance, there were 1,100 accidents involving vehicles engaged in interprovincial transportation.
What we are attempting to do is restore not only national but international confidence in the manner in which we investigate transportation accidents in Canada. We cannot continue much longer to convince ourselves that there is not a distinct possibility of a conflict of interest. If we continue to do so, instead of being in the vanguard of transportation modes in the world we will find ourselves very far behind. The United States and Great Britain have already moved in this direction, while France and Australia are presently deeply involved in the overhaul of their system of transportation accident investigation procedures. They are doing this, as I would, not with the knowledge that a conflict of interest exists, but with the knowledge that there is the possibility of a whitewash being attempted. I am not suggesting this is the case, as we have one of the finest investigative systems in the world.
My bill does not attempt to raise money, it attempts to redirect the structure of the instruments and tools of investigative procedures. These instruments and tools already exist, so I am not proposing the raising of money for that purpose. Indeed, it is quite possible that such a commission as I envisage could well come from the accident investigations branch, the steamship accident investigations branch, or other similar areas. I do not envisage the raising or the spending of money for this purpose, but
Transport Commission of Inquiry rather the reallocation of money in a way which would preclude forever in the minds of all those interested in transportation the possibility of a conflict of interest.
I need not remind hon. members of this House of the great difficulties that can arise when a conflict of interest seems to be present in a number of given situations. This is not fair to the men who conduct these investigations, and it is hardly fair to the department. Indeed, for several years I have wondered why the department has not brought forward a bill for consideration by this House which would do what I am suggesting today. Again, all I am suggesting is that we separate these functions and establish under a separate entity the prime jurisdiction with regard to all accidents, simply assigning that responsibility and jurisdiction to various existing bodies.
I am not asking for the expenditure of money. A commission of this nature, whether funded by present means or not, is of no importance to the transportation industry. What they have wanted for a number of years is the removal of any possibility of conflict, no matter how remote. The Air Line Pilots Association, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, steamship associations, our trucking associations, people who work in the field of rail transportation, have all expressed concern from time to time in recent years, not that there is a conflict of interest, but that there have been so-called whitewashes, cover-ups, and so on. I am not concerned that that is happening because to the best of my knowledge it does not. But there is continuing concern that a conflict of interest could exist and a whitewash would result.
It is possible that an impartial and honest investigation might be impaired, and if it were the consequence is obvious. Others involved in transportation will not have available to them the serious, thought-out conclusions of an investigative team, and without that the ability to avoid future accidents might be impaired. I do not think it is unfair to suggest it would be impaired in direct proportion to the degree to which information might be withheld.
I have never been entirely satisfied with the procedures and methods used in releasing details of air traffic accidents. I have received countless letters in the last month or so from departmental officials which I am sure, if they came into the hands of the transportation industry in this country, would leave it appalled.
I am not, as I say, asking the House to spend money. I am asking the House to consider in its wisdom referring the subject matter, if not the substance of the bill, to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I would withdraw the bill this afternoon if I thought that next week we would be given the opportunity to look into this matter carefully. Had there been no question in Your Honour's mind about the procedural acceptability of the bill, within not only the rules of the House but the prerogatives of the treasury benches, I would have dealt in much greater depth with what is happening in this regard elsewhere in the world. I have spoken of the international experience and would have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that we are almost alone in the western world in our failure to remove the very wide possibility of conflict. I would have indicated my regret about that and

September 18, 1973
Transport Commission of Inquiry substantiated areas in which the transportation industry is calling for this type of investigative body. I would have dramatically pointed out from the information available the admissions of government that near conflicts can in fact result.
I let the matter rest with an appeal to Your Honour not to curtail discussion of this bill for the next few minutes on the ground that it might invade the right of the executive to determine expenditure of money. I ask that you let hon. members who wish to participate in this brief discussion direct their points, not to the very narrow technical arguments that have been raised, but rather to the urgency of Canada removing any possibility of conflict of interest within our total transportation system, not only for our own sake but for the sake of international carriers who move in and out of our air space and our waters on a daily basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair appreciates the interest of the hon. member in the bill now before the House and also the objective that he wishes to achieve by presenting this proposal to the House. I thank him for his comments, particularly those relating to the point of order regarding the acceptability of the bill. The hon. member said in his remarks that the object of the bill is not to spend money. However, the Chair has no authority to remove clause 8 of the bill, which definitely calls for the expenditure of money by parliament. This is clearly indicated in the last two lines of that clause.
Because of the importance of this matter in the hon. member's opinion, he is asking the Chair to put aside the rules, practices and precedents of the House and to base its decision on acceptability on the importance, in the mind of the hon. member, of the proposal contained in Bill C-33. The hon. member also said that the rules are designed to help hon. members, not to limit them. I am sure the hon. member, who has been in the House for many years, will find that the rules are really protective. The rules the hon. member seems to find restrictive today could well become protective, as they have been protective for hon. members in years past.
The hon. member did not seem to contest the hesitation of the Chair in accepting the bill on the ground that it infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown, so unless hon. members request me to do so I shall not cite the relevant citation in Beauchesne. If hon. members refer to citation 362(2) of Beauchesne, I think they will find clearly set out there that an hon. member cannot introduce a bill which imposes a charge on the treasury without a recommendation. The same is also said in citation 249.
I am sure that if hon. members looked through Beau-chesne's and May's they would not find many citations with which to defend the cause of this bill. Because hon. members have been lenient and seemed so interested in the subject matter of the bill before us, the Chair did not try to intervene too early, which I think was more than fair to the hon. member. He did make his point, perhaps under cover of a procedural argument, so I think he has had a chance to fully present his case.

At this time the Chair has no alternative but to refuse the bill in its present form unless there is agreement among hon. members to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee. Otherwise, I cannot accept further discussion of the bill in its present form.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a result of your decision there is no other private members' business scheduled for today and I believe there would be agreement in the House to call it six o'clock now.
The second thing I would like to do is to draw Your Honour's attention and that of hon. members to item No. 17 on the order paper, which is the bill on residential mortgages now under debate. The motion calls for the bill to be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. There have been consultations among hon. members and I think there is agreement to changing the motion so that the bill would be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that the motion be changed accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent to calling it six o'clock at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.35 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-135, to provide additional financial mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when I began my speech earlier this afternoon I made the point that members of the NDP were opposed to the passage of this bill because it really does nothing to change the fundamental reliance of the government on the private sector of the economy to meet the housing needs of the people of Canada. I pointed out that the private sector has failed to meet the needs of ordinary citizens and that
September 18, 1973


An hon. Member:: He always does.


David Orlikow: Yes, he always does. What does this bill do, Mr. Speaker? As I said earlier, the bill is just a vehicle with which to tinker with the system: it is another excuse for not facing up to the real problems of providing the people of Canada with the houses they need. As I indicated earlier, figures which have been published by the Globe and Mail show that the trust and loan companies made 141/2 per cent more profit in the first three months of 1973 than they did in the same period last year. This bill tells them that if they are worried that their housing loans are too risky, the government and the people of Canada, through this bill, will provide a sure-fire way by which they can dispose of their bad risks.
The government is not worried about their good risks; they can keep all the excess profits they make. As far as I know, there are no mortgages which are in any way bad risks in the long run; but if they have any which are bad risks in the short run, this bill will give all the protection needed by taking them off their hands. This legislation will increase the liquidity and the fluidity of the risk for the mortgage and trust companies in the housing field and will permit them to make more money than ever.
This proposal demonstrates that, as usual, the government is unwilling or unable to properly control the total cash flow that is needed if the Canadian people are to have their social programs looked after. There are billions of dollars for the developers who, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said earlier today, want to build

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
office buildings for Canadian corporations, with fancier offices, wall-to-wall carpeting, air-conditioning and all the rest, and then charge 50 per cent of the cost to the taxpayer through corporation taxes. There are billions of dollars for more filling stations, for more supermarkets. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. Not only will this bill give the mortgage companies protection against losses which they might incur in the building of houses which are so badly needed, but it will give them protection against the most speculative investment they might make in office buildings or other buildings. There are probably too many of these as it is.
We were told earlier by the hon. member for Peel South that we really do not understand this bill; in fact, we were told that we do not understand anything about the building of houses. If he had thought about it, I am sure he would have said that we do not understand anything about business. When the hon. member for Broadview said this party proposed that the mortgage rate be set at 6 per cent, the hon. member asked: Why not 4 per cent or 2 per cent? Although he did not say so, he probably thought: Why not no interest at all? Mr. Speaker, when we talk of an interest rate of 6 per cent on homes, we cannot be that wrong; we cannot be that wild-eyed, that impractical.
Let me put on the record excerpts from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail last Friday, September 14, 1973. This was the main editorial, headed "Bullied by the bank rate". For the information of the hon. member for Peel South-he is not here, but perhaps he will look at Hansard-I shall read several paragraphs of it. Here, to my surprise, and I am sure to the amazement of the hon. member, is what the editorial says:
There is absolutely no reason why mortgage lending rates should be forced upward. They do not have the same relationship to international markets as do, for instance, bond rates, and they can be maintained at lower levels in Canada without in the least jeopardizing the security of the Canadian dollar.
Repeatedly in the past we have urged that the federal government impose a ceiling on mortgage rates and, at the same time, require lending institutions to set aside a certain proportion of their funds for mortgages. It can be done; in fact, it is being done successfully in the United States.
Later in the same article we find these words:
The most brutal aspect of rising mortgage rates is that what appear to be small increases add substantially to the financing of a home. As the Ontario housing task force under Eli Comay showed, an increase from 7 per cent to 10 per cent in mortgage interest adds at least 20 per cent to monthly home ownership costs. Putting it another way, a $35,000 house with a 40-year, $25,000 mortgage, would cost a total of $75,000 at 6 per cent interest but $110,000 at 10 per cent interest-a difference of $35,000.
I commend that part of the editorial to the hon. member for Peel South who was worried about the people who are without housing. The article continues:
Until mortgage rates and mortgage funds are secured at a level that ordinary people can afford, Canadian families will continue to be abused unnecessarily.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we have been saying for a considerable time. It is precisely what our members have been saying in the discussion on this particular bill. We have said and will continue to say that the interest rate on homes, particularly the interest rate on mortgages for moderately priced homes, should be fixed at 6 per cent. We do not say that the rate should necessarily be subsi-
[Mr. Orlikow.J
dized by the government, although I would consider that to be worthwhile. What we have been saying and will continue to say is that there is nothing wrong with the Government of Canada telling the banks, the mortgage and trust companies and other financial institutions that a certain percentage of the money available for investment must be directed to building homes at a legitimate interest rate. We have said such a rate is 6 per cent.
Today somebody asked if this would not mean that the banks and financial institutions would make less money and, in order to make what they consider to be an acceptable rate of return on their investment, they would have to raise their interest rates on other forms of loans. I am not sure that it would, but let us explore the possibility. I suggest it would be good social policy if we were to encourage home ownership by keeping the interest rate on homes at 6 per cent, even if that meant saying to those Canadians who want to buy cars that they may have to pay a little more on the money borrowed to buy the car or they may have to wait another year before buying it. I say that knowing that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) represents a constituency in which live a large number of auto workers. I say that governments have the responsibility of choosing, and that is a choice that I personally would like to see made if it is necessary.
We object to the way in which this bill will provide a tax rip-off and will enhance the attractiveness of mortgages as investments for financial institutions. I have already put on record certain facts. Profit figures prove conclusively that this kind of inducement is not necessary in 1973; nor, in all likelihood, will it be necessary in the next five or ten years. We do not need to help financial institutions which are already making substantial profits and do not need this kind of assistance.
We have said if this bill is to be passed, it ought to be amended so it will benefit only those financial institutions which lend money for residential building. We see absolutely no excuse for the government's offering any kind of subsidy, any further guarantee to investment companies and the like which build commercial properties, office buildings, supermarkets or things like that. I come from a have-not province. The capital, which contains several constituencies one of which I represent, contains more than half the population of the province. Mr. Speaker, the housing situation in Winnipeg is bad. I invite the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to visit Winnipeg.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was born and brought up there.


David Orlikow: I would be more than happy to take them around Winnipeg. In my constituency, and this applies even more to the constituency represented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I can show them the sort of housing accommodation which is available to part of the rapidly increasing population of Winnipeg. The housing for the Indian and native peoples of Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Kenora or any other of our western cities is a disgrace to this country. I say that it is
September 18, 1973

shameful that this country should permit such housing conditions to exist in 1973.
Bad as the conditions are in Winnipeg, they are infinitely worse outside Winnipeg. In the reserve less than 100 miles from Winnipeg there are houses and living conditions the like of which I would not have believed existed anywhere in Canada today. This bill will do absolutely nothing for those whose need for better houses is greater than anybody else's in this country.
This bill will encourage financial institutions to pump more money into Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal, cities which are growing and which have benefited more than other parts of Canada from the housing boom for the middle and upper income citizens which has gone on ever since the end of World War II. This bill will probably do nothing for Quebec, except that possibly it will help the people of Montreal. It will do nothing for the Maritimes and nothing for Newfoundland. Those areas are at the bottom of the totem pole, where people get little or nothing. That has been their lot for many years.
We have said, and will continue to say, that instead of giving further financial inducements to the companies which have failed miserably until now to meet the needs of Canadians, we ought to establish within the Department of Urban Affairs a central mortgage fund section which would direct federally chartered lending institutions to allocate capital which is provided to them at the prime bank lending rate for housing. These funds ought to be directed according to the housing priorities established by the Department of Urban Affairs.
I,	for one, am not prepared to leave it to the financial institutions, land developers, housing builders and others to provide the houses that are necessary. I do not blame them for what they are doing. We live under the kind of system which says that every person who lives by the law is entitled to maximize his profits, so T do not blame them at all. I blame the government of Canada and the parliament of Canada for letting them do this and encouraging them to do it.
By introducing this bill we are telling them, "You have not made enough money. We are giving you a licence to steal more, to rip-off more from the people of Canada." That is what this bill does, and that is why we object to it. We are saying to the minister-and it is hard for me to say anything nice about this minister-that we want the Department of Urban Affairs to decide where the money which is to be spent on housing in the next year, two or three shall be spent; that is, in what parts of the country it shall be spent and in what cities, and how much shall be spent in rural areas. These are not decisions I am prepared to leave to the private sector of our economy. We know what the private sector has done until now. It has ignored the needs and priorities of the people of Canada.
For that reason we suggest this bill is wrong. It is the wrong bill, introduced at the wrong time and will lead to the same kind of wrong solutions which we have experienced until now. For these reasons we urge the minister, even at this late date, to reconsider this matter and take the kinds of steps which we have proposed.


An hon. Member:: You want the minister to listen to you.
Mortgage Financing Bill


David Orlikow: Perhaps what I have said is not so important. I merely ask the minister to look again at the proposals which were made by the task force. This government appointed it. I am referring to the proposals which were made about mortgage funding, land acquisition and public housing. Surely the previous minister had some confidence in the ability of the members of the task force or he would not have appointed them.
I suggest, in closing, that the minister withdraw this bill and that he give serious consideration to proposals made regarding all aspects of housing by Professor Dennis and the group which worked with him. Let the minister return to parliament with a housing policy which we need. Let him not say that in the next four or five years "X" hundreds of thousands of houses will be built. Instead, let him say that we shall build all the houses that are needed by the people and in the places where they are needed. Let us do this, instead of building houses for people who can afford to pay for better homes than those they now occupy but which to a large extent they do not need.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-135, which would establish more rip-off institutions, perhaps, in the field of housing is a bill which I feel sincerely will not help the people of my constituency which basically is a rural-urban Saskatchewan riding. Most of our families earn low or middle incomes.
The bill before us would establish two institutions, a mortgage investment corporation and a federal mortgage exchange corporation. Perhaps, according to the traditional economic approach, it will make more funds available for mortgages in this country and will make funds more liquid. However, it will do nothing to make funds available to people in this country who really need homes, those who live on low or moderate incomes. Further, the minister, by introducing this bill, is doing absolutely nothing to bring down interest rates or to subsidize interest rates for people in need. I am not sure that more funds are really to be made available for housing even with interest rates as they are now.
About five or six days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in this House that he had received assurances from the banks that there are enough funds available for mortgage and housing purposes in Canada at an interest rate of 10 per cent. Today the minister is arguing that by making more funds available, interest rates will come down and therefore there will be more incentive to build houses in this country. That has always been the traditional approach to economics in this country by the Liberal and the Conservative parties. I maintain that type of approach will not work in the world economy we find ourselves in, with spiralling interest rates not only in Canada and the United States but in the entire western world.
We will not solve these problems unless we have foreign exchange controls and the guts and the gumption to actually control interest rates. The banks and financial institutions must be told to allocate so much of their capital each year to invest in housing at a fixed interest rate of 6 per cent. That is what our party is calling for with regard to residential mortgages and home building in Canada. I

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
maintain that is a reasonable policy. I think it can be done, and it is about time we tackled the banks and financial institutions in this country.
Let us see whether the Conservative party has the guts and the gumption to support the proposal of putting some controls on interest rates on residential mortgages. I suspect they are being sincere, but maybe they are just being political. However, they talk about a system of comprehensive controls for 90 days on salaries, wages and prices in this country. If they are really interested in controls, they should support our argument of allocating funds which the banks have at their disposal, saying to them that every year a certain amount must be made available for housing at 6 per cent interest. At an interest rate of 6 per cent, the ordinary citizens of this country can afford to build houses for themselves and their families. I challenge the Conservatives to do that.


Mr. Woolliams:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would be very pleased to answer a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member tell us what percentage of the money of the banks goes into mortgages for homes, and what percentage of mortgages are loaned by other institutions? He has been dealing with banks. My understanding is about 15 per cent of the money which goes into mortgages in Canada comes from the banks.


An hon. Member:: Eight per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is about 15 per cent, if you take it across the board. If you deal with certain quasi things like unions, credit unions, and so on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, i think the hon. member has gone a little beyond the question and is making an argument or a speech. The question is clear, and I will again recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
Mr Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge about 8 per cent of the funds from the banks go into residential housing in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Including credit unions?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I understand it is higher when you get into other institutions and life insurance companies. I do not know, off the top of my head, whether that is the precise figure, but I maintain it is far too low. We should be saying to the banks that a much higher amount should be allocated. I cannot say offhand whether that should be 15, 16 or 20 per cent. We must determine how much housing is needed in this country, who needs that housing and each year require these institutions to set aside a certain amount of their investment capital for housing. That could be done. I think it is the only solution if we are to put housing into the hands of the ordinary citizens of this country.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) raised the question of banks. If I understood him correctly, he defended the banks in their investment policies. I
[Mr Nystrom.]
wish to refer to an article in the September 15 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It says, that for the first seven months of this year the profits of the chartered banks in this country increased by 31.9 per cent. That is an increase in profits over July 31 of last year of almost 32 per cent. I suggest it is indicative of the interest of the banks in terms of profiteering and making investments. They want to make a quick buck, and they know where the profits are very high.
It is natural that financial institutions such as banks will lend money to people building expensive homes in places like Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and other large cities because the housing market is more expensive; they can rake-off a larger profit. Our party contends the time has come to say to the financial institutions that this parliament is supreme and will demand that they provide 6 per cent mortgages to build houses in Canada.
The legislation before us does not guarantee that more funds will go into the housing market. With this type of legislation, the banks might allocate less money for the housing market than at present and channel money presently being put into housing into more profitable enterprises. This bill does not guarantee money will go to those parts of Canada where housing is needed. It is more profitable to lend money in the big cities where houses are more expensive. It is natural that funds will gravitate toward those centres.
We need a lot more than the bill before us today. There must be a fundamental change with regard to housing. Housing is a basic need, just as food, education and medicine and should be treated in that fashion. It should be removed from the commodity market. The financial institutions should not be allowed to profiteer when people cannot obtain shelter for themselves and their families. Housing should be treated in the same manner as schools and hospitals. There is little profiteering on these buildings. Housing is a basic necessity of life and should be made available to Canadians at cost. Banks, financial institutions, land developers, land speculators and other people should not be allowed to rake-off profits.
Unless something is done soon, the situation will become worse in the next few months. We have heard that two of the largest banks in the United States have now raised their prime lending rate to 11 per cent. Usually, the prime interest rate in Canada follows that of the United States. In a few weeks, the prime interest rate in Canada will increase. What will happen to the mortgage rate in this country? The Minister of Finance says he has guarantees that the banks will provide sufficient funds at 10 per cent. However, if the prime interest rate goes up, by the end of the year the mortgage rate in this country will be 11 per cent, if not higher, unless something is done in the very near future. That is why we need foreign exchange controls in this country, or perhaps an interest equalization tax to keep our funds in Canada to develop our country for the people who live here.
It is not only important to get assurance from the banks that mortgages will be held down or rolled back to 6 per cent, but that we get assurance from the banks that their services will not snowball or spiral because they are holding down their interest rates. Banks could, for example, increase their appraisal fees.
September 18, 1973


An hon. Member:: What about lawyers?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Someone from behind the curtain said, "What about lawyers?" Perhaps this is something else at which we should be looking. Why should a lawyer rake-off a high percentage on a first or second mortgage when the amount of work he puts in is minimal; his secretary is probably doing it for him in many instances.


Mr. Alexander:: That is a lot of nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sorry if I am stepping on a few toes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not stepping on mine. Just be honest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I might refer, also, to other services for which charges are made-mortgage insurance, for instance. There are ways in which lending institutions can increase the cost of a mortgage without actually increasing the interest rate charged. The House should be looking into these matters rather than establishing additional financial institutions which in my opinion will not help at all to provide housing for ordinary citizens at prices they can afford.
The minister in charge of housing seems confident that the bill will lead to an increase in funds available for housing. Perhaps it will. But nothing is said in this measure about means of reducing interest rates. Ordinary citizens will not be assisted to get funds at a reasonable interest rate. That is why we cannot support the government's proposals. In spite of the fact that the Conservative party is concerned about the effect of these provisions on corporate funds, I urge hon. members to my right to join us in taking this position in an effort to help the ordinary citizens of this country. I should like to see the Conservative party do that-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -rather than talk about a 90-day freeze and indulging in short-term political opportunism, as they do too frequently.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see I am ruffling the sensitivity of some members on this side.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's your story.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When it really comes down to it, the Conservative party will not stand up and be counted. It will not support any measure which is contrary to the interests of the financial institutions. A good example is what Mr. Lougheed is doing in Alberta when he supports the giant oil companies in padding their pocketbooks.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member enjoys creating a certain amount of interest in the debate, but he should be dealing with the principles before us as they relate to housing.


An hon. Member:: What principles?
Mortgage Financing Bill


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Someone suggests that there are no principles in the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Because of this, my party does not see fit to support the measure before us, and instead we call upon the government to come forward with substantial legislation which will help the ordinary citizens. I challenge the Conservative party to join us in tackling the financial institutions. Let us see some action instead of opportunistic words, action which will bring benefits to the ordinary citizens of Canada. If the Conservatives do that, the NDP will be right in there with them, fighting all the way.
[ Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a few words to give our point of view on Bill C-135 which we find inadequate. The bill does not meet all the standards and requirements which we now see in housing. Its objectives is to create a federal fund for the transfer of money among those handling loans at high interest. The small owner cannot be expected to pay interests of 93A or 10 per cent on a mortgage for a house, which often represents 90 per cent of services and taxes.
I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for having drawn the attention of the House on the fact that the small wage earner cannot pay interests over 6 per cent, because through some legislation he should at least be given the opportunity to pay his house perhaps, one and a half times or one and three quarters, but not three times over.
I am speaking on good grounds because I am a shareholder of a company which built 112 single houses last year and we expect to build 90 or 100 this year because there is a demand. But I do not feel at all-and I say it to the House-that anybody is rendered a service when, to comply with the act, we must sell to a poor workman who earns $6,500 $7,000 or $8,000 a year, a house with a mortgage at 93/ per cent whether it may be a loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or from a bank, that is endorsed by the central corporations.
My colleagues say there may be a few banks that grant loans at a rate of 8 per cent. We are aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that once the engineer and the urbanist have checked in order to satisfy the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and after the whole approval process of plans and estimates the interest on the loan amounts to 93A per cent, 10 or 10 V\ per cent. White collars live out of it! We are not the ones who make them live, but workmen who own a house or who want to have one day.
Let us consider the various elements which must be taken into account in the cost of a house. I will take as an example a five room house that is sold for $20,000 and which is 32 by 48 feet. In order to build this house, 5,600 feet of lumber are required. If someone wants to contradict me, let him stand up. This lumber includes the wages of the lumberjack who earns $200 a week on average. Out of this amount, one must take $45 that are paid in direct and indirect taxes. Therefore, only $150 are left to the lumberjack. The truck driver who transports this

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
lumber with his truck, earns an average of $450 a week. Once deducted $150 in working expenses, he is left with $300, for a write-off of $65 must be deducted for machinery. An average of 30 per cent are deducted in direct and indirect taxes from the income of the man who owns a sawmill. The lumber salesman, that is to say he who deals with the contractor, also gets 30 per cent. The estate agent gets 30 per cent on his income. What is left on the property? Why is this house sold at $20,000? Because money must be paid at all levels: $3,500, $4,000 and up to $5,000 per house in direct and indirect taxes. That is what is pushing up the cost of living indicator now.
Clause 3 of Bill C-135 reads, and I quote:
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the marketability of mortgages issued on residential properties in Canada and improve the effectiveness of the contribution of the private sector to the financing of housing in Canada.
Last week the Bank of Canada boosted the discount rate by >/2 per cent. If I were a clever investor, I would not invest my money in a first mortgage at 10 'A or 1014 per cent on a property with risks, unless fire insurance were underwritten in my favour and paid to date. I would invest my money with the General Trust of Canada at 9 per cent, and then I would relax. What created this situation? It is the increase in the discount rate on money loaned by chartered banks.
If the building trade follows the trends of the last three years, we will see a slow down if not a complete stop, because a labourer will no longer be able to buy a house. The reason is that he has to pay for those who come before him and who are overburdened with taxes. He must also pay for services provided by the municipalities. With water and sewage facilities costing $75 a foot, if the width of the land is 100 feet, services alone will cost $7,500. This means a disbursement of $62 a month for ten years, or $750 a year.
Let us look now at the interest rate of municipalities. The province of Quebec says: Those are unwarrented expenditures. It is a game of cat and mouse. The federal government says: We are more open, we are going to give a new impetus to the economy. The province says: In Bramptonville-Windsor-in the riding of Richmond-or in Asbestos, those are unwarranted expenditures. You provided too many services to new neighbourhoods, we are not going along with that. We will give you $25,000, and then $300,000 to bury the mains in the streets. Then people say: The taxpayer is going to pay. The taxpayer always pays.
Then, nice measures are passed, such as Bill C-135 now before us. We are opposed to it because it does not solve anything at all. We are against that bill because it helps again those who tinker with dollars and charge interests of 9V4, 10 or 12 per cent. I challenge anybody in this House to suggest that a worker in a textile plant in Drummond-ville, Magog, Valleyfield or elsewhere, who earns an average $5,800 a year, can pay an interest of 10!4 per cent to become a homeowner. Yet, that interest rate received the blessing of this House of Commons.
Now, there is another problem that this bill does not deal with; it is the overloan to contractors who build well-dressed slums. Let me explain: By well-dressed slums

I mean 10-, 12-, 15-, or 20-storey buildings, as can be found in Montreal and Toronto.
People ask if there are any lots left in the province of Quebec. Real slums are being built. The house is nice, the brick is nice, it is well built, it is upright, there are no problems, it is well done. However, one thing has been forgotten: Those rat slums-because only rats can live there-have a little balcony or a little porch-to be more specific-of three feet by four. To see the sun, you must go out on the balcony, on the 17th floor. However, you must tell the kids: "Do not make too much noise, because the people on the 7th floor will hear you." It is no use, because those buildings are not soundproof. The people on the 4th floor can hear what their neighbours are saying.
I think that those slums whose building was authorized by CMHC in our larger centres are a national calamity. However, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate CMHC on its lending of money for the building of single-family dwellings and the good sense it shows by requiring the construction of fairly wide streets and proper ventilation for singlefamily dwellings.
However, I am talking about the slums in Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City and other larger centres where workers must pay a monthly rent of $235 to crowd into a 3 Vi bedroom apartment. These are not dwellings but "camps", slums. It is hopeless, there is no ventilation, no garden, nothing at all, except a small three feet by four balcony.
Why are those houses being built? I know why. Anyone who builds a house now goes to CMHC. If he is the least bit intelligent, he must pay his bills to have the cash discount before 30 days; he makes $20,000 on 18 apartments before selling them. There is nothing doing. Therefore, he builds them like mad. It is always written on the door of those buildings: For rent lVSs, 2Vi, 3!4 or 4 !4 room apartments. He does not rent them and does not care, because he made his money. Then, this individual sets up three companies. There are three of them in Montreal; I will not name them because I prefer to respect their anonymity, even though I could name them right away. Houses are built; they cannot rent shacks! Their money is made. Nothing stops them; one goes bankrupt, another takes his place, always with the blessing of CMHC.
Where are the responsible contractors. I wonder. Where is the family home which respects the individual? I wonder. Do you know what they do? My contractor, Jean-Denis Breton, from Magog, used to say: Let them build shacks the others will fill them up through advertising. When the tenants will be living in 1V4, 2Vfc, 3 'A room apartments, we shall advertise at the door: Family home for $15 or $20 a month cheaper, a real home. We will empty them, there is no problem. But the individual is not too worried; he made a $20,000 or $25,000 profit on the CMHC loan.
At this stage, I would like the minister to listen to me. This is a terrible plague in our cities. It is like a pyramid. Someone is invited to invest and buy 10 acres of land. Who is this individual? Nobody knows. Where is he registered? Nobody knows. That makes my colleagues laugh, but it is true. Where does he come from? Nobody knows, nobody
September 18, 1973

knows him, he is anonymous. He buys about 10 acres of land. They are subdivided into small lots, not 90 by 120 feet, Mr. Speaker, but small lots. To use popular language or to be on the level of my good friend, the Minister of Agriculture (M. Whelan), I would call that small "pig pens". It is as simple as that. There is nothing, there is no room for a garden or to plant a tree. The money comes from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and that is all that counts. A house is built. Once they have made a good profit, it does not matter whether they rent it or not. Meanwhile, the taxpayers' money invested in housing is being spent in a way that does not meet with our wishes. We have open air, we have room in Canada; our country is one of the largest in the world. There are 20 million people in Canada but there is a craze for building, everybody want to build, one on top of the other, because our financial corporations, including the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are not careful enough as regards the environment in our cities.
Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-135 is unrealistic. We do not think about what we are doing with the amounts of money coming from the banks, the taxpayers, who invest with the approval of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the building of healthy dwellings so that our families may live decently tomorrow and so that a man and a woman may bring up children, if they want to, in a responsible society.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my conviction that there are four areas in which government has a social responsibility. These four areas are shelter, food, health and education. It seems to me that every human being has a right to adequate shelter, a full stomach, proper health care and education. Of these four, only in the field of education has government in Canada really exercised its social responsibility.
The bill before us deals with housing. And housing is essential. Indeed, it eats up 25 per cent to 30 per cent of family incomes in urban Canada. It has a weight of one-third in the consumer price index, but in fact as much as half the income of low-income families, who are not in public housing, may go in shelter of some form or other. There seems to be a general rule that the "poor pay more," and this rule seems to hold good for housing as well as other commodities. Compared with the average family, the bottom 20 per cent of the income scale spend twice the proportion of their income on shelter.
The disparities are also rather staggering. Not only is there a disparity between middle-income and low-income families; there seems to be a disparity between regions of Canada and indeed between different regions of Ontario. For example, according to figures released recently by CMHC it costs $5,510 more to build a home in Sudbury than in Hamilton. Construction costs per square foot are higher in Sudbury than in any major urban area of Canada. Costs range from a low of $15.29 per square foot in Toronto to a high of $19.51 in Sudbury. Of the 19 Ontario urban areas surveyed by CMHC, five of the seven most expensive areas in which to build are in northern Ontario. So disparities exist not just between low-income and middle-income families but also between regions of
Mortgage Financing Bill
the country. Regional disparities also reflect the higher cost of shelter.
-Mr. Alexander: Try the north.


John R. Rodriguez: I did. The present housing act is designed for the advantage of the lender, not the consumer. For example, if you are lucky enough to obtain an NHA loan, an inspector will call at least three times during construction to examine the work in progress. There is no guarantee to the purchaser in regard to the quality of materials and workmanship. Also, if a consumer obtains an NHA mortgage loan, he pays a premium of 1 per cent of the total loan which goes into a mortgage insurance fund that is held in trust and managed by CMHC. He pays that, and one may assume it is for his benefit.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is it for?


John R. Rodriguez: I will tell the hon. member what it is for. The mortgage insurance fund is for the protection of the lender in case of default. The consumer pays the premium even though the lender holds his mortgage. The Financial Post pointed out in October, 1972, that "the mortgage insurance fund is now worth an impressive $300 million, while claims outstanding against it are only $10 million". The consumers have certainly paid handsomely to buttress the operations of mortgage lenders.
The premise on which this government and previous ones have legislated has been: more mortgage funds, more housing starts, more suburbs to move into. This formula worked for some but left a large number of Canadians outside the mainstream. The effects began to appear in the 1960's, and it was interesting to see the fiscal legerdemain which the Liberal government in 1966 employed when the mortgage rate was frozen at 6 per cent. The government wanted to remove the mortgage ceiling and used an argument that went something like this: If you remove the ceiling on interest rates, the resulting higher rates would attract more money into the housing field and the greater competition for the consumer's buck would bring down the interest rate. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what happened following that. There has been a steady upward spiral of interest rates to the detriment, not of the lender, but of low-income Canadians. Middle-income Canadians are now starting to feel the pinch and they are screaming.
By 1970 it was obvious that that formula was based on a number of wrong assumptions. It assumed that housing was primarily an individual matter and that the average family should "go it alone" in the housing market. It is now clear that this thinking has to give way to the pattern of social responsibility and the creation of good communities rather than the mere multiplication of housing.
The flow of mortgage funds was seen as a means of either slowing down or speeding up the economy. New housing starts became the economic thermometer of the nation. The assumptions and practices of the past favoured the lenders rather than the people, who are the ultimate consumers. This situation will not right itself in a system controlled by what is euphemistically termed "the free market forces", until the government turns to a housing policy from the consumer's viewpoint rather than the lender's. Note that the assumptions of the past were all right so long as they favoured people of upper and middle


September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
income. Now that the middle-income group is being squeezed, with respect to housing, we hear loud squawks and outcries. They are feeling pressures which have been on the poor all along.
What is the purpose of Bill C-135? I think we should refresh our memories on that point. The purpose of the bill, as stated on page 2, is as follows:
-to enhance the marketability of mortgages issued on residential properties in Canada and improve the effectiveness of the contribution of the private sector to the financing of housing in Canada.
The minister in his notes on the bill states:
The provisions of the residential mortgage financing act are designed to contribute directly to meeting these objectives by providing new financial mechanisms in the Canadian mortgage market aimed specifically at improving the flow of mortgage funds for the middle and moderate income home buyer.
This will be achieved by enhancing the attractiveness of mortgage investment for financial institutions and pension funds, and by creating new mortgage investment companies through which the smaller investor can place investment funds into mortgages.
This statement means only one thing, namely, higher interest rates. In view of the fact that 250,000 new houses were built in Canada in 1972, and this is considerably in excess of the annual target of 236,000 new houses set by the Economic Council of Canada, it is fairly obvious that the problem is not availability of mortgage funds but, rather, whether the consumer can afford the cost of contracting a mortgage. And is it fair for mortgage institutions to be able to take advantage of the consumer in such an essential area as shelter? The answer to both questions-I hear reverberations from behind the curtain-is an unequivocal no.
Bill C-135 smacks too much of the old Liberal chestnut enunciated by the minister of finance in 1966. The solution, as the government sees it, is to establish two institutions: the federal mortgage exchange corporation and mortgage investment companies. These institutions will provide liquidity in the mortgage market comparable to stocks and bonds.
Again, these changes are set up, not as advantages to the consumer but as advantages to the lender. This bill is indeed a Shangri-la for the lender, and if it had not been conceived by the Liberal government the Conservatives would have dreamed it up. That is why they both support it, because it is advantageous to their affluent backers.
This bill is most significant for what it does not do. For example, it will not intervene in the marketplace to stabilize the cost or supply of mortgage funds. It will not reduce the cost of housing to the consumer. It will not guarantee that residential mortgages will receive the priority they deserve. It will not guarantee adequate mortgage funds for new or existing dwellings in rural areas and in less privileged areas. The new NDP proposals would seriously come to grips with the real housing problem facing Canadians.
My friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says, "Here it comes".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never interjected for one second during the hon. member's speech.


An hon. Member:: That is strange. You usually do.


John R. Rodriguez: It certainly is a great relief to know he has not.
These proposals are, first, that the government establish a central mortgage fund section in the Department of Urban Affairs which would direct federally-chartered lending institutions to allocate capital at rates not exceeding the prime bank rate, plus an administration fee, about 2'/2 per cent below the present NHA rates. We also propose that these funds should be directed according to the housing priorities established by the Department of Urban Affairs. The NDP views the average and below average family income earners as those who should have the top priority in obtaining NHA mortgages. We feel that this kind of planning on the part of the government would ensure a solution to the housing problem initially for middle and low-income Canadians and, finally, for all Canadians who need shelter at a price they can afford.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, to the relief of all may I say that I intend to be very brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: First, I will try to set out, for my own sake if for no one else's, what I conceive to be the purpose of the bill. Lumping it together, I think it is to provide $400 million of taxpayers' money, $100 million of it in share capital and a maximum of $300 million as loans that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may make to the corporation that is to be set up under the bill.
With this money the federal mortgage exchange corporation is authorized to buy and sell mortgages and to lend money on mortgages currently held for a period not exceeding one year. I think of it as being a kind of stock exchange for mortgages, for dealings in houses, an area where the gamblers and speculators can hold full sway and where the homeowners' interests are not considered at all in those high-stake games where they are dealing in hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions of dollars.
While initially there is to be up to $100 million of share capital money put in by the public, all in all this is not a public corporation but a private corporation something similar to the Canadian Development Corporation, financed with public funds for the benefit of private interests. It is true that in the bill, unless parliament subsequently changes it, the share capital investment of the public through the federal government shall not fall below 50 per cent. But it does not mean that the federal government will have any measurable say in what the corporation does or how it conducts its affairs just because we put up more than 50 per cent of the money.
To realize this we only have to look to Panarctic Oil, which is a consortium of oil companies, private entrepreneurs who could not find oil on their own and needed the taxpayers of Canada to help them do it. So the taxpayers of this nation put up 45 per cent of the money in Panarctic Oil, and for that investment for a long period of time the Canadian government appointed one member to the board of directors of Panarctic Oil. The oil industry, all the oil companies that were involved in Panarctic Oil, were the dominant factor on the board of directors making policy decisions for Panarctic Oil. Subsequently the gov-
September 18, 1973

ernment saw the error of its ways and increased its membership on the board of directors from one to two, I understand.
I see this bill as nothing more than the use of public funds to establish private corporations for the purposes of profit to those private corporations. We in this House should be asking ourselves whether we are concerned, in terms of housing for people, with people or profits; whether we are concerned with homes, or whether we want to advance the interests of all the loan sharks and interest hounds involved in lending money. That is the question we should ask ourselves. I think the Conservatives asked themselves it and they found the answer; they came down on the side of the loan sharks and the interest hounds.
This is the second real issue of substance by way of legislation-I do not mean any of the airy motions that are put forward from time to time-that has come before this House dealing with the fundamental economic position of the people of this nation. The other was the corporation tax reduction bill. In both cases we find the Conservatives looking across at the Liberals, and the Liberals looking back, both like two long-lost lovers, kissing, cuddling and hugging, embracing each other-


An hon. Member:: It isn't incestuous.


Frank Howard: I always keep my remarks above the level of decency, Mr. Speaker. Unlike members of the Conservative party, I do not talk of incestuous relationships. I just talk about matters of substance.
Now I wish to deal with an aspect of this legislation that others in the NDP have dealt with. I have not heard any Conservative deal with it, and I probably will not. I want to deal with the lack of impact that this bill will have on the housing requirements of people in low-income groups, particularly people who live in the northern reaches of this nation-the native Indian and the Metis. What does this bill mean to them? In fact, what does housing mean to these people?


Peter Reilly: Are you going to vote against it?


Frank Howard: Yes, I am going to vote against it. That question from the hon. member, whoever asked it-I have forgotten his riding-indicates the degree of attention he pays to matters in this House, because a number of members of this party have already said we intend to vote against this bill. I say to the Conservative party, "Once again here is your chance. You are the guys who want an election. Here is an issue we will be glad to have one on. Stand up and be counted."


Mr. Paproski:: Put it in writing and let us have an amendment now.


Frank Howard: "Put it in writing," he says. The implication in that question is that the hon. gentleman who asked it can read, which I doubt very much.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate the entertainment that is being given to us right now, but surely the hon. member knows he should
Mortgage Financing Bill
be speaking about Bill C-135. It appears to me he has lost track of everything. He should restrict his remarks to the bill in order that we can ascertain whether it is any good, rather than admonishing the Conservative party. He should really address his remarks to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford).


Frank Howard: Curb your impatience. I will get to the minister in charge of housing. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was seriously attempting to stress how this bill will have no impact on people in low-income groups. It was at that stage that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others like him kept interrupting me, trying to drag me off that subject. Perhaps they are not interested in it.
Recently the Native Council of Canada, as a result of examination and of their knowledge, determined the necessity of building 30,000 homes for native people in this nation just to deal with the terrible housing situation that those people have to cope with right now, not to talk of new families, of young children growing up and getting married and of their prospects for the future. These 30,000 homes would be just to deal with the disgraceful situation right now. Of what help will this bill be to meeting that need for 30,000 homes for those native people? It will be of no help. The minister in charge of housing can chew on whatever it is he is chewing on. He can chew on whatever he likes, Mr. Speaker, but through you I say to him that this bill will be no help whatever in meeting the need for 30,000 homes experienced by the native people.
We have situations in this land where families of six or eight people, sometimes comprising two or three generations of human beings, are living in a one-room house, a one-room home, a one-room shack, a one-room hovel to put it in its proper terms. Is there any help for those people in this bill? Not a bit. It is of help to the Royal Trust Company, the National Trust Company, the predatory trust company and all the rest of those thieves and gangsters who lend money to people for homes at the most exorbitant interest rate they can charge. It is of help to them, but not to people on low incomes.
One of the things in housing matters that people tend to talk about and that CMHC tends to look at is the question of sewage facilities. Before CMHC will step into the picture and say, "Yes, we will O.K. an application for a loan," it says, "You have got to be hooked up to a sewer." There are dozens and dozens of communities in this nation where the word "sewer" is unheard of. The most advanced kind of plumbing that people know of is called a septic tank, but the standard is the old-fashioned outside toilet. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister that if he would consider sitting outside he might understand what we are talking about. If he would consider sitting out, baring his buttocks in 30 degrees or 40 degrees-below weather, he would find it is not a very comfortable experience. It does not add to your opportunities for reading, I can tell you; there is no lingering. Mr. Speaker, there is no help in this bill for that type of situation.
Of course, the minister's friends in the mortgage and financing fields, the hon. member for Hamilton West and his cohorts in the mortgage field and the legal beagles he associates with do not have to go through that type of
6700

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
experience. They do not have to use outside toilets night and day, week after week, in all sorts of weather.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Neither do you.


Frank Howard: No, I do not have to; that is right. I was going to issue an invitation to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), so I might as well do it now and include the hon. member for Hamilton West. I will gladly make the arrangements for both of those hon. gentlemen to come with me to La Loche in northern Saskatchewan, to Pine House or to my own constituency, Telegraph Creek or Cassiar. They should bring their long underwear-I do not care what brand-and the barest necessities and live with a family in those northern regions for a week this winter. Maybe they would come back to this House with a better understanding of what housing is. You bet I say to the hon. member for Hamilton West, "I don't have to"-but I know what it is like and I do not want to do it again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not alone, so don't get carried away.


Frank Howard: I would say to the hon. member for Hamilton West, who likes to interrupt, that he would do well to go to Nova Scotia where a number of people are living at the bottom of the economic income level as well. He would recognize them and they would recognize him. If he did that and lived with those people for a week in the conditions they have to live under, and on their income, perhaps he would come back to this House with a better appreciation of what housing means.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the hon. member and I feel he is overstepping his bounds. I think this should be more or less a question of privilege. If the hon. member had guts enough to come out and say what he intended to say, then perhaps I would not have stood up. But I think the hon. member has attempted to imply that there are a number of blacks in Nova Scotia who happen to be living in such circumstances and there may be need for recognition of their plight. Surely we all know that these circumstances need to be dealt with regardless of a person's race, creed or colour.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think all of us in this House are very much aware of the circumstances, whether people are black or white. What I resent is the cheap NDP way that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is known for in terms of trying to embarrass me. I do not appreciate that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if he wants to bandy words with tne hon. member for Hamilton West he should stand up like a man and tell me what he is thinking, instead of trying to be devious in the way he presents the subject. I know what he is talking about, and as far as I am concerned he is irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, that is the only point I wanted to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: I well appreciate the sensitivity of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, because he knows what he is talking about in this regard.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And you don't.


Frank Howard: I was saying that Nova Scotia was the place where a gentleman by the name of Robert Stanfield at one time was premier.


An hon. Member:: Oh, don't give us that.


Frank Howard: I was not referring particularly to black people. I am going to tell the hon. member this, through you, Mr. Speaker-if I want to talk about black people and their condition of poverty, I will do it directly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then do it.


Frank Howard: I have never shied away from that responsibility, just the same as I do not enjoy talking about the economic plight of native people, but it is necessary to talk about it. If the hon. member for Hamilton West wants to discuss the plight of the black people in light of this bill and the effect it will have on them, he has all my support to improve housing conditions for that group of people or any group of people.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get back to your original theme; you have lost it.


Frank Howard: I think it ill behooves the hon. member for Hamilton West to stand up and exhibit that kind of sensitivity and level charges against me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I have never invited them. The fact is that he is a Conservative and the Conservatives have a terrible history when it comes to dealing with the plight of people in terrible circumstances.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Hamilton West or anybody else in the Conservative party should not attempt to cover that up.


Peter Reilly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Marshall: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) rises on a point of order.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to something in the last few minutes that, as a new member, I never thought I would have to listen to. I want to dissociate myself and other members from British Columbia from the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 18, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Jack Marshall: Were you referring to me, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I do not recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), who should know that he can only address the House from his seat. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I want-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who seeks the floor on a point of order.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated in this House on many occasions the deplorable situation with regard to poverty-stricken people looking for housing, and for the hon. member to indicate that nobody but him has any concern for those people is absolutely ridiculous. I feel that the plight of the people of my district, whom I have mentioned on many occasions, and the deplorable condition of their housing is well understood or should be well understood. The hon. member should not take this particular direction without thinking that there are other members in this House who are just as concerned about the housing situation in all of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members, including the hon. member for Skeena, appreciate the point being made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. However, it is hardly a point of order. It is perhaps a point of debate. The hon. member has the right to speak in the debate and may want to make that point later. The hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand up in this House to speak on poverty and impoverished people. If the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) wants to dissociate himself from that attitude, that is his business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Let me give an example of the concern for humanity that was exhibited a while ago which members of this House should think about when we are dealing with housing. The local of the B.C. Association of NonStatus Indians in Terrace has, as have other people of native background, taken advantage of a winter works program for which I believe there is $3.2 million available for all Canada. The purpose of this program is to assist in making homes a little more comfortable during the winter months for those who live in terrible housing conditions. The Mackenzie local in Terrace recently said, "Yes, we have a lot of members who live in poor housing conditions. Their homes are draughty and the average person would not want to live in them. But our people have to. We go through severe winters in Terrace, but the people north of us are far worse off than we are, and we want 50 per cent of the money allocated to this local for winter works programs to go to the people of northern British Columbia."
Mortgage Financing Bill
That is humanity, brotherhood, generosity and friendliness. If those feelings were exhibited by the people who draft legislation related to housing, and the people who deal with it in this House, we would be much better off and so would the people I have mentioned.
I have a paper in front of me which shows a number of pictures. I cannot put into words what these pictures show. An old Chinese proverb says that one picture is worth a thousand words. These are pictures of log cabins, old log homes, clapboard buildings and thin-roofed shacks. The best home in this set of pictures taken in northern British Columbia is a trailer. These are homes in which two or three generations of one family live, in which children must grow up.
That is why I asked the hon. member for Hamilton West-only because he offered-and particularly the minister in charge of housing, to live in one of these homes for one week and see what happens to people who live under these conditions. Let them see what happens to a child trying to do his homework when he is crowded into one or two rooms in which eight or ten people live. Let them see what happens to the health and dignity of people living under these intolerable conditions, why there is such a high suicide rate, a high alcoholic rate and high rate of drug use.
Anybody would turn to any sort of relief to get out of the desperate conditions under which those people must live. Those conditions are destructive of humanity. And this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not a single thing to help these people and relieve their deplorable conditions.
Not only native and Indian peoples are affected by these conditions. People who are not of Indian status also live under intolerable conditions. That is sufficient for me, regardless of the other aspects of the bill, regardless of the rip-off aspect, to vote against it.
This bill will simply provide a mechanism whereby mortgage and lending companies will get richer and richer at the expense of those who require decent homes. Apart from that, the fact that conditions such as I have described confront Indian people, Metis, native people, Caucasians in poor circumstances, black people and people of any race, colour or creed, and as this bill will not provide one bit of help to people in those economic circumstances, is sufficient reason for me to oppose it every inch of the way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, of course this bill does not do the things which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has suggested it does not do. Having read the bill-and apparently I am one of those in this House who has read it-I can say that Bill C-135 seeks to establish a mortgage exchange mechanism and a corporation into which lending institutions can put money which will be used for the supply of mortgages. In short, more money is to be made available for mortgages so that the demand may be met. That seems to be the purpose of the bill.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) set out, for my party, our position on this bill. We suggested through the hon. member for York-Simcoe that this bill will not solve all the problems respecting the supply of
26454-59 J

September 18, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
money. Further, he said that we would be seeking to move certain amendments when the bill is in committee.
I realize that this bill will not do anything about interest rates. I do not think any party in this House, Liberal NDP, Creditiste or Conservative, has a monopoly on humanity or on feelings for people. I thing that anybody who represents constituents in this House as a member of parliament feels for people. People are people. Many of us were returned to this House with fairly large majorities. Clearly, each one of us was sent here by a certain segment of the Canadian people. Therefore, nobody has a monopoly on humanity. Let us hear no more of that sort of talk.
A man came to my office and said, when we were dealing with religion, that if a man has a bible in his hand and parades it in front of you and portrays what it says, you must watch him carefully to make sure he is a Christian. I say to the NDP that a man who pleads that he is always honest is a man to watch, for you must look into his motives. The NDP always plead that they stand for humanity. If they stand for humanity, they do not need to plead that, for humanity will know where they stand. We sat here quietly because we knew that the NDP wanted to filibuster this bill, and they have done a pretty good job. The Globe and Mail carried a pretty good expose this morning of the real motives of the NDP. I do not always agree with the Globe and Mail, but in this instance I do.
One cannot help but appreciate the NDP. Outside this House they roar like lions; inside they only roar so long as there is no danger of toppling the government. One thing is certain. There is not a Liberal party in this House; there is only a mess made up of the NDP which wants to make sure that the government survives. That is the test. The hon. member for Skeena may try to roar like a lion, but he bleats like a lamb when it comes to supporting the government. That has been his record ever since January 4.


An hon. Member:: Who supported the government on this bill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize their motivation. I know what they are up to. Naturally they call out; they do not like what I say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Naturally they want to shout and yell. I can hear them even at my end of the House. Their motivation is transparent. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) was absolutely right. They will vote with the government as long as it is convenient for their political souls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to deal with one problem respecting interest rates. The interest rates of this nation certainly will not come down with the passage of this bill or following implementation of the bill that was supposed to amend the National Housing Act. It was my party, Mr. Speaker, that introduced amendments suggesting that interest rates on direct loans made by CMHC should not exceed by more than one-half a percentage point the cost of money to the government.


An hon. Member:: And what happened?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have heard asses bray but I have never seen certain people look more like asses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We can only bring interest rates down, as I said earlier this week in the House, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the government come to grips with the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada sets the interest rates and lending institutions and banks set their prime rates about one percentage point higher. The Minister of Finance has said over and over again, on being questioned in the House, that if ever the monetary policy of the government differs from that of the Bank of Canada, the government will intervene. Only when this government has the guts to intervene with the Bank of Canada, which has increased interest rates five times since April, will the interest rates of this nation be controlled and be reduced.
If I may come back to where I started, this is merely a bill with respect to the exchange of mortgages and it will encourage lending institutions to make money available for mortgages. In other words, it will attempt to increase the supply of money and meet the demand for mortgages. That is all we are debating tonight. All the talk of the NDP is just so much show. I am sure that the members of that party respond to the kind of motivation and the kind of conscience that moved Woodsworth and Calder. However, some of them seem to have lost the very principles that created that party; and as they were created by principle, they will be destroyed without it.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the stormy discussions I have been hearing for a while now. We are considering Bill C-135 which, it seems, is aimed at providing the necessary capital for expansion in the construction field. Like many others, I regret that no provision was made in it regarding, for instance, the possibility of improving the lot of low or medium income people.
Now, I admit also-and I would like to be quite fair to the minister responsible-that capital is really needed. It is clear, in view of the effort being made to bring in better financing conditions in the construction field in general- that this bill is quite acceptable in itself, considering its purpose.
Now I still think, Mr. Speaker, that we should seriously consider the problem mentioned by the New Democratic Party, that is, the interest rates. Of course, we must make sure we obtain sufficient capital if we want to do better, but the important problem-and I believe that all hon. members are aware of it-is that which faces the individual, that is the problem of not being able to finance a house, which is a very natural desire for all of those who want to become homeowners.
I therefore believe that there is every reason for us to discuss the problem which was mentioned tonight. In view of the appeal made to the members of all political parties, I
September 18, 1973

think that this would be a special occasion to force the government to reconsider this bill as concerns assistance to the individual. I have nothing against this bill as such but I regret, as so many other hon. members, that it seems to favour almost exclusively those who already have money.
Now, contrarily to what my friends of the New Democratic Party would like to suggest, namely that we should force the financial institutions to lend part of their assets at rates established by the government, I would not endorse a bill which would force those who have money to lend it at lower rates than the current market. However, I think the responsibility of the government is to give, for example, a discount of 5 per cent on the interest in order to enable the individual to take advantage of a rate which could be of about 6 per cent.
It is clear-and I think that we have the evidence under our eyes-that the financing of a house is now nearly impossible for an individual with average income. Henceforth, I think the problem raised by the hon. members of the New Democratic Party is very serious and they are right when they ask the responsible minister to set up mechanisms, or at least to make a reimbursement on the interest the individuals have to pay now.
It would be a golden opportunity to call a general election. Mr. Speaker, I would be in favour of the New Democratic Party moving a motion and inviting all hon. members to vote on this. I think they would be supported by many members and we would then have accomplished something really valid for society.
We talk about increases in the cost of living, we deplore them, we ask ourselves which political party is right, but when it comes to proposing a concrete motion, we are left hanging in midair because of words which unluckily are not followed by action.
So, if we are really sincere and serious when we talk of helping directly, those who are truly in need, let us have concrete proposals, let us appeal to the hon. members who can say yes when the time comes to give precedence to the interests of the individual over that of the parties; then, we will have achieved something worthwhile for the individual. We will have enabled many a citizen to own a decent home, which is the understandable wish of many Canadians.
I would also add that the government could also help the individual considerably by cancelling the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I know several hon. members have already talked about this. The bill does not deal with that, and so I shall not dwell on it. But I do believe that the minister should consider that possibility, because to limit ourselves to ensuring financial institutions their security is simply not good enough. The main problem is that of helping the individual and enabling him to buy a home, thus making a better man of him, who will be more interested in assuming his responsibilities. I do feel that the point the NDP brought up this evening, that is, the need to set the maximum interest rate at 6 per cent, is altogether welcome.
I hope that the hon. members will have the courage to discuss this matter and that they will invite the government or even force it if necessary, to act in that way. I
Adjournment Debate
think we should be able to do it in the present context. Thus, the individual could buy a house and Parliament would have accomplished something very valuable for society.
[ English]


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this bill, but as it is approaching the hour of adjournment I will call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 12, I directed the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the strong support recently expressed by the Governor of the State of Maine for a direct corridor road from Maine through New Brunswick to Quebec, will the Prime Minister investigate the feasibility of such a project for the economic betterment of eastern Canada?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, naturally I want to be helpful to the Governor of Maine and to the hon. member if he is making a policy proposal. My understanding is that the people of the Maritimes are quite divided on this subject and that, depending on where you live in the Maritimes, you are either for or against that corridor road. However, I am certainly open to further persuasion, and if there is a unanimous resolution of the Conservative party, for instance, supporting this corridor road it would naturally influence me to try to do something pleasing to them.
Once the political venom is stripped away, it is mot apparent that the Prime Minister is not fully informed or yet impressed with the vital importance of the corridor road or the unity of our people in seeking it. Now is the time for every person of every political persuasion who favours this potentially great artery of commerce to unite in support of the project and dispel the myth that it is opposed by a large number of people.
With any great project or undertaking there are always those who are not in agreement and who speak against it. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is one of these. These people have every right to express their views, but their views should not subordinate a fair and impartial investigation into the merits of the project. It is on the basis of fact, and not opinion, that this project should move forward or be dismissed. I have asked the

September 18, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Prime Minister to seek the truth that it may set him free of some of the suggestions which his answer indicates he has received. Indeed, if the Prime Minister's objective is to "see it as it is," I believe he will become a supporter of this project.
The corridor road is a straight line highway through the state of Maine from the province of New Brunswick and is created by the extension of Vanceboro-Lincoln road at the New Brunswick border to the outskirts of Sherbrooke, Quebec. Over such a road it would be some 400 miles from Fredericton to Montreal, compared with nearly 600 miles at the present time over Canadian highways or some 540 miles driving through the United States. In addition to the shorter mileage involved, the construction of the modern highway envisaged by the corridor road would create a modern, new, high-speed highway free of much of the strip development which impedes progress on large parts of most of our other highways, including the Trans-Canada Highway.
An investigation into the merits of the corridor road will, in my opinion, reveal it to be an important, indeed a vital component of any program for economic improvement of the region. A shorter route to the markets of Quebec and Ontario would give a tremendous impetus to highway transportation of all kinds, including freight haulers, furniture vans, tank trailers, car carriers, carriers of milled lumber and fresh and frozen fish products. It would improve our access to central Canadian markets and the port of Saint John, New Brunswick. It would also bring Canadians closer together in terms of distance.
I would like to quote a few paragraphs from an address by Colonel R. L. Houston, president of the Canada-Japan Trade Council, speaking at Saint John, New Brunswick, on the occasion of Port Day, Tuesday, May 1, 1973. He said:
Because of my conviction that you face great questions with ramifications that extend far beyond local boundaries, I would like to speak tonight of several tasks which I believe you will have to tackle as a region, if the work you do and the progress you make as a local community is to realize the greatest possible benefits.
You will have to tackle them collectively because, I suggest, the problems of economic development of Saint John are the problems of economic development of the Atlantic provinces, and these, in my estimation at least, are truly national problems with which all Canadians should be concerned. By acting together, you may be able to make this evident, and command a national effort necessary for their solution. But to do so, you will have to look on this as one region, and speak to the rest of Canada with one voice.
The old maxim "divide and conquer" may be a little strong in this context, but you should be aware that "divide and relieve the pressure" is still a rule practised by most popularly elected governments. If you succumb to the temptation of short-term advantage, you may find yourself pitted against your natural allies and end up a long-term loser.
I do not want anyone to end up a loser, Mr. Speaker. I want our entire region to move forward. We can make it happen in the Maritimes it we develop the arteries of commerce, the corridor road, our ports, our power potential and a system of modern highways which would bring the good things of our country to every corner of Atlantic Canada and, indeed, to Canada as a whole.
We need investment in the Maritimes to challenge the enterprise of our people, not handouts. 1 believe invest-

ment in these arteries of commerce and the great infrastructures challenging Atlantic Canada will enable our provinces to take their place in the councils of our nation with dignity. I have asked the Prime Minister to investigate the merits of the corridor road, and if my expectations are met he will find it has great merit and should be placed high on the agenda when the next round of negotiations takes place with the United States of America.
It is not inconceivable that the building of the corridor road by the government of the United States could well be the quid pro quo forming part of a general agreement on a multiplicity of matters and could be accomplished without costing us a cent.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the question raised both by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) and by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) with regard to the feasibility of what one would call a main corridor between Quebec and New Brunswick.
This matter has been discussed in one form or another since the thirties. A referendum on the issue of bonds for the construction of a highway was turned down a few years ago by the voters of Maine. I am delighted to be answering tonight because I have a motion, number 57, on the list of private members' motions proposing a quid pro quo, the federal government spending money on the Alaska highway equivalent to what the Americans would spend building such a corridor across Maine. Thus we could get around the difficulty created by the Maine voters turning down the bond issue.
Officials of the Department of Transport have investigated two alternative routes which would connect the Sherbrooke and Fredericton areas by passing through the state of Maine. Both routes, bypassing the present Trans-Canada Highway, would be shorter and more direct than the Trans-Canada and either of them would undoubtedly prove of benefit to the maritime provinces.
It has been established that substantial benefits would accrue to any Canadian auto travellers or freight carriers who might use this route. I am personally convinced that there is no expenditure this government could make in the Maritimes that would have more long-term and immediate effect on the Maritimes than an arrangement with the United States government for the construction of such a corridor.
The second and more costly alternative would involve the construction of new highway sections in both Quebec and Maine so as to bypass a number of towns and shorten the distance. The total saving in distance could be from 125 miles to almost 200 miles depending on where you were going in New Brunswick. In fact, it would mean travelling to P.E.I. in seven or eight hours hard driving from Montreal and perhaps 12 to 13 hours from Toronto.
It is evident that in any decision eventually made regarding this highway there would have to be full consultation and agreement with all provinces affected by such a corridor, and this obviously would include Quebec and New Brunswick in particular. If the state of Maine through the State Department indicates its interest in the
September 18, 1973

corridor to the government of Canada, the government will certainly give the matter most serious consideration.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NOVA SCOTIA-NEW INITIATIVES IN LIGHT OF RESIGNATION OF PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on September 12 I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) a question relating to the performance of DREE and possible new initiatives. Before mentioning some possibilities in this regard, let me deal very briefly with some of the policy statements made in the 1973-74 edition of the maritime provinces Chamber of Commerce report which I should like to put on the record. There are two major items which should be considered by this government and by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
There are persistent reports that meaningful decentralization of DREE is being impeded by the reluctance of personnel of the department to relocate. I have concluded after some investigation that this is just not so. While at first this may seem reassuring, upon reflection I am not so sure it is. It appears there has been no opportunity for any reluctance on the part of employees of DREE to move, because the department has not even progressed to this stage of proceeding. It appears that no employees have been in fact classified or identified, and perhaps no employees have even been approached with the object of decentralization in mind. If this is so, it is perhaps even more disturbing than any allegation of reluctance because it indicates a lack of real progress.
I do not want to be cynical about decentralization as it is a very worth-while objective. I hope when it does come, the decision-making powers and not just bodies will be decentralized. I hope the minister is paying some heed to the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council in their annual report for the establishment of a vehicle whereby provincial governments, the region as a group and the federal government can meet to discuss, plan and agree upon the needs of the region and the policies and the programs required to meet them.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the foreign investment review act, Bill C-132, is obviously of great direct concern to DREE and to the slow-growth areas. As I have stated before, the aims and objects of this legislation are certainly in the national interest but the slow-growth areas of this nation may find the effects counterproductive to their own development.
This fear was reflected recently by the delegates to the convention of the Liberal party at the Chateau Laurier. The minister must, and I am confident that he will, take the opportunity to arrange for compensatory measures in order that slow-growth areas do not make more than their fair contribution to the effort to halt foreign domination of our economy. However, the slow-growth areas of this country need certain concessions. They do not need coercion; they need concessions in transport and fiscal policy and perhaps even with regard to tariffs. More than that, they definitely need some alternate source of development capital from some sort of Canadian investment or development corporation. We are looking to the minister of DREE
Adjournment Debate
to jealously guard and to zealously advance the interests of the slow-growth areas. His responsibilities will permit him to do no less.
I should also like to suggest to the minister that with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation he continue his enlightened and considered policies. The next step that perhaps he will consider is to appoint a person of some judicial or quasi-judicial background to continue the initiatives put in motion by himself and the committee on regional development to study and make recommendations on pensions and ancillary matters regarding Devco employees.
I want now, in the brief time left to me, to put on the record some of the recommendations of the maritime provinces Chamber of Commerce. This organization is a voluntary association of progressive business and professional citizens. It is politically non-partisan, is working for good government at all levels and is certainly concerned with the commercial, industrial and civic welfare of the Mari-times. It deserves to have, in my opinion, some real input into DREE policy. As a matter of fact, there are many other like organizations, a few of which are the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, ADC, and in a real way the Canadian Labour Congress. All of these organizations have a great many sound and good policies that should be considered directly by the minister in his initiatives for DREE.
Many of the recommendations of the maritime provinces Chamber of Commerce are concerned with infrastructure. As the member who preceded me has said, some of the infrastructure concepts are fundamental to the development of the Atlantic region. The development of our marine resources, for example, is mentioned by the Chamber of Commerce. They also deal very directly and in some detail with the possibilities involved in the corridor road to which the hon. member has just referred, and come back again to this overriding concern at the moment regarding Bill C-132 and its possible effects on the region's development.
In closing, I want to quote briefly from the current policy statements of the maritime provinces Chamber of Commerce on this particular topic and to read their recommendation into the record as follows:
That the maritime provinces make every effort to encourage new capital to the area, regardless of its source, and the Government of Canada be discouraged from implementing any national policy of limiting foreign investment in Canada without-
I emphasize the word "without".
-taking into account regional considerations.
I hope the minister will take these representations into account when he is considering some of his options regarding regional development.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I wish to reply to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
The hon. member is aware from the minister's reply in the question period last Wednesday that he has had dis-

September 18, 1973
Adjournment Debate
cussions with the new chairman of the Atlantic Development Council respecting DREE's role and effectiveness in the Atlantic provinces. The minister also mentioned that he would be meeting premiers from the three maritime provinces on the same subject at the council of maritime premiers. This will take place next Monday in Summerside.
With respect to DREE initiatives in Nova Scotia, the hon. member may wish to know that negotiations are proceeding very well. The details of a general development agreement are being worked out between officials of DREE and senior representatives of the Nova Scotia government. There are also a number of joint task forces considering specific areas for new initiatives. This federal-provincial effort is, of course, in addition to the regional development incentive program which is available throughout Nova Scotia as well as the special areas program which applies to the Strait of Canso and Halifax-Dartmouth areas. The minister will be making announcements respecting new initiatives as formal agreements are concluded with the government of Nova Scotia.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DATE OF TABLING OF PROGRAM FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO-HIRING OF PERSONNEL FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO OFFICES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on June 11, three months ago, I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) if he could inform the House what action the government was intending to take with respect to economic development in northern Ontario. The minister at that time advised me that his department was holding meetings with the provincial government and that another meeting was scheduled for the week of June 18. He also said:
One of the preliminary matters they will be discussing is ways and means by which we can make a bigger impact on regional development in northern Ontario.
Yet yesterday, when I asked the minister whether he could inform us when the government intends to table its program for industrial development in northern Ontario, I was treated to the standard answer. He said:
I do not know the precise date but. . . the negotiations with the government of Ontario are proceeding very well.
He then predicted that it should not take more than a matter of a month or a few weeks. I must say that until very recently I was finding it somewhat difficult to believe that these much heralded talks were actually taking place. My worry now, however, is whether they are ever going to end. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the federal Liberals and the provincial Tories should stop talking altogether. In northern Ontario we have been listening to the Liberals for 50 years, and the Tories for 30, and if they ever stopped talking, the silence would be absolutely deafening. What I am saying is that it is time they started doing something beside holding tea parties in Toronto and Ottawa.
The minister can surely not say that he has not been made aware of the realities of northern Ontario. Our problems are most serious and pressing. The minister has assured me on countless occasions that he kno^vs what our problems are. He has assured me that he shares my sense

of urgency. I say that if this is so, it is time he did something about it.
We heard a good deal about the so-called reorganization of DREE. I want to talk about this because I think it points up very accurately the complete lack of sensitivity and even common sense on the part of this government toward those areas which are in need of solutions, not empty gestures. For all the foo-farra about decentralization, which I think is an excellent program when carried out with some intelligence, what happens in Ontario? We get a regional office in Toronto. Yes, we get a sub-office in Thunder Bay. But I want to know, why should an office dealing with regional economic disparities in Northern Ontario be located in Toronto?
If anything has contributed to the underdevelopment of northern Ontario, it has been the centralization of government and everything else in Toronto and the consequent insensitivity to, and ignorance of, the needs of the north. I note that the Maritimes will have six offices for an area smaller than northern Ontario in geographic size and not much bigger in population, while northern Ontario will have only one.
The Maritimes surely need the six offices, but by the same token northern Ontario needs more than a sub-office in Thunder Bay. Indeed, where do the plans for decentralization stand at this time? Just last week the minister was quoted as saying that public servants with roots in Ottawa are throwing a monkeywrench into DREE's decentralization machinery. Yet the Public Service Alliance spokesman for these employees says that not one DREE employee has been asked to move to a regional post. It is the middle of September and apparently nobody has been asked to move yet.
I call on the minister to get serious about decentralization of DREE. If he cannot get civil servants in Ottawa to move to northern Ontario, I point out to him that there are many capable and experienced people in northern Ontario who could be seconded by the government to staff DREE offices there.
I call on the government to become serious about the disadvantaged area of northern Ontario. At present there are nine Liberal seats out of a possible 12 in northern Ontario. I suggest that unless this government becomes far more serious about our area than it has shown itself to be in the past and present, it will not have many of those seats left after the next federal election.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on the minister s behalf. There has been considerable progress in the discussions between officials of DREE and the government of Ontario. Hon. members will be aware that in May and June the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) met with each of the provincial governments to consider ways in which DREE programs and policies could be more effectively utilized throughout Canada. This action was well received by the provinces, and joint federal-provincial working parties have since been dealing with the details of new general development agreements. The
September 18, 1973

minister has also had discussions with elected officials from northern Canada and with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on the extension of DREE activities in the north.
The negotiations with the province of Ontario are proceeding very well. However, the approach being considered is much broader than that which the hon. member may have had in mind when he referred, in his question to the minister on Monday, to a program of industrial development. Industrial development is part of it, but also
Adjournment Debate
included in the over-all package under consideration with the province of Ontario will be socially-oriented programs, community services, service industries, as well as tourism. This broader approach appears to be most desirable and is in accord with the objectives of the decentralization to which the hon. member has referred. Announcements will be made when the minister has received the necessary authority and formal agreements have been completed with the province.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, September 19, 1973