1973-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to announce to the House the appointment by the Governor in Council of Mr. James Johnson Macdonell as Auditor General of Canada, effective July 1, 1973.
Mr. G. R. Long, the present assistant Auditor General, has been appointed as acting Auditor General effective March 25.

Mr. Macdonell will be replacing Mr. Maxwell Henderson who, after 13 years of loyal service reaches on March 24 the compulsory retirement age laid down by the Financial Administration Act.

Wishing to secure the services of an outstanding member of the accounting profession, the government asked senior partners of accounting firms across the country to suggest the names of persons who would be suitable for appointment as Auditor General.
Mr. Macdonell was one of those who were thus highly recommended and I know that he will fulfil his duties with the required skill and competence.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will reply very briefly to the very interesting statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) simply by saying that I hope the newly appointed Auditor General will be as effective, independent and objective as the previous Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We trust that in the exercise of his duties he will continue to put the fear of the Lord into this government. When the government changes, in the unlikely event that we do anything that we should not we hope he will do the same to us.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the unusually swift action of the government in dealing with this matter. We are pleased to note the method that the government has used in securing the name of a person for recommendation to this important post. We wish Mr. Macdonell well in the performance
of his duties as a servant of this parliament. I am also happy to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). We hope that the new Auditor General will indeed put the fear of the Lord into whatever government sits to Your Honour's right.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good opportunity to thank Mr. Henderson for his services to this country. A number of us have had occasion to appreciate his many contributions of evidence to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
We are confident that his successor will give the same degree of satisfaction to hon. members, both in committee and in his annual reports. We also hope that the new Auditor General will not have cause to complain of a lack of staff to help him fulfil his duties. It is all very well to pick competent people for important jobs, but the checking of public accounts also requires the training of competent personnel in sufficient numbers to enable the Auditor General to do his job properly.
We therefore trust that the new Auditor General, whose competence we do not question, will have at his disposal adequate staff and funds to enable him to carry out his task efficiently.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The motion arises from the vote taken two days ago in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on the question of the $1 reduction in the Polymer Corporation estimate, from the subsequent statements by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation cannot be rescinded, and from the fact that the government failed to table the annual report of Polymer.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), that:
The question of the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation, its legality and its merits, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for investigation and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House within two weeks.

March 22, 1973
Sale of Polymer Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia is submitted to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it ought not to be recorded that the Minister of Finance said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister oi Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in the two official languages, the green paper entitled "Proposals for Communications Policy for Canada- A Position Paper of the Government of Canada."
I should also like to table copies of the letter I sent to the provincial ministers in charge of communications, suggesting that a federal-provincial conference be held. [English]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill without notice to prevent the government from selling three other Crown corporations, Eldorado, Panarctic and Northern Transportation Company, as listed in the Canada Development Corporation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that there is already some difficulty about motions under Standing Order 43 without having introduction of bills without notice. If the hon. member wants to introduce a bill, he will have to follow the usual procedures prescribed in the Standing Orders of the House.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I say I have noticed on a number of occasions that public bills have been introduced without notice when there is urgency. In view of the urgency in this case, I respectfully request Your Honour to put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is completely wrong. There is no precedent for what he is suggesting. His notice is obviously blurred in some way because there is no precedent for the procedure he is suggesting at this time. Oral questions.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that is probably a double-barrelled one. First, I wish to apologize to the Clerk of the House. Upon closer perusal of the list of reports and returns to be made to the House of Commons under Standing Order 82(1), I find after a diligent search that on page 32 the Polymer Corporation Limited annual report is listed. I believe that yesterday I averred that it was not. That only strengthens the question of privilege I now raise with respect to the tabling of that report which is required to be tabled within 15 days after receipt.
I again ask the government to have that report tabled because my information is that it has been received, and we are well beyond 15 days since the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) received it. In addition, Order in Council P.C. 1972-1715, dated July 27, 1972, contains the following as a condition of the sale of Polymer Corporation in sub-paragraph (d):
The Government shall recommend to Parliament legislative action to delete Polymer Corporation Limited from Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act, thereby terminating the Corporation's status as a Crown Corporation;
That legislative action has not been recommended to the House. There has been no legislative action. The estimate has been defeated. The Crown Corporation is alive and doing well. The minister, by virtue of the law, should now table the accounts of the corporation as audited by the Auditor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has risen on a question of privilege. If I were required to rule at this point I would be inclined to say there is not a prima facie case of privilege that should be debated. Perhaps there is a point of order that should be commented on by the minister. For this purpose the minister might wish to comment, which apparently he does as he sought the floor a moment ago.

Hon. ]ean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supplies and Services): Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that under the act, if we were to table Polymer's financial report, we would have to do so before April 15 because the act specifies that the company has up to three months after the end of its financial year to send its financial report to the minister in charge, and that the minister has 15 days to table it in the House.
This having been said, the act also states that the Auditor General's report is part of the annual report of the company. This means therefore that the report of the Auditor General cannot be tabled in the House before I have received Polymer's financial report.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we do not become involved in a debate on this point of order because the Chair had called oral questions a moment ago. The hon. member for Yukon apparently rises on the same point of order.


Erik Nielsen: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, to point out very briefly to the minister that I do not know

March 22, 1973

Oral Questions
where he obtains his advice but if it is from the same minister who made the decision on the temporary wheat measures I would question the advice. The law clearly indicates that the report should be tabled within 15 days of receipt of it by the minister, not by the corporation. Those 15 days have gone by.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could pursue the debate tomorrow. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the expressions of criticism that have emanated from the United States with regard to the DREE program, the possible loss of jobs and the effect on United States exports with regard to the proposed foreign takeover legislation, what measures has the right hon. gentleman's government taken to convince the United States government that these are in fact appropriate policies for Canada to pursue in Canada's interest and are not harmful to the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Trade, Industry and Commerce discuss representations that have been made, but I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the minister for any details of such encounters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the criticism that has been made by the United States, has the Prime Minister taken this matter up directly with President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that President Nixon today in an address entitled "First International Economic Report to Congress" seems to have attacked Canada in respect of both the DREE program and by inference at least the proposed legislation and is seeking tariff measures with a view to taking action against Canada and other countries on this basis, would the Prime Minister be good enough to get in touch with President Nixon and protect the interests of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly appreciate the suggestion. I would perhaps find it advisable first to take cognizance of the statement that the President is alleged to have made.


INCOME TAX
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a survey that has been made of 305 companies which shows that their corporation profits after taxes-I repeat after taxes-for 1972 exceeded their profits for 1971 by over 24 per cent. May I ask the minister if this does not obviate the necessity for any reduction in corporate taxes, and is the minister considering revising the tax bill which he proposes to present to the House?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked into the survey referred to by the hon. member. I assume it is the survey that was reported in the Globe and Mail. I should draw to his attention and that of the House that 1971 was a bad year-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -and that the increase in 1972 over 1971 therefore is to be expected. I also want to say to him at the same time that year over year we had
250,000	more jobs in 1972 over 1971. In any event, I think that the recent announcement by the President of the United States underlines the necessity for the measures I announced to the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that in 1971 corporation profits after taxes showed the highest increase of any year since 1964-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and in view of the fact the survey to which I referred shows that the food processing industries increased their profits by 31.3 per cent for the year 1972 and 37.7 per cent for the last quarter of 1972, which indicates that it is the food processing industry and not the farmers who are getting the benefit of rising food prices, may I ask the minister if he intends to take any steps to stop this unconscionable profiteering out of the food that Canadians have to purchase by way of an excess profits tax or any other measure?


John Napier Turner: I am not going to accept the full tone of the preamble to the hon. member's question, but I would say that that matter is currently under study by a committee of the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a last supplementary question may I ask the minister if he intends to take any steps or if he will outline the reasons why he is not going to take steps to deal with this situation, or is the House to take it for granted that he is perfectly satisfied to see this profiteering by the food processing industry of this country continue?


John Napier Turner: I am no more satisfied than is the hon. gentleman with the price of food in this country. As to the cause, that is an issue that is before a committee of the House. In terms of action, I refer the

March 22, 1973
Oral Questions
hon. member to the budget speech of February 19, 1973, which contained a number of measures that have as their ultimate purpose the relief of the cost of living in this country.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Does he think that the creation of a Canadian merchant navy could be delayed by a lack of sailors?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Paul's.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Agriculture expressing the policy of the government yesterday in Moncton when he stated that food is a bargain at today's prices which could go up even more and that consumers are making an unnecessary fuss about food prices because they cannot buy on credit or they tend to confuse more expensive non-food items with real food items when they go to the supermarket?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member should realize that these are not statements of policy; they are matters of opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What are they, just dreams?


Ronald George Atkey: In view of the fact that this whole question is under advisement by a special committee of the House and there appears to be a conflict in the cabinet between the views of the Minister of Finance and the views of the Minister of Agriculture, would the Prime Minister really tell the House what the government's policy is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy has been stated by the Minister of Finance a moment ago.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on March 14 I asked a question of the Secretary of State. I asked him whether or not a new policy had been introduced of reducing news and public affairs coverage out of Ottawa, and also why the program "Encounter" had been cut in half. He was kind enough to get in touch

with me personally, but I think the House and the country should know the answer to that question.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity afforded by the right hon. gentleman's question to get on the record the answer I gave to him privately by mail. I will paraphrase some of it, if I may.
In reply to the first part of the question, the CBC informs me that it has no intention of reducing its news and public affairs coverage from Ottawa but, rather to the contrary, additional appointments of reporters to the CBC parliamentary news staff will be made within a matter of weeks.


Mr. Woolliams:: That will be a help.


An hon. Member:: Oh, God!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the answer to the first part of the question was well received. The second part of the question concerns "Encounter". The reduction in the number of "Encounter" programs to be broadcast during the coming year was made in order to accommodate a new reportorial series called "Newsfile" which is being produced by the CBC news department. While the new series will only occasionally originate from Ottawa, its focus will frequently be on the federal political scene. The "Newsfile" program will not interfere with the scheduled summer series of "Encounter" which will be broadcast in July, August and September.
The answer to the third part of the question is that the CBC Ottawa public affairs unit, responsible for the "Tenth Decade" series, continues as a cornerstone.
Finally, so far as the CBC attitude toward the relative importance of Toronto and Ottawa as sources of national news is concerned, it should be noted that the CBC maintains a staff of seven parliamentary reporters in Ottawa, to be expanded in the future as noted above, while Toronto has a complement of two.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise with reasonable certainty that those who participate in "Encounter" from the Press Gallery, including that unusual wit, Charles Lynch, will not be deprived to the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF NEWS FROM ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND WEST ON NATIONAL BROADCASTS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State tell us that the CBC, in considering realignment of its news services, will take into account that the nation is entitled to a national news broadcast concerning Canada and not merely a compendium of international tidbits and crisis situations? How about including some news from the Atlantic provinces and the west on the national network?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 22, 1973


BRITISH COLUMBIA PROPOSAL TO USE RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR ALASKAN OIL-STUDIES BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENT-QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY STUDY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with the British Columbia proposal for the transportation of oil by rail from the Alaskan fields. Will the minister tell the House specifically what studies his department is now doing with regard to assessment of that proposal?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have examined the publicity documents that Mr. Barrett made available to the United States authorities before he brought them to Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and we have now dispatched a telegram, after discussions between the relevant departments federally, to the British Columbia government asking if there are any background studies of any kind on the basis of which that proposal was put forward. As of this afternoon, I am afraid I cannot report to the hon. gentleman whether there has been a response.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the minister's answer would he now tell us what specific assessment his department has done with regard to the Queen's University rail study which has been in his hands for most of 1972? What assessment has his department made with regard to the movement of oil by rail on the basis of the study he has had for nearly a year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, instead of what would be a rather long answer I will attempt to cut it short. While the Queen's University study, which was in part financed by the government of Canada, does indicate some interesting possibilities, it is also clear from discussions with appropriate authorities, including Canadian National Railways, that a great deal more will have to be known about some aspects of the solution proposed by that study. My own department, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport are giving that early and careful attention since this is one possibility that should be focused on before any decision is made on a Mackenzie pipeline.


SUGGESTED GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE TO FORM CONSORTIUM TO BUILD MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the answer just made by the minister as well as the answer he gave me on March 19 when I pointed out that a Congressional hearing in the United States is to decide whether to transport crude petroleum by supertanker down the west coast of Canada through international waters. The minister said on that occasion that it was in the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board to make the decision on any application.
Oral Questions
Will the minister bring together a consortium so that an application will be placed before the National Energy Board in light of the fact that the taxpayers have a considerable amount of money invested in Panarctic and the Canada Development Corporation? Does the minister not consider that his department should take the initiative so that the United States will know where we stand in Canada's national interests?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is confusing two points, the question of whether or not the National Energy Board should entertain an application as opposed to measures taken just over a year ago by myself and repeated on a number of occasions since then to the American administration with regard to the facts of the Mackenzie Valley route as a possible route for an oil pipeline. With regard to Panarctic, I point out that their oil assets are not in .the Mackenzie Valley but in the high Arctic islands about 1,500 miles farther east of the Mackenzie Valley, so Panarctic does not seem to be an obvious component of such a consortium.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of supplementaries. The hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary after which I will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse and return to the other supplementaries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask in clear terms if the minister has made the government's position clear in reference to pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley to carry gas or crude petroleum? Has that position been made clear, or is the minister going to continue to hide under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and offer no firm policy in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that a question asked in those terms is in order. The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I rephrase-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. member to rephrase the question but we have to try to make some headway.

I was about to recognize the hon. member for Rimouski but he will have to wait. The hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will leave the last part off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Leave the first part off.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If my friends want to take more time, that is all right with me. Has the minister made the government's policy on pipelines and Canada's interests clear in light of the fact the United States will decide to use supertankers if we do not move in?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have made quite clear to the United States administration all the
2486

March 22, 1973
Oral Questions
work that has been done by this government on the Mackenzie route and indeed on its possibilities as a route for shipping Alaskan oil. With regard to the ultimate decision in this regard, parliament has decreed that on a pipeline application of this kind the facts and proposals should first be put to the National Energy Board and it is only after a positive decision by the board, that the government must then take a decision. I propose to follow parliament's instructions in this regard.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Has he examined the submission of Quebec Justice Minister Jerome Choquette, that the Quebec Police Force should be subsidized in the same way as it is done in other provinces for the RCMP and could he tell the House what will be his attitude on that matter?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I examined it. I must remind the House that according to the February 19 budget, Canadian provinces will receive through equalization payments an amount of $200 million, including approximately $80 or $85 million for the province of Quebec.


ARGENTEUIL-DEUX-MONTAGNES-INQUIRY RESPECTING REQUEST BY QUEBEC FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Environment.
In view of the responsibility of the Quebec Department of Natural Resources as regards flooding in that province, could the minister inform the House whether a request for assistance was received from that department to deal with the flooding in the Deux-Montagnes Lake and Mille-iles river region?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. However, a request similar to that received from the government of Ontario would certainly be entertained.


VILLE DE LAVAL-SHARED-COST PROGRAM TO COMPENSATE VICTIMS-REQUEST BY QUEBEC FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laval on a supplementary question.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, My question is very important to the 4,000 families which were victims of flooding at Ville de Laval.
Could the minister inform the House whether there are provisions for financial help under the shared cost program between the federal government and the provinces to assist those suffering damages caused by flooding or any other disaster?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a formula available to any province in which flood damage occurs and where the province has first made settlements in respect of that damage.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar. Order, please. Perhaps before recognizing the hon. member for Lisgar-

I will recognize the hon. member for Laval on a supplementary question and I will then recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if such a request has been submitted by the Quebec government under the shared cost program?


John (Jack) Davis: It has not yet made an application for flooding, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL FEED GRAINS POLICY-DISCUSSIONS WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since he has stated at various times that before the end of the current crop year we will have a national feed grains policy for Canada, can he tell the House, first, if he is having negotiations with various farm organizations and, second, if legislation will be introduced so that members of parliament can debate this very important matter?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, to correct the hon. member slightly, what the Speech from the Throne and government policy have indicated is that we will have a proposal in relation to the feed grain situation in Canada to produce equity between different regions and producers. Various possible proposals are being discussed in different ways with different farm organizations. At this time I cannot say definitively whether the proposals that eventually emerge will require legislation.


Jack Burnett Murta: May I ask the minister if in regard to a national feed grains policy a decision has been made to
March 22, 1973

adopt in principle the concept of a feed grains price to be determined in western Canada, and is the government also giving consideration to easing Wheat Board control over the interprovincial movement of feed grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again used the words national feed grains policy" which I commented on in my earlier answer. We are, of course, not at the point of decision, and a great number of things are being considered as possible courses of action. The exact proposals of the government will be made known after our deliberations are complete.


NATIONAL FEED GRAINS POLICY-PRESERVATION OF FREIGHT ASSISTANCE TO EASTERN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA GROWERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley): Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that in considering the proposals nothing adverse will happen to the feed freight assistance to eastern and British Columbia growers?
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the policy will be to produce a situation equitable to producers in all parts of the country. This is not an easy objective to meet as has been shown by the struggles toward such a conclusion without success by a number of national farm organizations. But I can assure the hon. member that the government will be doing everything it can to promote the cause of agriculture throughout the country.


Mr. Nowlan:: In these discussions are the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and/or the Minister of Transport very directly involved in view of the fact that feed freight assistance is one of the best feeder growth multiplier policies that any government has ever had?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the course of reaching a conclusion the government as a whole looks at the questions which are at issue and so all the ministers will be involved.


STEPS TO COUNTERACT INCREASE IN CIGARETTE SMOKING
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increase in cigarette smoking, thought to be taking place mostly among young people, what steps is he proposing to take to counteract this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the minister can reply briefly. It seems to me this is a question of general policy which normally ought to be replied to on motions. If the minister can reply briefly, he will be given the floor for that purpose.
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, since my department's budget estimates are now under consideration by the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I think it would be preferable to discuss this matter when my department's budget estimates come before the House.


STUDIES ON DESIRABILITY OF ESTABLISHING TRADING COMPANIES-USE BY FORMER DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS NOW WITH INTEREMCO LIMITED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the establishment recently in Ottawa of the first trading company along lines of those functioning in Japan, can the minister advise the House whether or not his department has had a number of studies done on the desirability of establishing such a trading firm in Canada during the past two years? Has the department done that kind of work?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the department has done work in the area of trading companies but I cannot be specific as to the number of particular studies that may have been undertaken. I think it is of some interest, perhaps, to the House to know that a number of trading companies have now been formed in Canada over the past two or three years, and I hope that additional trading companies will be formed.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister inform the House whether or not his department maintains formal or informal ties with Interemco Limited, which is headed by the former minister of the department and, if so, what is the nature of the ties between his department and that company?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the department and any of the trading companies I have referred to would be of an informal nature.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member, but I would hope that there would not be two supplementaries for every question asked between now and the end of the question period. Hon. members will have noticed that we make much better progress and give a chance to more members when we limit the number of supplementaries.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will respect that by asking only one further supplementary. Can the minister provide the names of senior officials who have recently left his department and have joined Interemco Limited, and also inform the House whether or not the same officials took with them the studies that were done by his department on the establishment of such a company, and
2488

March 22, 1973
Oral Questions
whether or not these studies have given that particular company an advantage in the Canadian market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am quite unaware of the representation that the hon. member is making, I think, in his remarks, but I will be pleased to examine that situation, as I would any other situation.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to an earlier question regarding transportation methods north of 60 degrees. I would direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if the minister can say if the public hearings under the Territorial Lands Act which he announced on March 1, 1973, will apply to all methods of transportation for oil and gas north of 60 degrees and not be restricted specifically to a right of way covering any pipeline app'ication?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if there are applications of any other kind for rights of way in the Northwest Territories, I should think the policy that applies to a natural gas or an oil pipeline would also apply to other modes of transportation, including railways.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that, because of the attitude of hon. members opposite, members on my side of the House will not be deprived of the time that is due them in the question period. My question for the Prime Minister is this: As the Unemployment Insurance Commission must consider preretirement payments paid by Cape Breton Development Corporation as earnings because of a contract of service, will the Prime Minister undertake to correct the situation brought about by the corporation when it treated such payments as non-earnings, thereby contravening the Unemployment Insurance Commission legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have heard questions along that line before in the House. I believe I drew them to the attention of the responsible ministers. I will do so again.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises from the fact that the Prime Minister indicated that he has brought this matter to the attention of the responsible ministers. May I say to the Prime Minister, on the point of order, that, if this is the case, why is it that his ministers, namely, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and others, have failed to answer correspondence sent on this matter since February 4?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: They are not doing their jobs and they are not taking their orders any more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Let them treat the miners the same way they treat some people in Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice rises on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I simply think it quite inappropriate for the hon. member to make these comments about correspondence, because I think he has been away from his office and has not seen the reply which went to him. We may have had a little trouble with the letter to me which I think had been addressed a few days before he first complained about not receiving a reply. It was addressed to me as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, and I think the Prime Minister should pay close attention to it. Would he obtain from the Minister of Justice a letter written to me on March 7 indicating certain actions taken by Cape Breton Development Corporation under section 18 of the act? Would he take that letter, read section 18 of the act, and find out just how wrong the Minister of Justice is about this matter? Section 18 of the act has nothing to do with the letter put forward. He has not even read the legislation and has not paid attention to the complaint in the letter. I suggest that the Minister of Justice-


An hon. Member:: Should hire a lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I should like to hear the hon. member's point of order or question of privilege. Certainly, he should be given the opportunity to express his views and thoughts, after which we will try to use the last few minutes of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 22, 1973


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will wait for members opposite to be quiet so I can tell the Minister of Justice the facts. If he is paying any attention, if he has any concern for the miners of Cape Breton, he should know that the Cape Breton Development Corporation has taken the money and put it into its own pocket. Yet the government is providing thousands of dollars to millionaires in Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has stated his point. He would appear to be asking a question. We have something like five or seven minutes before the end of the question period and I do not think we are proceeding in a very orderly fashion if we spend too much time on points of order or questions of privilege. If the hon. member will state his point clearly and briefly, I will try to rule on it, but in fairness to all members we should try to limit as much as possible points of order. I am quite prepared to listen now to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice seems to think he can forget about certain correspondence. I call it to his attention again. Take the Cape Breton Development Corporation legislation, read section 18 of the act, and you will find it has no application whatsoever to the question put to the minister. The minister has completely disregarded the representations I have made to him and he is doing so to the detriment of many miners in Cape Breton.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again suggest to hon. members including, if I may say so, the right hon. Prime Minister that I really cannot see what advantage there is to the House in pursuing the matter further. The hon. member has raised a point of order. I think it is more a point of debate. The Minister of Justice has replied to it. The hon. member has suggested that some problem be looked into. It is, in a sense, a representation and the House can assume that the matter will be looked into. With respect, I suggest to all hon. members that we should try to return to the question period.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister yet in a position to make a statement to the House concerning improvements in railway pensions, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific? Also, can he tell the House whether he has been able to persuade Canadian National that its pensions should be at least equal to the pension provisions enjoyed by Air Canada employees and by employees of the federal public service?
Oral Questions


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I think the hon. gentleman knows that negotiations are presently going on between Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and the railway unions and that this subject is being discussed by the parties. I hope this very important problem of pensions will be solved this year, and I am ready to do whatever I can in order to obtain a just solution for the employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. In view of the serious implications that have arisen as a result of failure to implement the recommendations contained in the Samson-Belair Post Office study, will the minister undertake to make this report available to hon. members and to the public?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the hon. member who proposed a motion for the production of papers that the document requested is confidential. It is a document concerning the internal running of the department and it is not customary to make such papers public.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Postmaster General has said that the Samson-Belair Report is confidential, but the government House leader stated he would table the document. Will it be tabled? I should like to draw attention to the seriousness of this situation. In April, 1972-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I suggest to hon. members that we are running short of time. The hon. member, as suggested by his distinguished colleague from the Yukon, might wish to have that matter considered at the time of adjournment tonight.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. It makes the last five days of bouncing up and down worth while. Since my question might affect more than one department of government, I wonder whether I could address it to the Prime Minister. In the light of the findings of the Ontario Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism that the low duty on the importation of television commercials from the United States places Canadian corporations at a distinct disadvantage compared with American

March 22, 1973
Oral Questions
corporations, does the government intend to take action either to ban the importation of foreign commercials into Canada or to increase the tariffs upon them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might wish to consider another way of helping those corporations. That would be by adopting the budgetary measures proposed by the Minister of Finance to help manufacturing industries.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I am sure we are all sorry to hear of the untimely death of Corporal Nemnook of HMCS Terra Nova due to virus pneumonia. It now appears that other sailors have had to be evacuated from the ship because they are suffering from a contagious disease. Could the minister inform the House whether he plans to have the Terra Nova remain in Singapore to help forestall any repetition of the sad case of Corporal Nemnook?


Hon. lames A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The Terra Nova will be staying in Singapore for another five or six days. There are five seamen in hospital with Asian flu. Hong Kong type 3 is the type of disease.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Armstrong Richardson: They are not suffering from pneumonia as the hon. member suggested. Our medical officers have assured me that these men are not in danger. Two will be rejoining the ship today and the others will recover fully.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If the Terra Nova remains alongside in Singapore what plans does the minister have for a replacement if an emergency evacuation from Viet Nam becomes necessary?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, that is hypothetical.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: I thought for awhile, Your Honour, that I had lost sufficient weight to become invisible. I do have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House whether he has received representations from the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association and others in the interior of British Columbia regarding the very serious shortage of railway cars to serve the lumber industry and, if so, will he take immediate action to try to rectify this situation in order to prevent any further employee lay-offs?
(Mr. Beatty.]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the session I have received many representations on this subject. The hon. members for Kamloops-Cariboo and Skeena have asked me similar questions. I have just received the answer at this very moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: That is what I call quick service. The answer is that there is indeed a boxcar shortage in northern British Columbia.
"There is a matter about which Burbidge and Macmillan recently wrote to you about. Although CN and CP several months ago placed orders for new cars to meet the projected demand by the lumber industry, the fact is that the actual demand for cars by the lumber industry far exceeded their projected requirements."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Speaker:: To show that all hon. members are visible, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was beginning to wonder. My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the inhuman and high-handed treatment accorded to Susan Andrews, will the minister undertake to extend the government's apologies and bring her back at government expense?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the treatment was inhuman. I believe anyone who read the facts of the story would conclude that there was a series of circumstances which left the immigration department no alternative but to take the action it took.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What qualifications did Susan Andrews lack that the Happy Hooker has?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think either one had an employment visa.


An hon. Member:: Shame!
March 22, 1973


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the announcement by Eastern Airlines that it will provide a shuttle service between Montreal and New York, has the minister made representations to Air Canada or other airlines asking them to provide a similar service between Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: By Eastern Airlines or Air Canada?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: By Air Canada or any other air line.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already said in the House that during the last few years we have been negotiating with the United States a bilateral agreement which has not yet been concluded. As soon as it is completed, I will inform the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, I believe the hon. member for Ottawa West has a point of order.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a point of order, so we will hear the first point of order. I understand the hon. member for Skeena also has a point of order, so we will spend the next few minutes on points of order, beginning with point of order number one.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I am sure the Minister of Transport answered a question that was not asked. I wonder whether he would direct his answer to the question I put, which was: Has the Minister of Transport made any representations to Air Canada or to any other airline serving Toronto-Montreal or Toronto-Ottawa to provide the kind of shuttle service that an American airline is providing between Montreal and New York? This has nothing to do with international agreements or anything else.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think there were two possible interpretations of this question, and I picked the wrong one. With regard to the other meaning of the question, I shall inquire of Air Canada and CP Air to find out if they do in fact plan to start such a service.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of a response made yesterday to all hon. members by the Minister of Justice. The minister said with reference to the new bail law, among other things, as reported at page 2459 of Hansard:
The point that hon. members seem sometimes to miss is that under any law, except one that keeps almost every suspect in prison, people will be on bail, and indeed the hardened criminals would be most likely released under a cash bail system, such as the old
Oral Questions
bail system. So it is not the changes in the law that have caused the problem, and any suggestion that it is, is really doing a disservice to the continued development of the law.
I say this in all humility but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, the orchestration of these people is really remarkable. There is an increasing number of people in this country who are deeply concerned about, and afraid of the problem posed by the gradual and steady acceptance of violence as a way of life in this community. We have seen that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order and he was given the floor in preference to all other hon. members. His point of order has to be related to the Standing Orders or to precedents. I find it hard at this point to determine whether there is a point of order on which the Chair can make a ruling. The hon. member seems to be raising a point of debate. I would invite him as quickly as possible to indicate why he thinks he should have the floor at this point.


Peter Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; that is well taken, I suppose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: In all humility.


Peter Reilly: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to make progress. I thank the hon. member for his kindness to the Chair, but he should indicate what his point of order is.


Peter Reilly: My point is this, Mr. Speaker. I thought the minister's remarks, whether intentionally or otherwise, tended to leave the wrong impression with the House. I researched the remarks made by the then Minister of Justice when the law was amended in 1971, and in my opinion it was the intention of the government to create a far different climate surrounding the matter of bail than had hitherto existed, a more lenient climate in which persons suspected of or arrested for serious offences would be let go on their own recognizance when it might have been well that they should have remained in jail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What this has to do with a point of order is really beyond the Chair. This may be a good point of debate. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Ottawa West, but my interpretation of this kind of point is that it is rather a point of debate. There should be opportunities to raise these arguments other than on a point of order. As I say, I want to be fair to the hon. member for Ottawa West and all hon. members, but I have to rule that, although this may be a valid grievance or point of debate, it cannot be considered a point of order. That has to be my ruling, having heard the hon. member.
The hon. member for Skeena has a point of order.


Mr. Howard:: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the response given by the Minister of Transport to the question put to him by the hon. member for Okana-

March 22, 1973
Oral Questions
gan-Kootenay. The point of order I want to make is that I think the minister misunderstood the force of the question. This is a matter affecting all of British Columbia, particularly northern B.C. where I come from. I think the information that we sought to have from the minister was not about the problem the CNR had, but what the minister was going to do to get boxcars into that part of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I understand the force of the hon. member's question but not the force of his point of order. He might try his question again tomorrow. The hon. member for Wellington has a point of order.


Mr. Hales:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a very brief point of order which is addressed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as House leader. Now that a new Auditor General for Canada has been appointed, I wonder whether the minister would refer to the public accounts committee the bill regarding the Auditor General which was drafted by a special committee composed of the Law Clerk of the House of Commons, the Law Clerk of the Senate, a member of the Department of Justice and a representative from the Auditor General's office?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this may be a valid question but I doubt that it is a point of order. When we reach the end of the question period, hon. members rise and try to put additional questions in the form of points of order. I think that this would be a very valid, interesting and important question that might be asked tomorrow. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point is one of privilege which you may eventually consider to be a point for debate. My point of privilege arises from the fact that I have been denied, as a member of parliament, the opportunity properly to represent those people who have sent me here. The justice and legal affairs committee, a committee made up of 20 members mostly from the legal profession, 12 of whom were sitting on the government side of the House, made a report containing a fair and equitable decision which in many ways and some of them most devious, I have been denied the opportunity of bringing about.
The Minister of Justice has referred to a mistake that was made by my office, by myself, when he received one letter from me improperly addressed. However, he did acknowledge the letter, and that being so I wish to point out to the House that all members of the House supported the legislation concerned. A committee of the House stood 100 per cent behind the complaint put forward in the petition that was accepted by the House. Again, I use the word "integrity": I think the House should have the integrity to support the legislation that was passed, which has not been the case.
The minister's letter to me was in reply to one sent to the minister by me on February 21. The letter was received in my office on March 14 and the following statement appears in the letter:
The decision of the Federal Court was in effect that Parliament had not given the Governor in Council power to make Regulations under the Public Service Superannuation Act, to authorize a

Deputy Minister to terminate the employment of a public servant before the normal retirement age of 65.
Then, the minister goes on to say this:
On the other hand, it is quite clear that Parliament specifically required the Cape Breton Development Corporation, by section 18 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, to make bylaws, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, for pension arrangements for the benefit of employees who are laid off or retired before the normal retirement age provided for in the by-law-
I have in my hand section 18 of the legislation, and I can quote from the act for the minister's benefit. The act has nothing to do with the establishment of a bylaw, but is concerned solely with pension arrangements. Therefore, I do not accept the minister's words in this respect. I see no difference between parliament authorizing a statutory body to make bylaws and authorizing a minister of the government to make regulations. The position is really the same; both arise from an enactment that has received the support of parliament, and the approach must be the same.
I have referred to devious methods used by the government, and what I mean is this. I have asked the minister to express an opinion on paragraph 2 of his letter, but I have received no reply. I ask the minister to pay particular attention to my reply. The exception I have taken to paragraphs two and three of the letter has been picked word for word from the judgment handed down by the courts. In other words, the part of the letter I have forwarded to the minister in which I took exception to para-g-aphs two and three has been picked directly from the judgment handed down by the courts.
This is a devious way of going about things. The minister has definitely contradicted the lawyer who heard the submissions in the first place. If the deviousness of this government is not enough, why would the senior partner of the law firm who represented the miners be made a director of Devco? Why is it that money spent by the miners to get what is rightfully theirs will now find its way into the pockets of the board of directors of the Devco Crown corporation? If that is not deviousness, I would like the minister to give some explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this again is debate. This cannot be considered a question of privilege. I suggest to the House that the hon. member may have a good point for debate. He has made his point, but according to my understanding of the rules and precedents of this House, that cannot be a question of privilege. It ought to be debate. I think there should be an occasion when this very important matter can be considered by the House. I urge hon. members interested in this problem to give some thought to the possibility of reviewing it in one of the committees or on the occasion of another debate. However, it is not a question of privilege.
The Chair called orders of the day a while ago, but I believe the hon. member for Peace River wishes to raise the usual Thursday afternoon point of order at this point.
March 22, 1973


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I certainly do not intend to get into a debate on the subject. My point of order is that, while there is obviously a serious question underlying the issue that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys continues to raise, he does so in a way-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We cannot have two points of order. The Minister of Justice has risen on a point of order. I will be delighted to hear the hon. member on his point of order, but I remind the House I have called orders of the day. We are now on orders of the day.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I simply think that it is appropriate to object to the use of the rules in this way, particularly when earlier this afternoon the hon. member suggested that he had not received replies to earlier letters. He has now agreed that he has received them. He is now asking for a further legal commentary on certain statements in those letters. While it is easy for the hon. member to come forward with instantaneous legal opinions, in our department we try to come up with considered conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order. I will be pleased to hear the hon. member on his point of order. If hon. members want to rise on points of order until five o'clock this afternoon, obviously that is what they want to discuss and we will hear them.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my original point of order, I want to once again point out the inability of the Minister of Justice to be accurate. Right off the bat, he referred to me as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. He is wrong again. I thought I had made myself sufficiently well known in the House that I would not be misnamed.
With regard to the legal opinion, I was referring to the letter of February 21. How about answering the letter I sent to the minister previous to that? That has not yet been answered. An acknowledgement is not an answer. The following day the Solicitor General, as a law officer of the Crown, wrote a letter stating that the minister wished to acknowledge receipt of my letter but there had been no legal decisions handed down.


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


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot call the hon. member by constituency, but he sits directly behind the Minister of the Environment. He just made a statement while remaining seated which was out of order. It was to the effect that I have been misleading the House. This is what I want to find out. Why is the government misleading the miners of Cape Breton, and stealing from them in order to provide the millionaires in Montreal with LIP grants? Get up on your feet and debate it.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members are enjoying this afternoon. We have further points of order. This is either point of order number seven or number eight. I will be delighted to hear the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


Mr. Grier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to assure Your Honour and the House that some of us are not interested in putting up with a consistent abuse of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that you have the support of a great many, if not the majority of members of this House, in enforcing the rules as strictly as you wish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Up to this point I thought that hon. members may be interested in having a discussion about housing. I am not sure whether that is very important. Before we do, the hon. member for Peace River is rising on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the traditional Thursday request of the government House leader to state the business of the House for the balance of this week and next week. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House of the government's realistic assessment of the legislative program that it hopes to have before the House between now and Easter?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can get second reading of the housing bill today. If that is the case, we will proceed to the report stage and third reading of the War Veterans Allowance bill, and then deal with the report stage and third reading of the Old Age Security Act. Tomorrow will be an opposition day as will Monday. Following that, I will probably call the Foreign Investment Review Act.
With regard to the program that might be completed before Easter, that depends a good deal on my hon. friend, but I will accept the challenge in the expectation that we might be able to give at least second reading to the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Criminal Code Amendment, the Crop Insurance Amendment, the Emergency Gold Mining Act extension, the Wildlife Act, the Residential Mortgage Act, the Fisheries Development Act Amendment and complete the report stages of all bills that have been in committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would mind advising the House if there are other legislative items not on the order paper now which the government may contemplate putting on the order paper and dealing with before Easter.

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a real possibility.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 21, Consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue my remarks from yesterday. If Toronto contractors say that an oversupply of serviced lots would be created by implementation of the just mentioned measure, this would soon bring the price of a normal lot to half the present $40,000 plus average. Prices could be reduced even more, to say $5,000, if developers were committed to building single family homes on smaller lots with a minimum of services; a good gravel road, open storm sewers and overhead power lines. By eliminating the sales taxes and in some cases substituting cheaper materials such as aluminum siding for brick veneer, the cost of a house, now about $18,000 to $20,000 for a three bedroom bungalow, in most urban areas, could be reduced to about $15,000. These are the views of the developers and all levels of government should listen to them. What is even more important though, is that the federal government listen to the demands of the provinces in relation to housing.
The $1.5 million study launched recently by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) to discover regional housing needs in Canada is a waste of the taxpayers money. Obviously, various regions in Canada have different problems. All this study will tell us is what we already know. In addition, how is parliament to be subjected to government housing studies? My hon. colleague, the former minister responsible for housing, submitted his task force report on housing in January, 1969. Now, after four years, the government is spending $1.5 million to discover that in this country separate approaches are required in dealing with different regional housing needs. This government refuses to accept the fact that the provinces know more about regional housing needs because, together with municipal governments, they have been building houses and controlling housing. Constitutionally as well, land use and housing are within provincial jurisdiction. But the government refuses to listen to the provinces. Several provinces want the federal government to get out of the housing field and let them take over housing programs if they can be granted the tax revenues to pay for them. The federal government, though, refuses to

yield. The block financing, which the provinces temporarily accepted and by which the government will hand over all moneys allotted for housing, will allow the provinces to decide how to best spend the money.
Hopefully, the provinces and municipalities will see fit to begin assembling land. The best way to enable a low-income person to become a homeowner may be to take the actual cost of land out of the purchase figure. Cities could begin land banking. They should acquire land for residential development and retain ownership on it. Houses should be built on these lands, and then sold. The land, however, should not be sold. A policy such as this would enable the poor to have a home. It would also prevent the land speculation that keeps pushing up the cost of houses. All this though would be a start, but the federal government must heed not only the advice of the developers but also that of the provincial governments. While it is the job of the provincial government to produce housing stock that people can afford, it is the job of the federal government to give them the power to do so.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to costs, may I say that the monster inflation has got completely out of hand, especially in the area of housing. Here again, figures can be deceptive. A house which was priced at $16,000 in 1960 and today costs $24,000 is not just 50 per cent higher, but in the end turns out to be more like 150 per cent higher because of interest and other charges. By rough rule of thumb, an increase of one per cent in the interest rate adds 10 per cent to the capital cost of shelter, so that the 4 per cent increase in mortgage rates from the early 1960's added a hefty 40 per cent to the consumers' long-term bill for housing. The cost of buying the average NHA house actually doubled in the 1965-1970 period. Back in 1960, about half of Canadian families could afford to buy the average NHA house; now the percentage is more like 10 per cent and in the Toronto area it is closer to 5 per cent. The availability of single family homes for Canadians has almost become extinct. The minister's bill provides too little too late.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that because of our rigorous climate and the amount of investment involved in housing, politicians in Canada would have tended to escape any obligation to deal with that topic. I am sure hon. members on both sides of this House will agree that Canada's record in respect of housing should be the envy of many nations throughout the world. I would suggest that the difficulties faced by previous generations with regard to housing deserve a great deal of our national attention. One need only be reminded of the sod shanties of the great northwest as well as the log cabins of northern Ontario to realize what tremendous strides we have achieved in relation to housing. There is no doubt that the proposals before us do not offer a complete solution to this particular problem. There are still a number of strides to be made. To indicate that the provisions of the act or the amendments proposed would all prove to be beyond reproach would indeed be to engage in day dreaming in colour panavision.
However, I challenge any member of this House to suggest any previous bills with which this House has had the pleasure of dealing which have contained such imaginative provisions and which have exhibited such
March 22, 1973

serious and concentrated thought. I do not propose to deal with all aspects of the new amendments. I shall content myself with stressing three major aspects. The first is that of co-operative housing and the non-profit association involvement. The second provision with which I propose to deal is that in respect of loans to be made to individuals to facilitate ownership. The third very important topic, to my mind, involves the provisions relating to new communities.
Since World War II, Canada has indeed been favoured by a multiplicity of volunteer organizations which have been engaged, supported by private funds, in assisting individual groups of citizens requiring specialized assistance. This legislation has been inspired by the success of these voluntary associations. The legislation thus inspired is a recognition of the success achieved by these non-profit organizations in the past in providing needed accommodation of good quality. The loans which will be made available to these associations will be in amounts of up to 100 per cent of the lending value of the project with amortization over a period of 50 years. Further, these voluntary organizations will have the advantage of a $10,000 fund which could be employed in planning and preparing their own projects for completion.

The bill before us also provides for similar aid to some co-operatives that wish to build, purchase or improve houses and then sell them to their members or to others that are interested in supplying particular groups, most of which are members, with new or repaired housing they have acquired.
The provisions under clause 34 of the bill entitle them to a low rate of interest, a 40-year mortgage, and to a contribution by the CMHC to payment of the capital, interest and taxes.
We will thus have the authority of a statutory regulation to give the underprivileged assistance in paying the principal and the interest, in addition to which they will have access to public funds when paying municipal taxes.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also goes to show that this government is inclined towards greater social justice and to giving priority to those with small incomes whose needs are greatest.
Moreover, the second class of co-operatives, those that will be renting accommodation, will be providing homes for those who really need them, through non-profit organizations which try to promote greater social justice for this country. Co-operatives formed with that precise purpose in mind will also be eligible for 10,000-dollar subsidies to help with the planning and execution of their projects. The co-operative associations will obtain up to 100 per cent of the loan value of the project. Public funds will be available to them to meet their immediate commitments, that is the payment of interest or municipal taxes.
This brings me to my second point. We saw, when dealing with co-operatives, that these particular projects make it possible for individual citizens without the necessary income to buy their own houses in accordance with the
National Housing Act
state of the market. The added benefit of this provision is that public funds can be obtained in order to achieve the same purpose. The National Housing Act as amended does indeed provide for assistance to individuals who are unable to buy their own house. They will be provided with a mortgage through CMHC at a low interest rate, lower than the one which exists in the market. They will also be provided with terms of up to 40 years for amortization, and furthermore, they will be provided with public funds, administered under the regulations, in order to help them meet those payments which as a family unit, they might otherwise not be able to meet.
There are but a few pages to this bill. It may not offer solutions to all the problems but, I suggest, it offers solutions to a considerable degree. I suggest that they are directly in accordance with the principles of social justice that have been advocated, not only by this government but generally by all Canadians whatever their political persuasion might be, because we have attempted to provide low rental housing for individuals with low incomes. We have seen governments interfering with the rights of individuals. We have seen governments erecting the buildings, renting them and administering them, and it has frequently been the experience that individuals residing in those particular buildings have not been of primary importance to the administrator.
I suggest to hon. members that under this bill we will be able to reinstate the individual to the important position which he held. The individual will build his home or arrange for its construction, and then he will be able to obtain the necessary financing. If he is not in receipt of a sufficient income to enable him to provide for himself and his family and to meet all the obligations of the contract that he has undertaken, public funds will be made available to him, not as a charity but on a properly administered basis. I would suggest further that the bill recognizes the necessity for people to exercise initiative and it rejects the concept of paternalism. It foresees the complete integration of low income families into our comfortable middle class neighbourhoods without any aspersions being cast on their participation.
As an example of the wisdom of the particular provisions, I will cite a particularly appropriate case. A group of senior citizens can make an application under the provisions of the act to obtain funding to prepare a plan or project. Having prepared and submitted their plan, they can make an application for the financing of that project. They can then ensure the proper execution of those plans, and upon the completion of the project they can benefit from the fruits of their own creation and have the satisfaction of knowing that in the future others with the same needs will be able to reap the same benefits.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is to be congratulated for his foresight and inventiveness with reference to the provisions in the bill. Yet, to my mind there are other provisions which are even more startling, and I hope that they are only an indication of things to come. For the first time we have in the House a recognition of the concept of whole community planning, not partial but whole community planning. A fund of $100 million will be set aside and made available, and in conjunction with the provinces, which nevertheless exercise
March 22, 1973

National Housing Act
primary jurisdiction with reference to municipal affairs, it can be employed to plan and to erect communities. That is not a brand new idea, although it is the first time it has been introduced in the House. Indeed, an experiment is being conducted in Minnesota in the United States where complete urban is being undertaken from first principles.
I must call the attention of hon. members to a long standing experiment in the U.S.S.R. Until recently, we did not consider the experiences of that country with such a different philosophy to be of much assistance. However, I was guided to a book by Farley Mowat published in 1970 entitled "Sibir" which deals with Siberia and two trips which the Canadian author has taken into that area. Throughout the book he indicates his amazement at the use that has been made of Siberia, a corner of the earth which has not always received a warm reception in our conversations. I should like to quote from pages 26 and 27 of this book. Prior to this quotation he writes of the development of Siberia and the municipalities in that area, and he goes on to say:
Between Sverdlovsk and the halfway mark at Irkutsk, there's a string of big cities four or five hundred miles apart. Most of them began in the seventeenth century as forts, trading stations and administrative centres and until the 1930's they were backwoods towns with wooden buildings and mud streets. Most of Siberia was one big backwater in those days. Then in the mid 1930's it began to be obvious what Hitler had in mind and our leaders could see there was a good chance much of European Russia might be overrun. If that happened the Urals were going to serve as our last line of defence.
The government began moving whole factory towns-machines and people-from Western Russia across the Urals. By the time the war ended provincial places like Sverdlovsk and Omsk had turned into industrial cities, and after the war they kept on growing, faster and faster. Siberia came awake with a jump! Within fifteen years the whole western region of the Trans Sib, as far east as Irkutsk, had jumped into modern times. Sverdlovsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Bratsk, Irkutsk, the flame of a new industrial society set each one of them alight in turn. They've got almost four million people between them now, and they'll have double that by 1975 . ..
What does all this have to do with the speech that I am giving, you may ask? I am suggesting that, with the very modest attempt being made now by the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, we are seeing the concept to city planning in much the same manner as it has occurred in other places. As a northerner who has always advocated greater dispersal of our population into those areas which are apt to be developed in the future by someone else other than ourselves if we do not take the initiative, I welcome the provisions in this particular statute. I think that in the very near future we will see a greater development of this concept.
When I talk about city planning, I do not seek to encourage the concept of satellites to metro Toronto. I am thinking of communities set in virgin lands, where they will become viable. Of course, everything we are dealing with today, such as energy policy, economic policy, cultural policy, is attached to the development of our society. One of the basic concerns now is to try to analyse where we are going, and I suggest that the minister ought to be congratulated for having given us the opportunity to do so.
I wish to indicate that I am going to vote for this bill because I think it is a most worthwhile one. I am sure all hon. members would agree that it should be passed without any dissension because hon. members, in conscience, should ensure that their constituents are made aware of all the benificial aspects of this bill so that they will be able to derive the maximum advantage from it. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of these debates is to analyse all these provisions to that end, to benefit from them at the time the bill is approved, which I again suggest should be without undue delay.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to this debate I propose not to focus on specific details of the bill before us, but rather to speak about general principles.
I am going to argue that federal housing policies, current or proposed, do more harm than good, and that the best thing the federal government could do to help us Canadians with our housing problems would be to leave us alone. Disband the bureaucracies, cut taxes, and let us solve our own problems, with the interference of our local or provincial governments if we choose, but without federal interference, without federal bureaucrats taking our money from us in taxes and spending it as they want it spent rather than as we want it spent.
In some cases local or provincial governments may foolishly pursue policies which, I would argue, do more harm than good. But if a local or provincial government pursues an unsound policy it clearly does less damage than is done by the federal government's pursuing that same policy. Furthermore, as it is most unlikely that all provincial governments would simultaneously pursue the same unsound policy, unless all provinces were to simultaneously suffer Liberal or NDP governments, divergencies in provincial policies would give Canadians the opportunity to study the effects of different policies pursued simultaneously in the various provinces, an opportunity which the federal government denies when it imposes a uniform policy on all of Canada.
The mayor of my city, Vancouver, Art Phillips, has written of:
"One basic principle .. . That principle is that government should be as close to the people as possible. In Canada, that means that government should be as decentralized as possible."
I agree with him.
Another basic principle that I would like to talk about is the principle that no one can ever say what would make anyone else happy. No one is in any position to tell me that if I were to spend more of my time or money on some things rather than on other things, I would be happier than I am now. All of our individual preferences are purely subjective. There are no such things as objective standards or preferences which will make a human being happy. For any given preference held by you or me, someone prefers the opposite. For example, some people prefer carrots to spinach, while others prefer spinach to carrots. Consider a more extreme example. Although I attach very great value to sustaining my own life, there are people who prefer the opposite: suicide. Their subjective preferences are such that they are happier to choose death than to choose life.

March 22, 1973

Even more highly than my life, I value my liberty. Other people care little about their liberty, and history shows that such people usually lose their liberty. Some people, fortunately a minority, are pleased that over the last century the state has been progressively consuming our liberty, taking us back toward the serfdom of the dark ages, "turning back the clock", so to speak. I am not pleased with this loss of liberty. In a free society we respect each other's subjective preferences, and we ask of each other merely that each refrain from forcibly imposing his preferences on others, either directly or through the state's power of legal coercion.
You may ask, what does all this have to do with housing? Simply this: There are some people who have some idea of what sort of housing they like. They call their choice of housing "decent" housing. Then, they want to use the power of the federal government to coerce, directly or indirectly, all the people into living in such housing.
If I prefer to spend some of my money on what they call "sub-standard" housing and the rest of my money on other things, then they want to take my money from me in taxes, and spend it on so-called "urban renewal", tearing down my house and building a concrete ghetto for me to live in. I wish they would leave me alone, and stop taxing me and pushing me around. They cannot prove that their way of life is in any objective way any better than mine. Why, then, should they be able, in a supposedly free country, to use the power of the state to force their personal preferences on me? I am quite willing to leave them alone.
It may be argued that some people are so poor that they cannot afford housing more attractive-in our opinion- than the housing they presently occupy, and that the government should build so-called "decent" housing for these people. For the time being let us leave aside a discussion of the ways in which modern governments impoverish people-for example, compulsory mis-educa-tion, oppressive taxation, denial of the right to work, and exorbitant tariffs, especially on things like shoes and shirts-in order that we may focus on the distinction between the question of poverty and the question of housing.
If a particular poor person were very much richer he still might not want to change his housing. He may prefer to do other things with his additional wealth or income rather than buy more expensive housing. But whatever he does with his additional wealth, he does precisely that because that gives him more satisfaction than he would derive from any alternative course of action. Some people enjoy hoarding money. I am sure many hon. members have heard of apparently impoverished people who have died, leaving $50,000 or more tucked in a mattress. Many wealthy people choose to live quite modestly. You or I might spend the money differently-if it were ours to spend-in accordance with our respective preferences, but our preferences are not theirs.
If it is really our desire to raise the material standard of living of poor people, rather than push them around and run their lives, then we should abandon the government policies that impoverish them. In place of the present mess of welfare schemes and housing schemes, we should
National Housing Act
give the poor people the cash presently spent on these things and let the poor people spend the cash in the ways that give them the greatest satisfaction. To build our preferred type of housing for the poor people and to hire thousands of bureaucrats to oversee them in these ghettos is wasteful. The amount of waste is the amount of satisfaction the poor people would gain if they could spend the money themselves on what they consider to be their most urgent needs, over and above the amount of satisfaction, if any, they get from living in the poor people's ghettos that we have been building for them.
Some people say that the price of land is too high and that the federal government should adopt certain measures, such as land banking, to lower the price of land. I will argue shortly that although lower land prices may be considered a desirable end, land banking is not a means that will in reality achieve that end. Instead, land banking will raise the price of land.
The market price of land is determined by supply and demand; this is a fact of nature which government cannot change. If government were to impose legal controls on the price of land, it still could not change the market price, the price at which the seller is willing to sell and the buyer is willing to buy. If government decrees that a certain piece of land shall not legally sell for more than $10,000, if the owner is not willing to sell for less than $12,000 and if there is a buyer willing to pay $12,000, then the government's law cannot change the reality that the market price is $12,000. To please the government, the buyer and seller may state on a piece of paper that the exchange price was $10,000, and pass $2,000 under the table. But the government's laws cannot change the reality of the market price. The government's laws may drive discussion of market price out of the legal market place and into the free market, sometimes called the "black market", but the government's laws cannot change the realities of the market. For example, rent controls in New York City failed to control actual rents, the difference between the real rent and the legal rent being passed under the table as "key money".
Through expropriation, government may seize land from some people, paying them less than fair market price, and resell the land to its friends at the expropriation price. But here government has no more lowered the market price of land than a bank robber lowers the market interest rate on loans.
Prices of land are higher now than they have been in years. The main reason for the increases in land prices is the paper money inflation that the federal government has been causing through the Bank of Canada. For years the federal government has been behaving in a way that would have put a private company into bankruptcy long ago: its spending has far exceeded its revenues. It has been unwilling to behave responsibly, to do what is unpleasant, to impose taxes high enough to meet its expenditures or, alternatively, to reduce its expenditures. Instead, hoping in the short run to win popularity with the voters, the government has been doing what no private company can do: it has been using the Bank of Canada to issue paper money to cover its deficits.
But now the unruly economic chickens have come home to roost. All that new paper money has caused a terrible

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
inflation. Like all the other governments that have caused paper money inflations over the past 200 years, this government has tried to blame the inflation on supposedly greedy tradesmen, merchants, and landowners. But we are not fooled! We know that the tradesmen, merchants, and landowners are no more or less greedy than they have been at any other time in history, during inflation or deflation. Human nature stays pretty much the same. We know that the price that a man demands for his labour, goods, or land is not going to be the price he actually gets, unless money is available to pay that price. And the greater the supply of money available, the higher the prices that people demand. And who controls the money supply? Tradesmen? Merchants? Landowners? No, the federal government controls the money supply, through the Bank of Canada.
During periods of inflation increases in land prices usually exceed increases in other prices. It is easy to see why. Even though the federal government preaches much nonsense about inflation, my constituents, especially those who have lived through paper money inflations in other countries, know that even though the government can print money, the government cannot print land. So, to protect their savings from the government's inflation, they buy land. Thus, they want to buy more land than they would want to buy in the absence of the paper money inflation. And so the demand for land is increased disproportionately, and this demand pushes prices up disproportionately. What is the remedy to the problem of rapidly rising land prices? Stop the paper money inflation.
A long time ago the economist Henry George pointed out that the supply of land is fixed by nature; the supply of land cannot be increased. Therefore, the price of land is determined by demand. How can government land banking possibly reduce the price of land? If government goes out to buy land, it increases the total demand for land. To everyone else's demand for land is added government's demand for land. Unless the government plans to use expropriation to selectively seize particular pieces of land from particular people, it can buy land only by out-bidding other buyers, that is to say, driving up the price.
Not only will government land banking not do any good, it will do a great deal of harm. It will drive up land prices. It will be a terrible invitation to corruption; politicians and bureaucrats will be tempted to use the taxpayers' money to overpay for land bought from their friends and will be tempted to sell the so-called "banked" land to other friends at prices below fair market price. And it would give politicians and bureaucrats an increased opportunity to injure their enemies through expropriation.
We would do well to note that when government engages in the selective seizure of land through expropriation, paying less than fair market price, it is not the big corporation but rather the little man, often the small farmer, who suffers most. The little man cannot afford to fight back effectively; he cannot afford to hire the best lawyers; he cannot afford to spend time and money on appeals. And the government knows it. The government knows that in expropriation proceedings it has the little

man at its mercy, and rarely does the government extend him any mercy.
An observation about the effect of the government's paper money inflation on interest rates is relevant. The observation is very simple: inflation of the supply of paper money causes interest rates to rise. Let me illustrate this point with an example. Suppose that in the absence of inflation the market rate of interest is 3 per cent, because 3 per cent is the price at which the amount of money that people are willing to lend equals the amount which people are willing to borrow. For instance, in 1936 the government was able to sell its issue of 3 per cent perpetual bonds to investors who believed in the stability of the dollar. Suppose the government inflates the money supply at a rate which causes price inflation to reach a rate of 5 per cent per year. On the lending side, people will want at least 8 per cent on their money-in order to get their 3 per cent interest plus 5 per cent compensation for inflation. On the borrowing side, people who in the absence of inflation would be willing to pay only 3 per cent are now on the whole willing to pay 8 per cent, which is the original 3 per cent plus the 5 per cent inflation premium. They are willing to pay this amount because they expect that the prices of the goods, labour, or land that they sell will rise with the general inflation. The remedy to high interest rates is the same as the remedy to high and rising land prices: Stop the paper money inflation.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about several things: the need for decentralization of government; the wastefulness of government's spending money to buy things like housing for people rather than letting the people spend the money themselves in the ways that give them, not government bureaucrats, the greatest satisfaction. I have spoken about the foolishness of government land banking, the futility of government attempts to fix market prices and, finally, of the great evil that lies at the root of high land prices and high interest rates, the government's paper money inflation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain that government is not the solution of our problems.


Mr. Coates:: Especially this government.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Government is the problem, especially this government. When we recognize that basic fact, when we recognize that, as Bastiat said over a century ago, the state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else; when we recognize that government, which is simply the power of legal coercion, can destroy but not create, can build nothing of itself but can seize only what others have created; when we recognize that it is folly to think that government can solve our problems for us, when the only resources at the government's disposal are our resources; when we recognize that asking the government to solve our problems will simply result in government's telling us how to live our lives, and enforcing its instructions with its police power; only then, Mr. Speaker, will we have a truly free and prosperous society.
March 22, 1973


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is with very great pleasure that I rise to talk about the amendments to the National Housing Act.
I endorse the efforts of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) of which I am very satisfied. His interventions are very timely since urban concerns are more and more important.
Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding of downtown Toronto. I am an old Torontonian of the fourth or fifth generation. I can say proudly, Mr. Speaker, that my family has been living in downtown Toronto for more that one and a half century.
I am very much aware of the problems of that large Canadian city and I am convinced that the minister's efforts will help solve not only today's complex problems but those of the future of urban living in Canada as well. [English]
I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) with great interest. I was informed, after listening to the hon. gentleman, that possibly we had better all go home, because there is not room for government at all, if I understood him correctly.


Robert Carman Coates: There is no room for this government.


Peter A. Stollery: I compliment the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) for his positive attitude on these amendments to the National Housing Act. This is an enlightened measure and is an alternative to the bulldozer approach, and therefore especially deserving of support. I particularly direct your attention, Sir, to clause 27, to that part called the neighbourhood improvement plan. This is of great importance to areas of downtown Toronto. I believe the most refreshing part is that found in clause 27.1(2)(c). I can imagine the confused consternation of my friends opposite when they learned that the federal government intended to introduce consultation among neighbours who are involved in each urban improvement project.
In the area I represent, Sir, participation has taken on an important aspect. In my riding, Spadina, there is at the moment a conflict over a block called the hydro block. This is an area that was taken over by Ontario Hydro and, because of protests from local residents, the Ontario Housing Corporation took over the block and asked the residents what they would like to have done with it. The residents formed a committee and made exhaustive studies in terms of the physical, social and economic value of the block. They came up with 14 points, most of them reasonable. The provincial minister in charge of Ontario Housing Corporation has yet to respond in a positive way to the neighbours. It is with pleasure that I note the minister has introduced this form of consultation in these amendments to the National Housing Act.
Another important aspect relating to the neighbourhood improvement plan is to be found in other parts of clause 27. There are many excellent implications to this amendment, those involving open space, for example. The federal government will be making a 50 per cent contribution in this regard. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) pointed out the other day that here we have poten-
National Housing Act
tial funding for day-care centres, so important in our urban areas and so neglected by many provincial governments. Also, under this part of the bill there is room for the establishment of neighbourhood recreation centres.
We have heard, during the past few days, members on the other side of the House speaking of their interest in the decaying centre cores of cities. I really wonder if any of those members have ever been in the downtown area of a city, or if their view has been that obtained from a limousine as it proceeded from Bay Street out of town to the country club. Apparently they have no understanding or conception of what it is like to live in the downtown area of a modern Canadian city.
I have heard concern expressed about building maintenance standards. I suggest to you, Sir, that if the city of Toronto building inspectors applied strictly the building bylaws in the riding of Spadina, the aldermen would be in great difficulty. The proponents of capital punishment would have a field day as they hanged the aldermen from city hall. The bylaws are not strictly applied in the city of Toronto. Anyone who knows the area knows that nobody would be crazy enough to apply building bylaws strictly in the downtown area. One of the reasons for the healthiness of downtown Toronto-and contrary to some statements downtown Toronto is certainly not in a state of urban decay-and one of the reasons the city has become famous in this regard has to do with immigrants. In my riding there are people who speak 33 different languages. Over the past 20 years, they have completed probably the largest urban renewal project in the world. We have street after street of sparkling houses; they are old houses made new, privately, without any government help. The only assistance has been from understanding building inspectors. There were probably 2,000 illegal toilets in Toronto. Cellars have been made over. Attics have been fixed up. Extra families have moved in to help with the expense of renovation. It goes on and on and this, I emphasize, should be encouraged. Toronto building inspectors generally apply bylaws sensibly.
All the same, Mr. Speaker, there must be minimum standards, particularly when you deal with conscienceless landlords, of which we have many. The only defence many people in this country have against living in unheated shacks, without windows and with cracks in the ceilings is minimum standards. The areas of northern Ontario where people live in very cold shacks are areas for which no minimum standards are prescribed. This is an important part of the bill before us.
I believe, too, that the neighbourhood improvement program has great implications for the future. Hon. members may recall that in Britain after the war a system of trust houses was established to preserve so-called stately homes. Such a program has application in cities like Toronto where, because of population pressure, land in the downtown area has become expensive. I am thinking, in particular, of an area in Toronto known as The Annex. My great-grandfather was a small contractor who built many solid houses in that neighbourhood. For the benefit of those who do not know Toronto very well, I might say that The Annexe is an area around Avenue Road and Bloor; it was incorporated into the City of

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
Toronto about 1900. In the 'seventies it was an area of market gardeners. Members of my family still live there in a house built by my great-grandfather in the 'eighties. Land there now has tremendous value. I know of a case where a house with a 25-foot frontage and no great depth sold five years ago for $86,000.
I suggest that the program called the trust system could be applied to downtown areas such as The Annex. These are gracious streets. They contribute to the urban life of those who are obliged through economic circumstances to live in our cities. They are areas which should not be destroyed. Yet who can really say it is wise on economic grounds to continue to live in a house, a modest house when built, a nine-roomed house, which today has a market value of $100,000? There is no economic justification for it. The reason can only be that it contributes to the wellbeing of the citizens generally. So I see in the neighbourhood improvement plan the possibility of freezing some of these areas and preserving some of the amenities for the sake of the wellbeing of the citizens in general. I hope we may come to accept the concept of people living in a house in trust, a house owned, really, by the community as a whole. Whether we like it or not, I believe we are moving in this direction toward the establishment of what I call trust neighbourhoods.
The bill we are considering is not an answer to all the housing needs of Canadians. I agree with the submission of the Metro-Toronto Housing Task Force that the amount of forgiveable loan toward the rehabilitation of older housing stock should be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 in the case of low income families. I am concerned that middle-income groups, professional people, may move into too many improved houses downtown, thereby reducing the number of houses available to lower income groups whose possibility of movement is far less than those with higher incomes.
Some of the hyperbole emanating from the other side of this chamber in the past few days has really been fantastic. If I did not know better I would say it came from people who were engaged in the land speculating business. Last Thursday, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) used excruciatingly exaggerated figures about the cost of a house in Toronto. He said the cheapest house one could buy today cost $35,000. Where did he get that figure? He says he got it from the Urban Development Institute. This, I think, is indicative. The Urban Development Institute is an association of apartment builders who have direct financial interest in overstating the price of the average house because it is in their interest to demolish houses and build apartments. The Metro-Toronto Task force and the Social Planning council list the price of a house in Toronto at $25,000, $10,000 less than the figure quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North.
After giving us the figure provided to him by people in the apartment construction business, the hon. member proceeded to tell us that every Canadian was "entitled to a home with a landscape." I wonder what kind of landscape he would get from the twentieth floor of an apartment building. I would call it an airscape, certainly not a landscape. The phrase reminded me of a speech I have read- was it made in Louisana?-promising "a chicken in every

pot". The average Canadian will not buy that kind of nonsense.
I take pleasure in associating myself with the minister in supporting the bill, and in associating myself with the brief that was presented by the Metro Toronto Housing Task Force. The brief states that Bill C-133 indicates a new direction for housing policy in this country. Incidentally, this task force was comprised of a group of 100 people specializing in housing needs in densely populated urban areas. The brief goes on to state that the task force "welcomes these initiatives and considers them a forward step in the provision of adequate housing for all Canadians".


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to sit in this House and listen to members on the other side pretending to be interested in the housing problems we face in Canada. It is these same people who allowed this situation to develop, refusing to take any concrete action to deal with the various recommendations and reports made to the government during the last five years I have been in this House. These same people are now talking about the need for new housing legislation and decrying the problem being experienced by people of low and middle income. They are pretending to be concerned and to take an interest in what is happening.
I was amused to hear the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) talk a moment ago of the need for more and better housing in his riding. He took issue with the statement of my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), concerning the average cost of a house in Toronto. The hon. member opposite stated that rather than $35,000 being the average price, $25,000 would be a more realistic figure. It seems to me that the hon. member must have his wires crossed, because I am getting signals back, and have been for some time, that to buy a building lot in Toronto would probably set one back as much as $18,000 or more. So I am at a loss to understand where the hon. member gets his figure of $25,000 as being the average cost of a house in Toronto. Indeed, in my own city of St. John's, Newfoundland, this figure would be considered to be very low. I do not have the exact figure here, but I would be willing to bet that the average cost of a home in St. John's, Newfoundland, would exceed the amount of money mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina.
In rising to speak on this bill, I should like to say I have certain reservations about it. The last time that this legislation came before the House, the government called an election before it had a chance of being passed. In speaking on this bill today, I am wondering whether the government will pull the rug out from under my feet, or whether the walls of the building will collapse, or, better still, perhaps the government will be enticed to call a new election. Certainly, they might be tempted to do anything that would stall implementation of the new policy on housing announced by the government, as reflected in these amendments.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has stated on many occasions that the amendments now being debated by the House represent the most progres-
March 22, 1973

sive social housing legislation to be undertaken to date by this government. I find it interesting to speculate on what might be happening. Are we so bold as to suspect that the thrust of these amendments may indicate a change in the preoccupation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with dwelling starts rather than with the actual social implications of the lack of a housing policy? We have all become aware that this financially and architecturally oriented institution appears to be more concerned about the number of houses being started, than about the actual housing problems facing the Canadian people, especially those who unfortunately are in the middle and low income brackets. It is refreshing again to speculate that perhaps this financially and architecturally oriented institution is about to be transformed into a sensitive social agency engaged in the development of new communities, the improvement of existing neighbourhoods, and the rehabilitation of existing substandard housing.
One area where I contend that this government and CMHC have completely fallen down is in the rehabilitation of existing neighbourhoods. We have all observed the effect of the bulldozer technique. We went through a period when the bulldozer seemed to be the answer to all of our housing problems-the answer to the large number of substandard housing units and substandard neighbourhoods that exist in this country. Now, of course, the government has realized that the bulldozer is not the answer, that perhaps rehabilitation does have a part to play in helping to solve the very serious and critical housing problems that exist today.
Again in my city of St. John's, there was a time back in the middle sixties when the government built up great expectations by designating areas for urban renewal schemes and urban renewal studies. Although great things were promised and great studies were undertaken, I am afraid very little action followed. This was because it was obvious then, as it is obvious now, that the bulldozer is not the answer; indeed it is far from the answer. Rehabilitation, a more sensitive attitude, a more humane approach to the problems of people living in older existing neighbourhoods, were what were required, rather than the so-called bulldozer technique and urban renewal studies undertaken during this period by the government and CMHC.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is, of course, the federal government's housing arm. But how can this agency presume to be effective when it continues to classify the Dennis report on low income housing as confidential, with distribution restricted to within CMHC? I have been told-and I hope that the minister will make a note of this-that the library at CMHC does not even have a reference copy of the Dennis report. How can that agency expect its staff to be aware of the social implications of the housing policy? This repressive attitude toward the control of information is unthinkable. This is ridiculous when you consider that the Dennis report is on sale in every bookstore in the country, but there is not even a copy of it in the CMHC library.
It is interesting to note the position with respect to the staff of CMHC. On October 3, 1972, the present minister promised that CMHC senior personnel would be replaced
National Housing Act
by those possessing skills more compatable to implementing social policy. It is ridiculous when you realize that the present president of CMHC, Mr. Hignett, continues to function in that role two years after his formal resignation. The president of CMHC, whose responsibility it is to give direction to Central Mortgage to implement the government's policy with respect to housing, continues to fill that role two years after he indicated to the government that he wished to retire from his position.
In the past year, there has been no change in the senior personnel of CMHC. Recent vacancies in the middle level have been filled from the present management complement. In other words, there has been absolutely no new blood injected into CMHC. Therefore, how can we expect that agency to operate under a president who has indicated his interest, desire, willingness and anxiety to retire and with no new personnel involved in the policy making or administration of CMHC, where vacancies are filled by people in the lower echelon of the corporation without new personnel or new blood being injected into the corporation? The minister will probably say that such changes are coming. He will probably tell the House that new appointments are to be made.
Perhaps a new president of CMHC will be appointed. Perhaps new personnel on the policy making level will be appointed, but these appointments should have been made before this legislation was introduced. These appointments should have been made prior to the implementation of these proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, especially when they are purported to constitute the government's presence in social housing legislation. I am not aware of any attempt having been made by the government or CMHC to change their attitude with respect to housing or talents. CMHC appears to have failed in its attempt to attract young people who are trained in the social science skills which a person working in that corporation requires.
The open hostility that exists between the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and CMHC's policy development unit has resulted in a sad waste of talent and expertise. This country cannot afford to suffer any longer from the minister's failure to define responsibilities. Either the minister should create a department of housing and urban affairs or he should let CMHC get on with its job. At any rate, this is a very serious problem that exists in Canada with respect to housing.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not make reference to a situation that exists in my constituency. It is relative to CMHC and the government's formal policy of urban renewal. In the west end of my constituency, there is an area that is referred to as Mundy Pond. The government undertook a comprehensive program of urban renewal in this area. The program was announced with a great deal of flurry and fanfare. A great many promises were made to the people who live in that section of St. John's West. When the program was probably a little more than half completed, because of the escalation of costs, prices and contracts, the funds ran out. There was not sufficient money to complete the program as envisaged by the government and promised to the people of that area.
I understand that last year a group known as the Mundy Pond House Owners Association made representations to

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
the minister with a view to acquiring additional funds to enable them to complete the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme. I also understand that their request for additional funds was refused. This situation is a little ridiculous. The federal government saw fit to spend a large sum of money on this project and then refused to advance sufficient funds to enable the municipal and provincial governments to complete the job. The Mundy Pond area is probably typical of a large number of under-privileged substandard have-not areas in this country. It consists of people who are on the bottom half of the income ladder. Their income is far below the national average. Indeed, it is so low that without direct government assistance from the municipal and provincial governments, they cannot hope to attain the standard to which most Canadians have become accustomed and to which they are entitled.
These people have been forced to live and raise their families under conditions which in most parts of Canada would be looked upon as being far below the normal standard. Indeed, it would be unthinkable to expect these people to live and raise their families under the conditions which prevailed in that area prior to the commencement of the urban renewal scheme, yet this government refused to acknowledge its responsibility to complete the project as promised, to complete it in a manner that is consistent with that which is expected by all Canadians. This would be by providing decent and sanitary conditions under which they can live and raise their families. I would urge the minister to give some serious thought to the request of the people of Mundy Pond who are not asking for anything except the opportunity to complete the job in accordance with the promise of the government in respect of the urban renewal scheme that was started there some years ago.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question for the sake of the record?


Walter C. Carter: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would just ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is clear on the record whether or not the hon. member is aware that on Monday this week I had a meeting raising with the mayor of St. John's and the provincial minister of municipal affairs for Newfoundland in respect of the very problem he is raising. We discussed the matter he is now mentioning and we are considering the requests of the mayor and the provincial minister.


Walter C. Carter: I am aware of the fact that the mayor of St. John's and the provincial minister of urban affairs came to Ottawa to talk to the minister. I am aware also that more than a year ago a delegation came to Ottawa, before the minister assumed his present portfolio. This was a delegation from the Mundy Pond Householder's Association. They spoke to officials at CMHC and I believe the former minister. At that time their request was flatly refused. I hope the minister will find it possible to accede to their request and make sure that the scheme started by the government will be realized.
We find, Mr. Speaker, that there are very serious problems in housing in many parts of this country where neighbourhoods are being allowed to deteriorate almost

to the point of no return because there is insufficient interest and lack of funds provided by the government and CMHC to enable the neighbourhoods and older properties in our cities to be rehabilitated. While I do not wish to take away from some of the benefits in this new legislation, and while I do not want to downgrade the minister in respect of his efforts to bring about some kind of improvement in the housing legislation, I hope that his obvious interest will be reflected in the attitude of officials at CMHC, at the grassroots level, who will be required to administer the policies presented to the House by the minister.
I hope it will be possible for CMHC to develop a better liaison between its officials and the people whom they represent because I find in my city-and I suppose this may be typical of the situation in most cities-that the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation appear to have adopted an attitude of being holier than thou, sitting in an ivory tower on their high pedestals. They do not get down to the level of the average people in our cities and provinces in respect of housing. I hope a better liaison can be developed between the officials of CMHC and the people in our cities who go to them for advice and help in respect of their housing problems.
With regard to the development of land, we all know that the cost of serviced building lots has reached a point where it is almost unrealistic for a person to endeavour to buy a lot on which to build a home. I contend that this problem has arisen because of the fact that there is an inadequate supply of serviced building lots in our cities. At the present time in the city of St. John's, the price of a building lot is anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000. I can think back to a time in the early and mid-1960's when, because of a land assembly program undertaken by the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, building lots were selling at a reasonable price. Less than ten years ago one could buy a building lot in St. John's, Newfoundland for under $5,000. Today, because of the scarcity of serviced building lots, it is impossible to purchase a building lot for less than $10,000. Therefore I urge the minister to be very sympathetic and to be very generous in respect of our provincial and municipal authorities in their efforts to provide land assembly projects, which I contend would have the effect of lowering the over-all cost of building lots.
I would also strongly recommend to the minister and to the government that the minister endeavour to impress upon his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the need to abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This is something which I consider to be overdue. A government which pretends to be interested in the housing problems of our country, a government which pretends to be interested in the lot of the salaried blue-collar Canadians in this country, surely should start putting its money where its mouth is, to use an old cliche. I believe one way to do it is to abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials which would make new home ownership more accessible to the average low salaried person in our country today.
I am impressed by certain aspects of this legislation which I think are good. I believe the idea of encouraging co-operative housing is good. Certainly, the plan in
March 22, 1973

respect of developing and improving neighbourhoods is excellent. It should be pursued and taken advantage of by our cities and municipalities. I am encouraged by the new awareness shown by this government with regard to cooperative housing. This is one way in which people can roll up their shirt sleeves and hopefully solve their own housing problems. I commend the government for the initiative it has taken in this area.
In closing, I would again impress upon the minister and upon the House the need to complete the urban renewal schemes which were undertaken by the government. Particularly, in my case, I would commend to the minister the Mundy Pond renewal scheme. I hope he will be able to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that additional money is necessary to undertake the completion of that scheme as promised by CMHC. I hope they will allocate more funds and make more money available for the development of land, perhaps for the provision of land banks, call it what you want, but certainly I think we should do something to develop more building lots. I think this would have the effect of keeping prices down because the old law of supply and demand will prevail with respect to housing, just as it does to everything else. It is quite obvious that some definite action must be taken, some definite policy adopted, to bring about an end to the cruel and inhuman way in which a large number of our citizens are being treated.
There are certain parts of my riding where the conditions under which some people have to live are quite incredible in this day when we brag about the so-called just society and when we hear such slogans as "the land is strong". In some areas we see people living in substandard houses, and not far away from them we find people living in great luxury, people who can afford to drive expensive motor cars and who live in homes that are beyond the wildest dreams of most people. There is great unfairness and inequity in the fact that some people are forced to live in substandard conditions while others live in the lap of luxury. I contend that it is the responsibility of this government, and indeed of any government, to ensure that our people are given a chance to live and raise their families in decent houses.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and in the few moments left to me this afternoon I want to make one or two observations about an aspect of the bill which I think will be of advantage to the preservation of the character of existing neighbourhoods in large urban centres. I see the provisions of this bill respecting loans to facilitate home ownership, the neighbourhood improvement program, and the residential rehabilitation assistance program as providing a bulk-ward against mindless redevelopment of the kind which has been going on all too frequently in a city like Toronto. Certainly, in my constituency of Lakeshore, which consists in large part of older homes, the provisions of this bill will, I hope, enable residents to maintain and preserve those homes and prevent this part of Toronto from being overrun by, as I say, the mindless redevelopment which is taking place in so many other parts of the city.
National Housing Act
Moreover, if that redevelopment can be forestalled and prevented and if the neighbourhoods can be preserved, those younger people who have grown up in that area, in that community, will, I hope, under the provisions of this bill find it somewhat easier to buy older homes in their neighbourhood. This would provide to that neighbourhood and that community another generation of community leadership which will, I fear, be lost if younger families must move farther and farther out of the older parts of the city into the suburbs in order to find housing at prices they can afford.
I hope, therefore, that when this bill gets to committee the minister will be in a position to provide us with more information than has been forthcoming so far. We will then be able to get some assurances that, for example, this bill will apply equally to existing as to new housing stock. Perhaps we can get some more concrete figures as to the income ranges to which the provisions of this bill will apply because I want to put in a word for those modest income families which comprise the great bulk of constituencies like my own and for whom, up to now, there has been not much in the way of assistance to enable them to own and preserve their own homes.
I would like from the minister, when we get into committee, some of the details which are apparently left to regulation at the present time. I would like to have some idea of what kind of assistance will be provided by the government by way of grants to enable families to maintain their monthly payments within tolerable limits. I hope that details of this kind will be tied to the act in such a way as to make sure that families in the modest income range will be able to benefit from its provisions. I do not want for a moment to deny the necessity of providing better housing for families in low income ranges, but I sometimes have the feeling that those in slightly better circumstances in the modest income ranges are overlooked in the drafting of legislation of this kind. I am disturbed at the suggestion-and I have heard it-that housing costs in a city like Toronto might be such as to render this program largely inoperative. Again, when the minister is before the committee I hope he can give us assurances that the kinds of income ranges and levels of assistance envisaged under this act will be such that residents of constituencies like Lakeshore, and there are many similar to it, will be able to benefit from the provisions of the act.
May I say in conclusion that there is in my riding a neighbourhood known as Laburnham which, over the last year and a half, has seen co-operation between the municipality and the residents of the area in designing a redevelopment program which preserves the character of the neighbourhood and which can greatly benefit, I hope, from the provisions of this bill. It is in the hope that not only that neighbourhood but others like it will in the future be preserved that I lend my support at this time to this bill.

Public Service



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1973

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-Oil-Wreck of the Irving Whale-Possible source of pollution; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. Mac-Kay)-Regional Economic Expansion-Activities of professional DREE counsellors-Government action: the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)- Manpower-Local Initiatives Program-Inquiry respecting grant to "Centre Epic", Montreal.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to tne consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions, Papers.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for the tabling of the Report of the Legislation Review Committee, chaired by John G. Bryden.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the brief 20 minutes I have before me I should like to deal at the outset with perhaps one or two of the historical aspects that have led up to this position of stubbornness on the part of the government with respect to this most important report. A review of the historical aspects of something is important in the context of lapsed time between the acceptance of certain principles and their full implementation. No matter what we create it must be nurtured, fed and tended if it is to grow and expand, to keep pace with the growing demands of its day and environment.
I have ample evidence to suggest that in the immediate post-World War II period, employees of government began to feel strongly the changes of altered circumstances. The two paramount questions facing this House, the government, and indeed the country with respect to public employees were the twin questions of veterans preference, and the need to accommodate a greater linguistic balance within the public service. The Fair Employment Practices Act of some 20 years ago was another area that required change.
These matters preoccupied governments and the old Civil Service Association for a period of seven or eight years. As early as 1953, it was apparent to the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, that further changes were absolutely necessary, changes which in his view had to be sweeping and all-embracing. They would

encompass major changes in concepts of government-employee relationships, and they were changes which he knew would be vigorously opposed by the Civil Service Commission of those days, indeed it might be said by the entrenched Civil Service Commission of those days. But he knew that changes had to come about if government and its growing civil service staff throughout the country were to function adequately. From this awareness on the part of the Prime Minister came the ground rules for what was to evolve during the next 12 to 14 years, during the days of the so-called 1954 secret committee and the Heeney Report, which will certainly be easily recalled by some distinguished members of this Chamber.
There was a reluctance in the early stages of committee meetings on the part of some members of the Civil Service Commission to look ahead. At that time there was a lukewarm chairman of the commission, and indeed Mr. Bryce expressed the fear that if changes did not come about quickly it might well be many years before sweeping conceptual changes could be brought about with respect to the public service. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, his fears were well founded. It was some years before anything was accomplished. Indeed, some 14 years went by, and it was not until 1967 that change really came to the fore, although this is not to say that work was not being done during that time. A strong appeal has been made by opposition members during the last two years for the tabling or the release of the Bryden Committee Report. When undue delays occur in connection with something as complex as the rules and guidelines within which the public service operates, then there is great fear of entrenchment, of immobility on the part of governments, and of over-familiarity with known routines. A stance is adopted against making any movement. It is this which concerns us deeply.
As I say, it took 14 years before any basic changes were made. With the experience we have gained over the last five years, we have all the evidence that is necessary for any government, or any parliament, in order for it to institute an extension or a furtherance of the changes that were begun five years ago. There is recognizable merit in moving slowly in such complex areas as the relationships between a government and its employees. You have to be certain of the full consequences of change before making change. But caution should not result in procrastination in bringing about the many changes that are so necessary. What we are simply saying is that what has been done to this point in time has been good, but it is now time to do more with respect to the regulations under which governmental employees function.
The concept of full bargaining rights, although long shunned by the public service, particularly by certain levels within it, is now fully acceptable. Their fears have long since been abandoned. We have accepted that the changes made five years ago were good, and we know that further measures must now be taken. Numerous settlements arrived at over the last five years support that contention. The time in which settlements were arrived at has shortened.
About two years ago, probably in anticipation of the necessity to make further changes, the government asked Mr. John G. Bryden to review the two main legislative
March 22, 1973

acts in this area, not with a view necessarily to making recommendations to the government but in the context of their usefulness. Some of my colleagues will speak about the understandings that existed at that time with respect to what was going to happen to his report.
The point I would like to develop is that, apart from any recommendations it may contain, the report itself is of the greatest importance not only to the members of this House but to the members of the Public Service Alliance, to the Professional Institute of the Public Service, to the Union of National Defence Employees, and to all other public service groups in Canada. To keep the report hidden at this point in time is unreasonable. The government has had it in its possession for a year and a half, or two years. Surely, the government now knows what its position will be. Why does it not release the report so that other concerned people can decide, on the basis of the information it contains, what amendments should be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and to the Public Service Employment Act?
I have difficulty in understanding why the government will only go so far as to say that, when it is ready to introduce amendments, it will reconsider its position with respect to the tabling of the report. This makes no sense to anyone who wants the benefit of the informed views of Mr. Bryden. It is clear that at present there are not full collective bargaining rights. I am not necessarily trying to find a reason why the government will not table the report but rather I am trying, in a brief manner and not too casually, to reason why the report should be published.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is not full collective bargaining rights for the public service at the present time. Section 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act reads:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the right or authority of the employer to determine the organization of the Public Service and to assign duties to and classify positions therein .. . thus eliminating any right of the employee or an agent of any group from negotiating with the employer standards, procedure and processes governing classification of an assignment of duties to positions, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers, lay-offs, reassignment and releases.
The whole spectrum is removed from the parameters of collective bargaining and collective bargaining cannot be fully enforced unless it is total. If a thing is arbitrable it should be negotiable and vice versa, but that is not the case.
With each new agreement we see the difficulty that various groups are having in choosing the arbitration route over the conciliation and strike route. Anyone who has followed collective bargaining in the public service is aware of the difficulties that seem to be growing. There is the increasing irritant of the absence of relief procedures, and failure to provide for adjudication procedures for classification, grievances. The confusion that arises leads to difficulty and some of this may arise from the fact that we have three quasi-judicial bodies involved in these matters-the PSSRA for adjudication, the Treasury Board for classification and the Public Service Commission for appeal purposes.
Public Service
It is no wonder that PIPS has called for the establishment of a ministry for the public service. We have a whole area of exclusions which should have been looked at long ago. Indeed, some considerable merit must attach to the thinking of the Alliance in its call for a classification review board within but separate from the Public Service Commission. This could well take the form suggested by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in Montreal a few weeks ago when he referred to areas of discrimination, for example, with respect to language-in any event, identifiable areas of discrimination. Possibly this is a reason we should have an independent national human rights commission in this country.
Government is no longer a unique employer in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and it can no longer set itself apart from the other large employers. The relationships between governments and their employees are so complex, so professional that a minister of the Crown must accept his responsibility to the people of Canada and the people who are employed in his departments, specifically or generally. I suspect that we may find something to this effect in the Bryden report when it comes before us. Government cannot continue as its own judge and jury; as the country's largest employer it must accept responsibility for leadership in the area of human rights and in many other areas. It must allow its employees access to grievance procedures, and, where discrimination is involved, to an independent human rights commission.
Lest I go too far into a rambling, somewhat philosophic dissertation, let me make some reference to the need to consider extension of some form of involvement in the decision-making processes respecting working conditions for the staffs of our own House of Commons, the Senate and the Governor General, for example. Many years ago when this matter was being debated my friend from Winnipeg wondered why this, the epitome of democracy, denied its employees one of the fundamental rights of a democratic society, the right to collectively form their views and express them to their employer. Perhaps someone in government should at least find out whether our employees would like to be organized. There are ways to do this which would assure the confidentiality of their views as individuals, whilst permitting their collective position to be known.
A lot of things are going to happen shortly which will highlight the necessity for government action. There is a very real belief that some 50,000 public employees in this country have the fundamental right to wage parity. Since 1934, we have been labouring under an archaic unprincipled philosophy of prevailing rates; that is to say, rates paid to government employees are on a par with similar job classifications in the surrounding area. It is difficult to believe that any government would maintain this unfair and unjust treatment of employees in the public service. The public service and Crown corporations ought to pay the same wages in Victoria as in St. John's, Newfoundland, in Halifax as in Winnipeg, Calgary or Toronto. Why is it that 50,000 public servants, 35,000 of whom are civilian employees with the Department of National Defence, can have a job in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and be paid $1.85 less than the rate in Vancouver for the same type of work? How do we expect to achieve national unity and avoid divisiveness unless government accepts the respon-

March 22, 1973
Public Service
sibility for taking the lead? We cannot have national unity when a machinist in the dockyard in Halifax is getting $1.05 less than a machinist in Esquimalt. This condition will persist as long as this government operates in secrecy, behind the screen of confidential reports. If I had my way I would reduce to one dollar every fee paid for consultants reports by every department of government so long as those reports remain confidential and are not made available to Members of Parliament.
Let us get on with the necessary changes in the Public Service of Canada, and let us do this by looking at the Bryden report. What is in it that makes the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) afraid to release it? Neither the President of the Privy Council nor the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is in the chamber, and perhaps this is an indication of their interest in what is going on and a measure of the true interest of the government in this matter. That is how they show their interest in the people who are true and loyal servants of the people of Canada.
Mr. ]ean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the question of staff relations in the public service as well as the Public Service Employment Act. This subject is of fundamental importance for a member of this House representing a riding such as mine located in the shadow of the Peace Tower.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I think we are in a position of guessing with respect to the Bryden report because I do not know more about it than they do. I feel that the Bryden report has no special status among the many reports that are continuously prepared by officials and others for the benefit of the government in power to help them make enlightened decisions to administer this country with efficiency. Some will suggest that the government has neither the right nor the privilege to commission or have prepared any report liable to throw light on any important question and I am sure that by appointing a three-member committee presided, I was told, by the minister responsible, this government wanted to keep it self up-to-date on the possible amendments to the legislation governing federal civil servants.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the way which I think bargaining could be carried on between employers and employees in the public service. It will be remembered that the government announced in the Speech from the Throne that it would introduce amendments to the Public Service Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Numerous favourable comments have been made in the press since last January 4. I think the public servants' optimism is justified in that field.
Obviously, the government does not intend to bring major amendments to the Public Service Act before having consultations with union leaders, with whom it will have discussions beforehand.
For many months-even many years I am told-since 1971, I think the Bryden report has been prepared; the

opposition has asked that it be tabled in the House. Many questions have been put on the order paper, including one by the hon. member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), namely question No. 148 asking the government if it intends to publish the Bryden report, and if so when, if not why.
I believe that this request is only the last of many others that have been made in this connection in the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) replied on that occasion that the drafting of the Bryden report was subject to the condition that the document was internal and confidential and for the exclusive use of the department through which the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to Parliament. This is why it has not been made public. However, when the bill to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act is introduced in the House, the government will decide, after looking at the situation, whether public interest makes it necessary to publish that report.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) also replied to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, on January 12, 1973, "that the Bryden committee report had been submitted to the government for its advice", adding that "it was not intended upon the setting of the committee that the report would be made a public document".
Mr. Speaker, it should be desired to promote harmonious and productive relations between the employer and employee associations. On the other hand, I believe that the government is entitled to have studies and reports prepared in order to throw light on a situation and to provide for any contingency. Otherwise, people could charge the government with not availing itself of the tools that can be supplied by expert officials.
Nowadays, public men often pay more attention to the patterns of a policy than to the policy itself, and I believe that we should realize it is essential, before setting objectives-and that is the way I do define the word policy-to gather evidence and to avail ourselves of the expertise of the professional people in the public service.

In 1966, the government undertook to provide for the public servants of Canada a system of collective bargaining. Since public servants did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act administered by the Department of Labour and the Canada Labour Relations Board, nor under the several provincial statutes administered by the respective provincial departments of labour and provincial labour relations boards, it became necessary to introduce legislation to provide for such a system.
On April 25, 1966, the late Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, the then prime minister, moved the following resolution, as recorded on page 4242 of Hansard:
That is it expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of collective bargaining applicable to employees in the public service of Canada and for the resolution of disputes that may arise in the negotiation or conclusion of collective agreements applicable to such employees; to establish a process for the presentation of grievances of employees arising in connection with their employment and to establish a system for the adjudication of grievances of employees; to provide for the
March 22, 1973

establishment of a board, to be known as the Public Service Staff Relations Board, which shall be responsible for the administration of the said measure and to provide further for the constitution and appointment of such other authorities, officers and employees as are required in connection with the administration of the said measure.
The then prime minister went on to say, as recorded at page 4244 of Hansard for April 25, 1966:
In developing this new legislation the government has had certain general objectives in mind: First, to protect the public interest; second, to respond in an understanding and responsible manner to the aims and aspirations of its organized employees; third, to preserve the capacity of the public service to function efficiently in serving the people of Canada and, fourth, to respect the principles underlying industrial relations law and practice in Canada.

It is an acknowledged fact that the passage, in 1967, of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and of the Public Service Employment Act was a real breakthrough in the field of hiring and staff relations practices in the public service. Better still, these acts have been recognized as models of their kind and many other countries have seen fit to copy them and sent representatives here to study them. These pieces of legislation have drawn the world's attention, and I understand that the delegates who have been observing their application in Canada found them in most cases forward-looking, original and progressive.

In many ways the Public Service Staff Relations Act has achieved the objectives that were expressed in 1966 by the then prime minister. Although the legislation has been in effect for less than six years, over 300 collective agreements have been concluded by direct negotiation. There were at least 300 collective bargaining agreements and only five were settled by the strike route. I think this is a good record. Nevertheless, the government does not take a nonchalant attitude toward strikes in the public service. On the contrary, the government is acutely aware of the impact of public service strikes and is most anxious to assure that every reasonable effort is made to conclude collective agreements with its employees without disruption of service.
Moreover, the government has undertaken a review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In announcing the review, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), through whom the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to parliament, said:
The system of collective bargaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act has been functioning for almost four years and sufficient experience has been gained to warrant an analysis and assessment of the act at this time. All interested parties including employee organizations and government agencies and departments, will be invited to express their views and recommendations in writing. The intention is to provide a vehicle whereby the views of interested parties can be co-ordinated and assessed in order that the government may clearly identify areas of concern and determine if revision of the act is required.
This was at the beginning of the Bryden committee hearings.
Public Service

In my opinion, there should be a will to promote harmonious and productive relations between the employer and employee associations. This assumption does not negate in the least any possible conflicts. On the contrary, it should be admitted that disputes and conflicts will arise even under a sound system, but they reflect the positive climate that should prevail between the employer and employee representatives.
The settlement of conflicts between employers and employees depends largely on the spirit which will prevail during the resolution of those disputes. It is important that the legislation governing collective bargaining within the public service make it possible to settle disputes so that both parties involved may reach a satisfactory agreement which, through the solution of those problems, will reflect a responsible attitude.
However, let us not forget the major responsibility of the government and its employees which is to ensure an efficient service that meets the needs adequately. No staff relations system within the public service can be satisfactory if it does not take into account the legitimate and reasonable interests not only of the Canadian public but also those of the public servants.

On numerous occasions the government has expressed its intentions in regard to personnel relations. For example, on September 21, 1972, in an open letter to Mr. Barnes the executive director of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
In answer to your letter of September 6 setting out a number of questions of concern to the members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, let me assure you that the government is prepared to reconsider any legislation, on the basis of experience. As you know, the government and the Liberal Party have received numerous and varied expressions of opinion on the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act to which you have referred.
In regard to the Public Service Superannuation Act, you request my views relating to a full escalation formula which would maintain the relative value of pensioners' incomes when compared to those of persons continuing in the employ of the public service.

Mr. Speaker, the government is open to collective bargaining and intends to consider closely advantages which could result from amendments.
Because my time seems to be nearly up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back to one of my hon. colleague's remarks to the effect that there had been an effort to bring about linguistic balance in the public service. I am not aware whether the Bryden report deals with bilingualism; since my colleague mentioned it, I can do so as well. I believe he spoke of historical objectives and linguistic balance. Linguistic balance, Mr. Speaker, is something we must achieve. We are working to that end. It is an important measure, necessarily involving many difficulties, but it is an absolute objective for the public service, which is a bilingual institution.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on a matter that I consider to be of great importance to this country, that of institutional bilingualism. Bilingualism in

March 22, 1973
Public Service
the public service is recognized to be a deserving cause, and I would remind you that this is stated very clearly in section 2 of the Official Languages Act. To quote:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada...
The act also compels every federal department and agency to serve the public in both languages, not only in the national capital but in any area where there is a significant demand for this service.
In my opinion, it follows quite clearly from this that the government and the public service must make sure that the qualifications for some jobs include theoretical and practical knowledge of both official languages, French and English, so as to attain the objective of institutional bilingualism.
It is worth reminding the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Languages Act, which all parties supported in 1969, was intended as a tangible and concrete sequel to the original statement by the late right hon. Mr. Pearson in 1966, which was repeated by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The government and, in my opinion, the public service too, have remained conscious of these objectives and of the principles of justice and equity that must prevail, and have laid down guidelines along which the administration is to be brought to implement the principles I have just mentioned.
There can be no doubt that in such a complex and critical undertaking, these guidelines are open to different interpretations so that very often, unless we use all our goodwill to understand them correctly, they may give rise to misgivings that are not altogether justified.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a short paragraph from an article published in Le Droit on October 27, 1972, signed by Mr. Alain Duhamel and dealing with bilingualism, staff relations and the public service in general, and more particularly with negotiations concerning working conditions. Mr. Duhamel says, and I quote:
By dealing only or almost exclusively with bilingualism in the public service, area candidates dwelled on the most visible component of the climate of concern among public servants. It is unfortunate that the debate at the constituency level did not cover all the other aspects of the relationship between the government and its employees.
Bilingualism may have been one of the most discussed topics here in the last two years, and with good reason. There were calls for justice and for several other things. I am still wondering whether the complaints were founded. On reading Mr. Spicer's annual report, one would think that the other side should have complained instead of the one which claimed to have cause for alarm. I could read excerpts from Mr. Spicer's report on the matter, but it might be preferable to postpone that till later.
One thing interests me greatly: we must now tackle an important question, that of working conditions in the civil service, labour relations and employment criteria. It would seem that the government wishes to negotiate, review and perhaps change the law with a view to giving civil servants some recognition in the field of employ-

ment, vested rights, and the laws they are entitled to, in order to enable them to become first class employees- which they are-to be treated as such in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I observe there are one or two members who wish to speak so I shall make my remarks very brief. May I say it is not my intention to raise a point of order, but I do wish that we in this House were in order at this time. Because there is a Standing Order about a quorum, I hope that something might be done to make sure that we do have enough members here. It would be a shame to have this House adjourn, in view of the important business that is before us tonight, as I am not formally raising a point of order.
The motion before us is very simple and direct: it calls for the tabling of the Bryden report. I have on the order paper a similar motion which was debated a week ago, and therefore my support for this motion is very clear. I go along with the arguments made this afternoon by the mover of the motion before us today for this report to be tabled.
It seems to me that the public service and also parliament have the right to know what is in the Bryden report, which was made after an examination of the whole question of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. However, the debate this afternoon has only touched on that issue now and then: it has ranged over the whole question of the adequacy of our personnel relations and of the legislation governing the public service, so I want to say a word or two on that matter. Since I did not raise the other point of order to which I referred, I hope that no one will raise a point of order against my straying a little from the precise subject matter of the motion.
I feel that the time has come for the government to take a closer look at some of the grievances and complaints made by public servants. The whole question of how collective bargaining is working needs to be reviewed. In particular, the complaints that public servants have about certain matters relating to pensions should be given much more active consideration than they are receiving at the present time. Many improvements to the Public Service Superannuation Act itself need to be made. Then there is the burning question of the escalation of pensions after retirement which, in the case of public servants, is still limited to an annual increase of 2 per cent whereas in some other categories that limit has been removed. These are matters that ought to be dealt with without delay.
I want also to make a point regarding our employees in this very building. The hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) correctly recounted some of the history behind the Public Service Staff Relations Act. He pointed out that under the direction of the late Mr. Pearson a bill was brought in and referred to a special committee. I remind him and the House that when that committee reported on the Public Service Staff Relations Act, it made a recommendation to the effect that something comparable should be established for employees of the House of Commons, the other place and the Library of Parliament.
As the hon. member for Ottawa East pointed out, prior to the passing of the Public Service Staff Relations Act
March 22, 1973

the only collective bargaining that we had in the federal field was that provided by what is now part V of the Canada Labour Code. But that did not cover public servants. Now we have the Public Service Staff Relations Act which does cover public servants-those who are, in effect, engaged by Treasury Board-but no such collective bargaining legislation covers employees of the House of Commons, the other place and the Library of Parliament. Their immediate employers seem to be the Commissioners of Internal Economy. Just as there is a Public Service Staff Relations Act to regulate labour relations between Treasury Board and public servants, in 1966, I believe it was, or perhaps in 1967, our committee felt there should be comparable arrangements for collective bargaining between the Commissioners of Internal Economy and the employees of the three entities that operate here on Parliament Hill.
I regret very much that that recommendation has been treated just as a pious sentiment and has lain dormant in the report all these years. I think the time has come to practise what we ourselves have proclaimed. Here we are, the Parliament of Canada: we say that the people in the private sector should have collective bargaining, that employees in the public sector and employees of the public service should also have collective bargaining, but for our own employees on this Hill no such arrangement exists. All we have is a pious recommendation. I think the time has come for something to be done about this situation.
At least I have enjoyed something this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Most of us have the experience of getting up to speak and finding other hon. members walking out. Having drawn attention to the fact that a certain Standing Order should be observed, it has been my pleasure to see a few members come in while I was speaking, and I believe that we are now legally constituted.


Mr. Reid:: Only under threat, Stanley.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to speak to this matter. I listened with great interest to my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier), make what I thought was a magnificient defence of the status quo, a defence of the posture of inactivity. I think this, from a member who holds a seat in this area, is to be regretted. He said that the Bryden report may not have or did not have any special status but was typically an internal government report, a report to advise government. I want to say to my colleague through you, Mr. Speaker, that it may be that way to the government, because this sometimes characterizes their attitude toward the public service, but it certainly is not an ordinary report to the public servants themselves.
As I recollect the history of this report, having read it- though neither the hon. member nor I were here at the time-according to my understanding the public service staff associations were hurried into preparing their submissions for this particular committee because it was a matter of some urgency at the time for the government to deal with these matters. This urgency, which began some years ago, has now become mired in bureaucratic red tape of the kind that seems to characterize the govern-
Public Service
ment. One may suspect that these recommendations by an independent committee, following input from staff associations which speak for thousands and thousands of public servants, represented proposals so far reaching that the government did not have the stomach to face up to them. That is one of the possible reasons. Whatever the reason, the delay cannot be justified merely by saying this is an internal document, because this matter is important to the lives and future of many public servants not only in this area but in the whole of Canada.
At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates we had the pleasure of hearing the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) discuss the whole question of appeals when dealing with problems in connection with bilingualism. He said-I think I quote his words correctly-that generally speaking the Public Service Commission is a court of appeal from departmental decisions. He went on to say that the Public Service Commission has contact with people in connection with appeals involving the whole question of merit, but has nothing to do with appeals of cases which involve discipline.
We do not know this, but it may well be that the Bryden committee report recommended to the government that the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission ought to be extended to matters of discipline within departments. It may have recommended that people who are dismissed or dealt with in any way from a disciplinary point of view ought to have the right of appeal to that court. For all we know, the committee report may have gone even further. It may have said that the Public Service Commission ought not to be the tribunal to which public servants look; that perhaps for all matters of appeal, whether they are with respect to discipline or merit, there ought to be an independent tribunal. We do not know that. None the less, these matters are important.
I suggest that not only should justice be done to public servants but it must appear to be done. I am sure that when public servants gather to discuss the relationship of themselves and their staff associations to their employer, they wonder whether justice is being done with respect to withholding something so fundamental, or whether it even appears to be done. I think they can be forgiven if they decide that justice is not being done. The procedure, as mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier), of continually evading or failing to answer questions on the production of the report makes them feel that they are not being looked after.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, the time has come when pensions ought to be dealt with and the whole matter of collective bargaining of public servants, and the parameters within which bargaining and negotiation take place, ought to be looked at. This report may well be an important document containing the views of a dedicated person after hearing the evidence which staff associations submitted in their briefs.
The hon. member for Ottawa East defended the status quo by quoting the Speech from the Throne, the catch-all of promises none of which has seen the light of day to any

March 22, 1973
Public Service
great extent in legislation. I tmnk it was on January 16 that I asked the President of the Treasury Board when he would bring forward the amendments to the public service acts. He said he would consult the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and advise the House. He hoped it would be this session, but he was not sure. This indicates the rather low priority that the government places on the whole matter of improving the lot of public servants, not only in the national capital, but in all of Canada.
There is no doubt that when parliament passed the Public Service Staff Relations Act in March 1967, it was welcomed by the Public Service Alliance and by many individuals. It was a major step forward. It ought not to have been the last step forward, but to date it is almost the last step forward that has been taken.
I have always hoped that this matter would come forward and tnat Defore the public service staff associations were asked to examine the legislation promised in the Speech from the Throne they could examine the recommendations contained in the Bryden committee report. When the promised legislative changes are brought forward, public servants will be in a disadvantageous position. Their position certainly will not be advanced by the fact that the government has seen fit not to bring forward this matter. I think public servants and their associations would have been better served if this report had been made public.
The psychology of the government is not really of justice. With all due respect to the government, its stand on this matter is inexplicable in light of the circumstances and the importance of the government of Canada as the major employer in this country. No amount of soothing, syrupy, empty phrases or empty defences of the status quo by members opposite will justify the failure of the government to release this report.
Questions were asked on May 6, 1972, March 7, 1971, and in April, 1971, concerning the subject matter of the motion we are debating today. All these questions contained the simple request that the government produce the report. The government may or may not rely on the report, depending on its point of view, but in failing to produce it the government has done the public servants of Canada and their staff associations a disservice. I am sorry to have to say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock 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-133, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the massive participation of my colleagues from all sides of the House to the debate on this bill proves that it bears on a capital problem which unfortunately has been neglected for too many years. To prove may point, may I be allowed to refer to an article published in the magazine Le Consom-mateur canadien (The Canadian Consumer) for April 1973, which proves that we are ahead of our times, as this is still the month of March. In this article entitled "Les consommateurs et le logement" (The Consumer and Housing), Mr. Speaker, the first paragraph reads as follows:
The average Canadian does not consider himself as a housing consumer. He certainly does for food, gasoline, clothing and daily services, but not at all for housing. This is something too substantial to be consumed. Furthermore, it is more a matter of investment for those who own a house. Most Canadians are used to capital gains from real estate to think about the cost of housing from a consumer's point of view.
Mr. Speaker, housing has been the exclusive field of builders or developers for too long. In many cases, builders have been incompetent and developers have been unscrupulous.
On Monday last, we heard the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) who explained to us in revealing details how the poor consumer has to struggle against odds when he is buying land or against developers who are more interested in "making a buck" than in building houses properly. It is an inacceptable fact that he has to face the misunderstanding if not the dishonesty of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation management.
No wonder these housing sharks undertake lawsuits which are as ridiculous as they are enormous. We are aware that my colleague from Portneuf is being sued for $500,000 with both the CBC and the newspaper Le Soleil, by a Quebec area homebuilder.
As it is obvious that the small wage earners are having difficulties in the housing field, and there is also the fact that my colleague from Portneuf is now feeling the consequences.
Why is it so? Let me refer once more to the article I was speaking aDout a few moments ago. The second paragraph states, and I quote:
Housing is undoubtedly a consumer item. It is something everybody needs and has to use, under one form or another. It is something which costs money in one way or another. It is also an item which absorbs usually between 25 and 30 per cent of the family income in Canadian cities. As a matter of fact, housing represents one third in the consumer price index. At times, in low income families-
[Mr. Baker.J
March 22, 1973

This is, Mr. Speaker, I believe, the important point of the paragraph I am reading.
I continue to quote:
-who do not live in public housing, it may swallow up to half of the family resources. The general rule according to which "the poor is the one who pays more", applies very well to housing, because compared to middle income families, those who are in the 20 per cent bracket at the bottom of the income scale spend twice as much for housing.
The average housewife or head of the family is not as well informed or in as good a position about housing costs as about the prices of cars, groceries, drinks or dry cleaning. Even though a house might be the most important purchase they do during their life, it is the item of their budget on which they have the least degree of control. The same is true when it comes to renting a place to live.
The fact that buying a house or renting a place to live are not everyday occurrencies puts the consumer, either single or married, in a position twice as vulnerable. If we were to buy a house every month or even every year, we would behave more like housing consumers. We would begin to know in what way the dice are loaded against the purchaser: the consumer.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, low income groups are being pushed around. They take for granted that there is nothing they can do about it and let each and everyone meddle in the field of housing, almost without complaining. How could it be otherwise when one sees that even government organizations fail to protect their interests. And in order to support that allegation, Mr. Speaker, I will refer once again to that article, the value of which cannot be put in question since it was written by the senior consultant of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ottawa.
Thus, I wonder how it is that the senior consultant of the CMHC sees problems just like we do ourselves and that effective programs in that area are still on the drawing board.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, may I quote an important paragraph from the article written by the senior advisor of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
For instance, let us simply look at two aspects of the National Housing Act in relation to the consumer. If you buy a new house with a mortgage loan under the Act, an inspector will come and look at the project at least three times during construction. The point is that he does not come to protect you, but to protect the creditor who provides the loan. As a buyer, you have no formal guarantee as to materials and labour, but you may of course hire an inspector or an expert at your own expense. When you buy an automobile, a refrigerator or a television set, you get a guarantee that protects you to a degree, but you get no guarantee when you buy a house that is much more expensive and is paid over a much longer period.
It is almost unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, to find that one of the senior advisers of a corporation which is directly connected to the Department of Urban Affairs gives valuable advice to the minister when saying: Your legislation is not meant for people with a low income; it does not assist the man who earns an average salary or income. The law does not protect them at all. On the contrary, it merely protects the investors, the creditors, the people who have capital and make it profit.
Mr. Speaker, this situation is ridiculous and, again, when we find that some people in the right place are capable of giving appropriate advice, we are truly wondering.
26087-Hi
National Housing Act
At the risk of being lengthy, I should like to quote another paragraph of Mr. Laidlaw's comments which support my view:
If you obtain a mortgage loan under the same act, you must make a down payment of 1 per cent... of the total amount of the loan, to be paid into the Mortgage Insurance Fund controlled by the CMHC. For whose protection? The buyer's? Not at all. The purpose of the fund is to protect the lender if necessary. But, and there is the rub, you make this payment even though the lender is already holding a mortgage on the property. It seems strange that consumers seem never to have wondered about this. It could be thought that if lenders need additional protection over and above the mortgage it would be up to them to finance it. It could also happen that consumers might wonder why they are called upon to pay for protection to lenders. In an editorial in the October 28 issue of the Financial Post, it is pointed out that the MIF has now gone over the impressive figure of $300 million, "whereas" applications for compensation have reached only $10 million. Consumers have shown themselves to be willing contributors to the consolidation of mortgage loan operations.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot overstress, and I hope the minister is paying carefull attention, my astonishment over the fact that a public servant, a senior adviser of the CMHC should make such recommendations without our having had the proper reaction before today.
I sincerely hope the bill we are to consider will correct this. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that in this field as in all others, policies truly geared to the people will finally be implemented. It is evident that housing is a very vulnerable point for Canadians and that housing is not something you can do without.
Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, we have to have shelter, especially in a country like ours where life is a constant struggle against the elements. That is no doubt what brings, once again, the CMHC's chief adviser to write the following, and I quote:
Housing is a field in which demand is constant, and the average consumer is especially vulnerable. To begin with, it is not something optional, least of all in the Canadian climate. Also, not only is it a highly complex field involving economic, social, legal and regulation factors at various levels, but also the consumer's choice is very limited. An average family can easily find itself caught in a situation from which it is very hard to escape: legal texts tend to be irrevocable, moving is expensive and takes its toll on family life, and social barriers often can not be broken down. Nobody can choose where he is going to live as freely as he can choose a car.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can see from these few paragraphs of the article just how deeply Canada has been affected by the housing question. I might congratulate the minister on having become aware of this very acute problem, in the light of which Bill C-133 now before us deserves our closest attention.
There are in fact economic and social factors to complicate the finest principles a bill can contain. One can therefore come to ask oneself to what extent Bill C-133 can fill in the gaps we have seen.
I should like at this point, Mr. Speaker, to take the case of the province of Quebec, which for years-and nothing was done about it until five or six years ago-has been apart from the other provinces as far as housing and homes are concerned. I remember quite well that even 15 or 20 years ago Central Mortgage and Housing was refusing almost every loan application from potential home owners in the province of Quebec, and it was not because

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
oi racial or linguistic discrimination but merely because housing concepts are different in a country where regions are quite different one from the other.
For one loan granted in the province of Quebec, 50 or 100 were granted in Ontario. Why? Simply because those setting out the housing standards and regulations were acting on the basis of an Anglo-Saxon concept. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker, and at that time the administration of the act became impossible. How can you justify that?
Today the problem is perhaps less extensive but I think here again that the legislation should take into account the difference between regions in the field of housing. It must be recognized that the French Canadian in Saint-Marc-des-Carrieres or Portneuf does not perhaps have exactly the same concept of housing than the man in Edmonton or Vancouver. Then it would not be necessary to legislate and impose regulations which go against his own individual thinking.
The result has been a certain kind of discrimination which was not deliberate, however in the future this will have to be totally remedied.
There is another problem that must also be considered when discussing a question such as this and still in connection with the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker; people are very poorly informed about the benefits of federal legislation.
I wonder, for example, to what extent municipalities in Quebec are aware of the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing can help them solve their sewage disposal problems and all sorts of other problems relating to housing.
Then, I reflect that the minister should have public relations officers whose responsibility would be to explain to the municipalities, in the province of Quebec in particular, all the possibilities contained in the act, and I am anxious that this new act is passed so that it can be used.
This is what occurred in Quebec, I think. The advantages offered in some federal acts, because of continuing constitutional disputes, end up being ignored by Quebecers. There again, the victims are the common people. Therefore, I wonder whether, in such a situation, the minister should not consider having very specific information distributed and see to it that his departmental officials are prepared to inform the municipalities.
Here is another point with which I should like to deal also. The importance of urban centres like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, among others, is generally acknowledged, but more and more villages and small towns are being forgotten, which is most unfortunate. Many of our current problems, especially housing problems, simply result from excessive centralization, and should the government policy make for even greater centralization, where will that lead us?
We want to control pollution, to preserve our environment, and we keep doing every thing to promote further deterioration of some demographically strategic centres. In fact, any housing policy likely to encourage decentralization should be supported, because such a goal is extremely important. Increased decentralization will result, by the same token, in investors being urged to

diversify their investments, which will serve the best interests of the people.
Mr. Speaker, the article I was just quoting is quite important and I would advise the minister to have frequent meetings with his main adviser from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who will explain to him how to come up with an adequate piece of legislation.
Some will say that as a matter of fact Bill C-133 will remedy all the shortcomings in the housing field. However, we all know that perhaps the most important thing will be the regulations that will follow as everything depends upon them. If they are not drawn up as they should, the legislation might be inadequate and even the best provisions of this bill will be useless.
This is what motivates my being in agreement with the Social Development Council of Canada. In its memorandum to all hon. members, on January 30, 1973, this Council seems to have grasped the problem quite accurately. In fact, its criticisms of Bill C-133, are accompanied with recommendations and general comments with which I am in general agreement.
Let me quote a few excerpts from the brief we received from this organization:
The housing committee of the CCSD finds that Bill C-133 includes a number of remarkable amendments that will make it a better legislation than the former one.
That is at least something!
And I quote further:
-We are particularly happy that the compulsory sharing of costs by provinces and municipalities has been removed from most programs, that important and new provisions on co-operative housing and on new communities have been added, that the leasing of land development areas is facilitated and that the development of lands outside neighbourhood improvement areas is provided for.
We are still wondering how this bill will truly improve housing condition for low income groups. This is a persistent concern because these amounts of the grants-which are determining factor in order to know whether the proposed programs will be beneficial to the low income groups-are not specified generally in the bill and are left for regulations. In the committee's opinion, Parliament rather than this government should determine who will benefit from state-subsidized programs. We, therefore, believe that as far as possible the amounts of the proposed assistance should be stated in the bill.
It will be easily understood therefore, that I make the same reservations as the Canadian Council on Social Development with regard to this bill.
We recognize that the principles stated in Bill C-133 seem to be excellent but we are wondering about its lack of precision. How will it be remedied? As a matter of fact, senior officials of the department will be the ones to enact those regulations. And that is why we are in expectancy and are wondering what will be those regulations exactly.
In concluding my remarks, I also agree with the following remarks in the submission which was presented to us:
Since the new housing programs are only outlined in this bill and it is obvious that their success or failure will mostly depend on the relevancy of the regulations under the act, we urge the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to conduct extensive consultations on the drafting of the regulations, not only with provincial and municipal housing authorities and the building industry, but also
March 22, 1973___________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________2513
with other segments, the participation of which is essential to achieve the purposes in the field of housing. Namely the sponsors of non-profit housing and co-operatives and groups of citizens of all kinds.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the minister is really aware of the recommandations that were made to him from all sides, and especially if he takes heed of the recommandations of organizations most concerned with the welfare of the small wage earner, of those who dream of owning their home, he should give those people the greatest consideration.
We should have had a long time ago measures for the benefit of all families, especially young couples, because all things are interdependent. And if nowadays, especially in the province of Quebec, there is an alarming drop in the birth rate-when one considers that once our province had the largest families-housing has much to do with it, I believe, and when a couple cannot enjoy a minimum of comfort because it is too hard and too expensive to build a house, the social consequences are disastrous.
That is why when dealing with the housing problem, we are tackling a much more serious and important one; if we solve the housing problem, it will be easier to deal with other social problems.


Mr. lohn Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the average Canadian does not think of himself as a consumer of housing. Food, fuel, clothing and everyday services, yes; but housing, no: it is somehow too substantial to be consumed and, moreover, for those who own a house it is more like an investment. The majority of Canadians are too accustomed to the capital gain attached to home ownership to be much concerned about the cost of housing from the consumer viewpoint. Yet, Mr. Speaker, housing is clearly a consumer item. Quite possibly this could be the reason the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) was switched from the consumers affairs department and put, in fact, in charge of the biggest consumer problem of all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no; John Young recommended him.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, housing is something that everybody needs and must use in one form or another. It, of course, must be paid for in one way or another. Unfortunately, in this country it is not uncommon to see 25 per cent to 30 per cent, or even more of the family income eaten up by this cost. It is a fact that one-third of the consumer price index is represented by the cost of housing.
It is a sorry state, Mr. Speaker, when statistics verify that compared to the average, people in the lowest 20 per cent of income category in this country spend twice the proportion of their income for shelter as those at the other end of the scale. The exceptions, of course, are the low income families who have been able to secure far too little of the public housing that is available.
No consumer is more vulnerable than the home purchaser. If he had to buy a house every month, or even once a year, he would be much more aware of how great the odds are against him in buying a home. Events in the past few years have indicated a growing awareness and
National Housing Act
concern about the cost of cars, groceries and various food stuffs. And, Mr. Speaker, when I indicate that the scales are tipped against the buyer, consider for example just two aspects of the present National Housing Act in relation to the consumer. If you are buying a new home with a National Housing Act mortgage loan, an inspector will call at least three times during construction to examine the work in progress. To protect you is not his prime aim; his aim is to protect the lender who is providing the loan. As a purchaser, you get no firm guarantee of the materials and workmanship. You may hire an inspector or examiner on your own, but this is very seldom done. At least when you buy a car or a television set there is some kind of guarantee that gives you a measure of protection, but there is no firm guarantee when you take on the much costlier, long time purchase of a home. In most cases it is the most important purchase made in a person's lifetime.
Now, Mr. Speaker, add to this the fact that presently a 1 per cent premium is charged on the total loan as mortgage insurance held in trust and managed by Central Mortgage and Housing. One has to ask, for whose protection are you paying this 1 per cent? Are you paying for yourself as a buyer? No; the mortgage insurance fund is for the protection of the lender in case of default. But you, the buyer, pay the premium even though the lender already holds your mortgage. Consumers, strangely enough, never seem to question this arrangement. One would imagine that money lenders, if they needed extra protection over and above the mortgages that they hold, would provide it themselves at their own expense, or that consumers would at least question why they must pay so directly for safeguards for the lenders. On October 28 an editorial in the Financial Post pointed out that the mortgage insurance fund is now worth an impressive $300 million, while claims against it are only $10 million. Consumers have certainly paid well to ensure the operation of mortgage lenders.
So badly dealt with has been the consumer of housing or shelter that it is accurate to describe the consumer as a chap with hat in his hand, asking for this consideration or that consideration even though he is the one who is paying at every turn. This kind of ridiculous situation has made the consumer slowly more aware of the collective power that is needed for his own protection. We have seen this already in tenants' associations, where a united front has been presented to bargain with landlords. But, Mr. Speaker, there is still a long way to go to balance the scales as between supplier and seller on one hand and buyer and consumer on the other.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that judging from the statements and actions of the minister responsible for housing, or by any of the legislation provided by or introduced to the House of Commons, the government does not understand the current housing needs and problems of this country. It is not sufficient for the government to listen to only the demands of the provincial governments and to ignore the advice of people who are actually building the houses.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the major contributing factor to over-all costs has been the accompanying spiralling cost of land. However, with all these problems it would be interesting to get an accurate estimate of the number of lots virtually ready for develop-

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
ment in this country but for the long, long list of government regulations and red tape involved in clearing them prior to the issuance of construction permits.
It does not take a great amount of intelligence to estimate what would happen to the over-all cost of land if thousands of additional lots were put into the marketplace. And I do not refer to the feeble attempt of the NDP government of British Columbia which has enacted Bill 42 respecting the Land Commission Act. That bill is Marxist in tone, Marxist in ideal and Marxist in implementation.


An hon. Member:: You will appreciate the day they passed that bill.


John Douglas Reynolds: The NDP was the party of principle in the last election, but it sold out the people of this country and it is now afraid. I cannot wait for the next election in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Neither can we.


John Douglas Reynolds: After that election, colleagues to my left will not need to make the long trip back to the province at weekends. Bill 42 is, quite simply, a bill that has no place in Canadian society, has no precedent in Canadian history and is contrary to the rights of every Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Douglas Reynolds: It is certainly nice to see that my remarks are disturbing members of the NDP, because they do not like going home at weekends as much as they once did.
There was an opportunity to set an example in the make-up of that bill by offering serviced lands to municipalities for the purpose of providing inexpensive lots, but in fact that legislation has increased the value of lots presently available because all lands have been frozen indiscriminately. Every municipality has been relieved of its ability to plan for itself and all lands lie in the hands of appointed commissioners responsible to no one.
The principle of supplying inexpensive, serviced lots, however, does remain the key factor for major reductions in the total cost of a home to the consumer. In addition, a relaxation in the growing list of restrictions on subdivisions, and in the increasing requirements of elaborate local servicing would result in lower prices. Also, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the federal sales tax on building materials. This must be considered, as well, as a factor in the high cost of housing.
We do not need another $1.5 million study by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to tell us what we already know, that in every region of Canada housing is needed and in every region of Canada there are different housing problems. The $1.5 expenditure is a complete waste of money.
Why, Mr. Speaker, does this government refuse to listen to the provinces? Why does this government refuse to accept the fact that the provinces know more about the needs in their area because, together with municipal governments, they have been building and controlling housing? Why will the federal government not get out of hous-

ing and let the provinces take over programs and the accompanying tax revenues to pay for them?
In the last five years, Mr. Speaker, one can examine several significant factors in the housing industry. Let us take some prices of residential building materials. I have picked Vancouver and typical spring selling prices. In the last five years, lumber per thousand board feet has almost doubled in price. The price of siding has doubled per thousand square feet, floor finishing has also almost doubled, and face brick has gone up approximately 50 per cent. Although the increases I have just mentioned sound considerable, I suggest that in many cases they are no greater than increases for products used in other industries. But let me just draw attention to one other particular item. This, Mr. Speaker, I refer to through personal knowledge.
In 1966, a contractor in Delta erected a 1,000-square foot, three-bedroom, no basement bungalow. The cost of the lot was $900. The price to the consumer of the finished product was $11,900. The difference, Mr. Speaker, between land and house was $11,000. The same contractor, in February of 1971 built an identical home in Haney, even farther from Vancouver. Again it was a 1,000-square foot, three-bedroom, no basement home. The lot price was $4,000. The finished price to the consumer was $19,500. The difference between the cost of the lot and that of the finished house was $15,500. The contractor was rewarded approximately the same amount for his efforts, but there was a 400 per cent increase in the price of the same sized lot in a period of five years.
The same contractor, in February of this year, in Alder-grove, British Columbia, 40 some miles from Vancouver, constructed a 1,000-square foot, three-bedroom, no basement home. The price to the consumer was $24,900. The price of the lot was $8,000. The difference between the price of the lot and the price to the consumer was $16,900. But, Mr. Speaker, now we are looking at an 800 per cent change in the price of the lot. Also, I am informed by the same individual that as of this month the cost of a lot of this size has risen another $1,000 because of the land freeze in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Balderdash!


John Douglas Reynolds: That is what happens when an NDP government is given responsibility in this country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I cannot speak for other hon. members, but I know it is difficult for the Chair to follow the speech of the hon. member who has the floor.


An hon. Member:: It is illogical, that is why.


John Douglas Reynolds: It does not please the NDP to hear comments that hurt them deeply. The conclusion, of course, that one can draw from all this is that the single, greatest contributing cause of the spiralling increase in the price of housing is the cost of land. Add to this, however, the regulatory additions, deletions and amendments that every builder must comply with for every area of every
March 22, 1973

part of Canada and one soon becomes lost in the mess of tangled building restrictions and codes.
For example, the village of Lions Bay announced recently that they had adopted the 1970 National Building Code of Canada. However, for village purposes there were additions and deletions to the code. Those items have to do with changes in plans which refer to technical information, additional powers of building inspectors, building permits, completion dates, applications for permits, the responsibility of the owner, notification of the building inspector to obtain his inspection and approval, forms for footings and foundations completed in cases where the pouring of concrete is prohibited, etc. In addition, other regulations have to do with electrical permits, health inspections and septic tank approvals, all these being items whose over-all effect is to increase greatly the cost of the home without providing any real, additional benefit in the form of safety or guarantee to the home owner.
The question raised by many builders is, why is there a National Building Code at all when every municipality of every region of the country puts in its own amendments, changes, additions and deletions? Certainly the money spent by this administration in travelling across the country to tell us that there are differences in each region could have been more wisely invested in obtaining some kind of true National Building Code. Working with the provinces and municipalities, they could have approved the same items for each region of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about Bill C-133, far too often referred to as the housekeeping bill. But I suggest that unless Bill C-133 is accompanied by a simultaneous move by the government to extricate itself from activities which can be properly performed by private enterprise, such as mortgage insurance, direct mortgage lending, etc., we face the danger of turning CMHC into an uncontrollable, bureaucratic colossus. I would like to point out that clause 7 of Bill C-133, which amends section 15 of the National Housing Act, will permit a contribution or grant by CMHC to a non-profit corporation of up to 10 per cent of the capital cost of a project. After such grant is received, the non-profit corporation is presumably entitled to obtain a loan equal to the total lending value, which is usually the total cost of the project. Technically, then, it would appear that, for instance, a non-profit organization which builds a $5 million senior citizens' project would initially be able to obtain a $500,000 grant from the government, and subsequently obtain the $5 million in mortgage funds, leaving the erstwhile organization with a net surplus of $500,000 for future worth-while projects in whatever field of endeavour they desire.
Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we are very familiar with some of the worth-while projects which have been undertaken by organizations with this kind of money at their disposal. One of the most worth-while projects undertaken involved the payment of $10,000 to four drug addicts who were in prison!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: I will. Four convicts in my riding were given a total of $10,000 by this government to do a study
National Housing Act
on heroin. Of course, their reply was that we should legalize it and also abolish prisons. One of the four convicts on the project then left the country with $3,000 and a 17-year old girl from the neighbourhood. So it concerns me when this government talks about money being left over for erstwhile projects.
Present interest rates triple and often quadruple the actual cost of a home by the time it is paid for. But the government concerns itself more with legislation affecting the number of shirts that may be imported into this country than with the protection of the consumer of housing who has to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just to provide himself and his family with a roof over their heads. So ridiculously expensive has housing become, Mr. Speaker, that jokes and stories about it are now commonplace.
I should like to close with a comment on the standing committees of the House of Commons. Under the present system, the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs encompasses the Department of Urban Affairs as well as the Department of National Health and Welfare. This committee presently has the departmental estimates as well as the old age pension legislation to consider. Heaven only knows when it will get to the housing bill.
Housing and urban affairs are major areas of concern which this country will face in the coming years. I would strongly recommend to the President of the Queen's Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the government immediately set up a separate standing committee of the House to deal with housing and urban affairs in order that as members of parliament we can properly, and with haste, deal with the serious problems facing all Canadians.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes allotted to me, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members on the serious problems which will remain in the housing field as a result of the inadequacies of the bill now under consideration.
The government recognizes the importance not to say the urgency of a speedy intervention to solve that major problem for all citizens, but once again it is unable to carry out the essential steps. Instead of grappling with the basic issue, it merely beats about the bush and amends the existing legislation.
The Canadians were not expecting the misgivings and half-measures in which the government delights. The Canadians are demanding an opportunity to live in decent dwellings at decent prices, which is in no way guaranteed in Bill C-133.
In some countries enjoying a tropical climate with sunshine and hot weather, a house is not a necessity.
In Canada, during the winter months, it is necessary to have not only a roof, but also walls and windows which keep the heat inside and keep the proverbial cold of the Canadian winter from sneaking in.
Of course, some well-to-do people follow migrating birds and, away from the cold, lounge around on the

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
beaches of Florida or somewhere else, but the vast majority of Canadians must put up with the severity of our climate. It is therefore absolutely necessary that all these people may enjoy the protection of a decent house built to withstand wintry cold.
Unfortunately, the current situation falls far short of this need. In the report from the Senate special committee on poverty, one can read as follows:
Task Force on Housing and Urban Development estimated there were 5,500,000 housing units in existence in Canada in 1968. Half a million of these were substandard.
I insist -on this, half a million housing units were substandard. This means therefore that out of the 5,500,000 housing units in existence in Canada, half a million were below standards established on the basis of climate or social environment.
But that is not all. Coming back to the poverty report, and I quote:
The number of families and individuals requiring housing is 5,700,000. It is as simple as that.
The Task Force also noted that a minimum of 200,000 housing starts would be required between 1969 and 1973 simply to maintain the existing situation.
And yet, in 1970 alone, 190,528 housing starts have been made. So this means that over 200,000 Canadians are now deprived of housing while over half a million live in dwellings quite inadequate in view of our harsh climate.
This is a real scandal and despite its half measures and patchwork measures the government will fail to hush it up. When we know that over 700,000 Canadians or Canadian families are without a home, the time is long past for amending or patching up legislation which has helped such a situation to continue.
The government must deal with the disastrous housing situation with measures in keeping with the urgency and the seriousness of the problem.
Here are some measures that the government could have taken had it really wanted to get down to the roots of the unrest in the housing sector.
The government must first understand that for the average citizen the building of a house involves the purchase of land. If he must lay out $5,000 or $10,000 to buy the land, how will he then be able to cover the cost of the building and the materials if he does not earn a prime minister's salary? How will he be able to build his house if the cost of the land exceeds the amount he has available?
He never will unless the government undertakes to set up land banks for resale at reasonable prices and on conditions acceptable to citizens who wish to build their home. This first measure would result in bringing home building within closer reach of everyone and contribute to stop this despicable speculation which is flourishing in real estate.
The barons of the industry who "play" with land values and create artificial shortages to gratify their cupidity make exaggerated profits from the population. Real estate profits have gone up by over 54.8 per cent from 1971 to 1972. Such an increase in profits is improper and reflects excesses in this field.

So the government must protect the citizens against speculators, and the setting up of land banks for citizens who wish to build a home despite their limited salary is a solution which immediately comes to mind.
But the citizen who is lucky enough to get a lot for a good price has not overcome all the difficulties yet, far from it. He must buy the materials which will be used to build the house. So, he finds out that he must pay an 11 per cent sales tax on those building materials, a higher tax than the levy on luxury articles. One would imagine that for the government housing is a luxury.
It is true that when one is stretched out on a beach in Florida one does not realize that in winter a house is quite important.
The Creditistes have fought against that 11 per cent tax on building materials for a long time because they know it keeps thousands of Canadians from affording decent housing. The government alone is responsible for that situation. It knows that this tax has an extremely negative effect on all those who would like to build a house but who cannot afford to pay more than one tenth of its value.
The increase in the cost of building materials is also added to the 11 per cent tax. By the way, it might be pointed out that manufacturers and retailers of these materials have seen their profits go up by 35.8 per cent between 1971 and 1972. This considerable increase in their profits also came from the pocket of the average citizen and that is another scandal.
As can he seen, the government and their good friends the building speculators are doing quite well. The government is getting richer through the 11 per cent tax while the large builders increase their annual profits in proportions out of reach of the imagination.
I once again urge the government to eliminate the 11 per cent tax on building materials. Building a house is no luxury and the government must understand it.
In that area again, the problems of the citizen who wishes to build a home are not over. If he is a low or middle income worker, he will have to borrow the money which will allow him to provide his family with a home. He is then confronted by the most absurd stupidity of our present system. Since interest rates are spiralling at a speed which evades governmental control, the citizen will have to pay more than four times the value of his house over the years.
With the present interest rate, a $18,000 house costs between $52,000 and $53,000 to the owner over 25 years, and $75,000 over 40 years. A $20,000 house will cost $58,000 over 25 years and approximately $84,000 over 40 years.
This situation is tearful. Of course, the usurers who shamelessly take advantage of the scarcity of money find it laughable because they benefit from the system.
A man runs into debt for 40 years simply to provide his family with a home for which he will pay three or four times its real value, and some people think this is normal.
But we have not yet reached the utmost degree of stupidity in this area. When a person has to run into debt for 40 years in order to pay for a house that is guaranteed
March 22, 1973

only for a period of 20 years under present standards, we reach the most incredible aspect of the present system.
We grant a 40-year loan to someone so that he can buy a house designed to last 20 years, and some people think this is normal.
The leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette) is perfectly right in stating that under the present system, you mortgage tomorrow's salary so that you can buy today products that were made yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that a system which tolerates such absurdities can go on poisoning the lives of millions of citizens who normally should have access to the resources of our country. The government should lend an ear to the thousands of Canadian families which are deprived of the bare necessity, namely, a home.
Here are three measures which the Social Credit Party of Canada has proposed to all Canadians throughout the electoral campaign, and I want to remind the government of them today, so that it may consider the true wishes and needs of the Canadian people. I quote:
First:
(1)	Promotion of single family dwelling construction through guaranteed long term loans at a maximum interest rate of 3 per cent...
(2)	The owners of single family dwelling will also be eligible for an income tax deduction not exceeding the amount of their mortgage interest and the total of their municipal and school taxes, that reduction being limited however to $1,000 a year ...
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would limit its role to that of a financial agent for mortgage loans to constructors of single family or multiplex dwellings and to making available to the provinces and municipalities the funds required for public services for those housing units (water, sewage, fire, sewage-water treatment services) through loans covering administration costs, in co-operation with the Bank of Canada and the National Credit Board.
These are the suggestions we put forward many times and in various occasions. The government seems to turn a deaf ear to the measures that we advocate on behalf of all Canadians who suffer from the anti-social policies of this government.
But the government will not make fun of the aspirations of Canadians much longer. It seemed prepared to listen to the voice of the people after the October 30 election, but after the speech from the throne, it has sunk into its usual state of lethargy.
The Canadian people are tired of waiting for legislation that meet their needs. They are fed up with half measures and hesitations. They are fed up with band-aid and patchwork. What they want-and the Creditiste say it again and again to the government-are measures which will enable all Canadians to live in decent and adequate housing suited to our severe climate, and also measures which will not require individuals to go into debt for 40 years and pay four or five times the price of the house he wants to build or buy.
This is what we ask of the government, Mr. Speaker, and we make this request on behalf of half a million homeless people forgotten by the government.
National Housing Act


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, although there are some good features in this bill it falls short of meeting the real needs of housing and urban development in Canada at the present time. I must, of course, applaud the good features. Most of them-in fact, I think all of them- were recommended in the report of the task force on housing and urban development four years ago. Consequently, I am delighted and would be churlish if I did not congratulate the minister for finally seeing the light and introducing some very necessary amendments that should have been made many years ago.
In order to meet the real needs of the Canadian people, however, we will require a much more comprehensive and effective approach. The housing situation in Canada has deteriorated very considerably since the mid-1950s. In the mid-1950s a working man with a decent wage could aspire to the ownership of a house. Today, in most parts of Canada, that is out of the question. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) pointed out last Thursday in his speech on behalf of this party, according to a study released recently by the Urban Development Institute of Canada, in 1961 an annual wage of $5,284 was needed to buy a house. This reflective figure was prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In 1971 an income of $16,623 was needed to buy a house, and only 4 per cent of the population could afford it. This is really a shocking situation, one that is totally unacceptable for Canada. It is a prospect that must really depress the average working person in this country. So rather than making progress since the mid-1950s, we have slipped, and slipped badly, and something must be done about it.
The cheapest new house available in some of our bigger cities today is in the range of $38,000 to $40,000. A front page newspaper article in one of the Ottawa papers tonight indicates that the average single family dwelling in Ottawa costs $39,000. In Toronto, the cheapest row house, or town house as they are called, costs about $38,000. The cheapest single family dwelling in the metropolitan area of Toronto will be of the order of $45,000 minimum, because the latest lot sales in the metropolitan area of Toronto-and this is land well out into the suburbs-were at $24,500 each. That is for a 50-foot minimum lot without a building. It costs $24,500 for a piece of land on which there is nothing except a little bit of pipe in the ground that is necessary for the provision of water and the elimination of sewage.
It would be ridiculous, in fact it would be impossible, under the bylaws of any of the areas around metropolitan Toronto to build a house which cost less than $20,000, so the very minimum price for a new house, a little box on a 50-foot lot, would be $45,000. That would be no great mansion, I can assure you. In my opinion, this constitutes a national tragedy. It is a trend which cannot be allowed to continue. If it is allowed to continue it will constitute a catastrophe for Canada and for the standard of living to which our people aspire.
In a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the other day I said that if the present trend continues, by the year 2000 the cheapest new, single family house in the greater metropolitan Toronto area would be well in
2518

cannot understand why this would be in any way an infringement of provincial rights. As a matter of fact, there are many precedents dating back 20, 30 or even more years in this country. So I cannot understand why objection is taken. Even the Globe and Mail finds it difficult to get the aspect theory through its corporate head. I do not think it is such a mystery that we should fail to comprehend where the different areas of responsibility lie.
By adopting this direct proposal, the onus is placed on the provinces and municipalities to provide adequate serviced land at reasonable prices. Then the responsibility for getting on with the physical job lies where it belongs, with the provinces and municipalities. At least then the federal government has done its job. One of the things which disturbs me about the present bill is that it reflects a philosophy which has been part of the mentality of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for too long; that is, it tries to keep its fingers in every pie, become involved in the minutia and inject its subjective judgments in the details of planning and urban development. If CMHC would get out of these aspects which are none of its business, and if the federal government would make money available at lower interest rates directly to municipalities to buy land and put in these services, then we would be going a long way toward solving the housing problem in this country.
It is obvious that the mere provision of money to buy land is not enough. The big pipe is required. It is totally useless to have thousands of acres of land in a land bank if the essential services for sewer and water are not provided. Consequently, the proposals before us today are useless in so far as meeting this total problem is concerned. To have invested money in accordance with my proposal would have been the best investment the federal government could have made. I would say this is still true. Failure to act during the four years since my original recommendation has cost Canadian home purchasers hundreds of millions of dollars. A very reasonable calculation at the time indicated that no other investment would yield as high a return to the taxpayers of this country as providing money to the municipalities for land and the servicing of that land for Canadian home owners.
The other area of cost, of course, is in the field of construction. These costs are not as great as the costs in respect of land and money, in so far as their flexibility is concerned, but they are still significant. One of the elements is the cost of labour. I think it is worth pointing out again that the rates of wages for construction workers have been rising faster than the average productivity of Canada. I have an example which I think will illustrate this point. In Hamilton, union labourers and union carpenters had the following rates over the last few years. First of all let us take labourers. In 1965 the rate was $2.44 an hour; in 1966 it was $2.65; in 1967 it was $2.86; in 1968 it was $3.20; in 1969 it was $3.95; in 1970 it was $4.52; in 1971 it was $575. and in 1972 it was $6.80. This is an increase of 180 per cent in that period.
Then we have the rates in respect of carpenters. In 1965 the rate was $3.60; in 1966 it was $3.90; in 1967 it was $4.22; in 1968 it was $4.66; in 1969 it was $5.00; in 1970 it was $5.40; in 1971 it was $7.82 and in 1972 it was $8.51. This
National Housing Act
represents an increase of 135 per cent over the period. This rate of increase is well in excess of the average increase in productivity in Canada and does raise a problem in that it contributes to the escalating cost and the maintenance of housing.
Then there is a personal example which illustrates the dilemma. Two hours work by a plumber, and just a tiny bit of material, entailed a bill of $50. For many Canadians that would represent the major part of the take-home pay for a whole week. It underlines, I believe, the dilemma of a very large proportion of the Canadian public who not only will be unable to acquire satisfactory housing but, if they should be able to acquire it, will be unable to maintain it in a satisfactory way.
The cost of housing obviously is out of line for people with low incomes. This raises the whole problem of maldistribution of income in Canada. I have a table from the returns of the Department of National Revenue which suggests that there are 4,975,000 Canadians with an income of less than $5,000 a year. In other words, over half of the work force of Canada has an income of less than $5,000. For all these people, the problem of providing adequate housing is very grave. In no case would one of these people be able to acquire a new house at existing prices. If some of them already own a house, they will have the difficulty of maintaining it to an adequate standard because of the high cost to which I have already referred. We must increase these low incomes. In my opinion, this is impossible without wage and price controls. In my opinion, it is inevitable that we will have to face this problem. We cannot sweep it under the rug indefinitely.
I have mentioned some of the experience in so far as incomes are concerned. Let me now indicate what will happen if we project some wage rates from now to the year 2000. Recently, in a speech to the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada I said that the present minimum wage in Prince Edward Island is $1.10 an hour. The present wage of many construction workers is $8.00. If you compound those two rates to the end of the century at 8 per cent annually, by the year 2000 the minimum wage in Prince Edward Island will be $8.80 and the construction worker will be earning $63.91 an hour.
It would be totally impossible for people earning $8, $10 or $12 an hour in the year 2000 to buy or maintain houses built and serviced by people earning $63 or $65 an hour. To refuse to come to grips with this fundamental economic problem is, to my mind, totally irresponsible on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Once a wage and price freeze has been put into effect and the co-operation of the provinces, of labour and of business has been sought and obtained, the mandatory guidelines which would be applied would make it possible to bring up wages from the bottom at an accelerated pace. In no other way will it be possible for people at the bottom end of the scale to survive.
The present approach of the government to housing is to subsidize it. I find, as I go into my riding on weekends,
2520

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
that more and more people come to me for assistance in obtaining subsidized housing. Some of them are paying 30 per cent of their total income for housing, some 40 per cent, some 50 per cent. In some cases it has gone as high as 60 per cent of their total income for housing, when it should not be more than 25 per cent or something of that order. How can people live under these circumstances? How can they be properly nourished, with present food prices, when they pay half of their total income for housing? The answer is that they cannot. The only escape from this dilemma for them is public housing.
When I inquire further, I find that in at least half of the cases their present accommodation is adequate, physically; there is nothing wrong with it. It is lack of income which is the real problem. If their incomes were raised to the point where they could cope, they would be more than content. Of course, the approach of the socialists is to build public housing for everyone. They love public housing. It means more bureaucrats, more big brotherism, more looking over people's shoulders, more interference in people's lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They want to tell people what to do, what they can do at weekends, who they can sleep with. Boy, what a system that is, Mr. Speaker! The task force on housing and urban development found that public housing is the most expensive solution of all solutions to the housing dilemma in Canada. Not only is it more expensive, which means that for any given amount of money it provides shelter for the least number of people, but it is the least acceptable socially.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert:: Not so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think the hon. member should open his mouth on this at all, because if the CLC were to allow wage and price controls in this country so that his party would vote for them then we could put them into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Instead of that, more and more people find themselves disadvantaged in so far as their income is concerned. The strong get more and more and the weak get less and less. The situation is getting worse all the time. Then people like you, my socialist friend-I say this through you, Mr. Speaker-insist on building more and more public housing in order to put people in them so that they can hire more of their friends to run the situation.
People who think otherwise believe that there is another solution, that is, to get those incomes up and to get the cost of housing down to the point where Canadians can choose for themselves where they live. The object of the policy of this party is to get the cost of housing down and to get lower incomes up to the point where Canadians can choose for themselves where they live and how they live. We think that the average Canadian citizen should be able to decide where he wants to live.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That is Social Credit.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A lot of credit is required, my friend, believe me. We think that the Canadian people should be given the maximum range of choice so that the individual, not some bureaucrat or some politician, can say where he wants to live, in a high-rise or in a low-rise building, whether he wants to live in the suburbs or downtown or whether he wants to rent or to buy. This is what liberal democracy is all about, Mr. Speaker; it is to give individuals a choice to make up their minds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I note with appreciation the applause from the Liberal benches. I am glad to know there are still some free enterprisers on that side of the House, or at least one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You've had it now, Joe.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Individual requirements may change
during the course of a person's career. Some people might want to start out in an apartment when they get married, move into a larger apartment subsequently when children are born, move into a townhouse or a family house a little later on, if they have income, move to a single family house, and perhaps later on when the children are grown and at university and only come home for Christmas and Easter looking for money, they may want to move back into an apartment again. But at least people are best qualified to judge for themselves what kind of accommodation is in their interest at any particular time in their careers. It is our responsibility, as politicians and as public servants, to try to mould the climate in such a way that individuals can make up their own minds and so they will have the maximum range of choice available to them within their economic limitation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Canada can do it. We have the resources. No new technology is required. All we need is the will and a little more dynamic action on the part of the Canadian government.


An hon. Member:: You will never get it out of that government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am afraid not. I am afraid we will have to change the government in order to get the action required.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will have to change the government. We are going to put into effect a policy like the one enunciated by my friend, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), and others during the debate on the budget. We must stop this rat race. We must stop the wage-price spiral. We must stop the strong from exploiting the weak, and we must give a decent shake to all Canadians so they can look after their own food, clothing and shelter and maxe up their own minds as to where they want to live and how they want to live. That is the purpose of our policy, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that the socialists to my left, who are so full of big words and so full of indecision when it comes to backing up those words with action, will when the oppor-
March 22, 1973

tunity occurs in the House follow their good intentions with their votes and put into office a government which will solve the housing problem of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I shall take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make some comments on this bill which to my mind is definitely one of the most important for the future of each Canadian, particularly those who want to own a house.
I should like to say at the outset of my remarks that the bill in itself is not necessarily bad; on the contrary, I think it deals with certain very particular and important points. Now I have serious doubts as to whether this bill will fall short of its objective. Several comments have been made on the shortcomings in this bill and certain rather interesting suggestions and proposals have also been made, I think.
We try to make it easier to get a loan and particular attention is given to co-operative organizations.
Such changes have been required for a long time.
We are however aware of the difficulties met by the individual wishing to become an owner, given the economic conditions which are extremely hard in this country.
I shall limit myself to a few comments so that others may have time to express their views but just the same I would like to recall certain matters to the mind of the minister responsible since he is in the House and paying great attention to all the comments and suggestions.
I would like to go one step beyond criticism and invite the minister to consider one specific aspect. I said two years ago, I think, that it was important that the minister responsible for housing meet as soon as possible with all those directly or indirectly connected with the construction industry. At that time things were not going too well in construction. Those difficulties were due in part to strikes. The climate seems to have smoothed off now. The fact still remains that construction costs have increased considerably.
The recommendation I made two years ago is more pressing than ever. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the hon. minister that he should meet with labour unions, construction material manufacturers and, finally, with representatives of the whole sector related to construction.
If we are to really give a chance to the man who wants to buy a house it is absolutely essential not to facilitate access to loans with the interest rates we now have. I think this is just prolonging the agony of the individual as was done in the last five years in other fields. It is important to reduce the cost of houses to allow the individual to become a home-owner. The social impact of it is this: the owner becomes more socially active due to the fact that he is more interested in his own municipality and in his country.
Absolutely no mention is made of the repeal of the sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials and yet heaven knows if different parties have asked for it. I for one
National Housing Act
believe that that would have been a truly positive measure to reduce the cost of houses and made it easier for the individual to acquire ownership.
As I said before it is not with easier loans at present interest rates that we are going to reach that goal and allow those people who wish and are capable of doing so to become home owners. I think the emphasis should be put on reducing the cost of houses. The abolition of the sales tax on building materials would be truly advantageous.
Then the minister would have to have obtain sufficient funds to meet any possible demands. We know perfectly well that a great many applications would reach him.
A meeting should be held with the union representatives and the manufacturers of building materials. Since the minister has shown such interest for the objectives that all members pursue in this House concerning housing, he could in return impose certain requirements. They could discuss with the unions a suspension of the right to strike for perhaps five years. Imagine a five year period during which credits would be almost unlimited; imagine also the abolition of the sales tax on building materials. This would call for the suspension of the right to strike and a freeze on wages and on the price of building materials so that at last the future homeowner might benefit directly from this aid which could be granted by Parliament.
We perfectly know that if no condition were set, the contractor or the building material industry could often take advantage of this reduction which normally should benefit the owner.
We had better consider seriously such a proposal so that the citizen who wants to build a home can benefit from the reduction. The government has been accused of simply having extended the loan repayment period and it is always the same thing. As the hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) indicated yesterday, on a loan of $30,000 at an interest rate of 9 per cent, for a period of 25 years, the repayment comes to $74,524. As far as I am concerned, with the legislation as it is now there is no way out.
I should also like that particular consideration be given to those who want to build a house and who, because of the location of their lot cannot benefit from public utilities. In a constituency like mine for instance some heads of families would gladly give a lot to their children but for lack of municipal services, these young couples are not eligible to CMHC loans. I think there would be an advantage in letting these people get loans from CMHC even though the land there is not serviced.
At the moment, the regulation governing that category of people is an encouragement to the municipality to crowd population into the large centres, leading to a centralization that we have paid a high enough price for so far in certain other fields. And a young couple who could get a lot free from their parents would be at an advantage from the start.
I therefore think the minister could increase the effectiveness of his bill by taking this factor into account. He would only have to meet with the builders, set out the

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
standards, and supply the necessary funds. Some will object: Where are these funds to come from? Yet money is always found to free Canada of a serious problem, so I should think that this bill, which aims to remedy a nationwide problem, ought to be planned in such a way as to be effective.
The present bill is not bad in itself, and I shall support it, although it is totally inadequate to achieve the purpose that it seems to have set itself. It is all right for some members to say that it is a big step forward towards helping the future house-owner, but I think nevertheless that we could have done a lot more to rectify so alarming a situation.
I do not say the government has not tried to rectify the situation. The government has made capital investments which nevertheless ended in failure. You need only remember the problems of unemployment and inflation which were dealt with in all their aspects, with totally inadequate results. Much money was spent, but because it was used improperly, the result was failures.
Now the House has before it a bill on housing, but in order to make it more effective hon. members should join together and force the minister to understand my few suggestions, as well as those made by other hon. members about the 11 percent tax on building materials, and the repeal of this tax would be a great improvement over the present situation.
Of course, the government will lose some revenue; that is always the question we are asked. The government will lose revenue but on the other hand, if housing is doing well, building materials will sell more. That will stimulate the building materials industry. People will work, pay income tax, which is not the case today with the unduly high number of unemployed.
I think that one should not be satisfied with asking where money will be found if the 11 percent sales tax on building materials is removed. It is nevertheless possible to implement a policy which might be profitable to the government and do justice to those who are entitled to become homeowners.
Once again, I will restrict myself to those remarks. I hope they will be taken into consideration by the responsible minister. I hope they will be endorsed by other hon. members. As for me, I will not limit myself to condemning a measure that may be too weak; I say the basic principles of this bill are not bad at all.
Still, I maintain that it is not good enough to achieve the purpose of the government. To do so, we must strike at the root of the evil. The building sector must be contacted as soon as possible. The minister must hold an emergency meeting with his officials, that jointly, with the unions and manufacturers of building materials, all might sit at one table and set up concrete standards and put forward a five-year program to enable building industry to go all out and build at much lower production costs.
Thus, the government would have truly achieved something for those who have the right to own a home in this country. In addition, this would be a truly interesting investment for all Canadians.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) on a point of order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that through the usual channels there is agreement that there are only two members left to speak on this bill, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe). If there could be an agreement that they speak without Your Honour seeing the clock, we could perhaps complete discussion of this stage of Bill C-133. I would suggest that it be part of the order that I forgo the very excellent speech that my staff prepared for me.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is the only thing that gives me pause, my reluctance to deprive the House of hearing the minister. But I think we could put up with that and wait until the minister gets into the other place, where he would probably be more at home in any event and could make a speech there. We agree that Your Honour not see the clock, but we hope the two speakers to follow will keep their eyes on the clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that there are only two more speakers, we are prepared to agree that Your Honour not see the clock. We have looked forward to hearing the minister's speech-


Mr. Alexander:: I don't know about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but perhaps he can give the gist of it in committee. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we agree.
f Translation]


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to that. \Enalish]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion oi tne minister, is there agreement to go beyond ten o'clock and complete second reading discussion of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is so ordered. The Chair would also inquire whether this means that hon. members are willing to forgo the "late show," the adjournment proceedings. It is difficult at this time to know how long speakers will take and I want to be fair to hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: May we let that go, Mr. Speaker, until after this bill is completed and see how long it takes?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. La Salle.J
March 22, 1973


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have only three small points to make. I come from an area where on the whole we have been losing population, so that housing has not been a problem nor has serviced land been a problem. Notwithstanding the static population in two or three areas, this bill may be of value.
The first group of people who do not have adequate housing, and who will have little chance of obtaining adequate housing under existing opportunities, are the Metis and the status Indians who are moving from their traditional settlements into the towns and villages of my riding. Traditionally, these people have lived on the reservations with, generally, surrounding Metis and non-status Indian communities. There has been a rapid increase in the numbers of these people, who are finding their traditional areas are not large enough and do not provide them with the opportunities for the increased standard of living which they desire; nor is there any hope that in these areas a better standard will materialize for them.
Nearly all these people have a low level of skill. They have casual work habits and are generally ill-equipped to carry on in a modern urban centre or even at the village level. Many have large families, and a good many are totally or partially on welfare. Home owners, and there are a few sort of professional rental entrepreneurs in these villages and towns, are reluctant to rent in many cases because of fear that damage will occur to the rented property, and sometimes this does occur. Housing for these people is slow to materialize because, even under the best circumstances, rental returns are low. Yet I believe that in the long run the movement of these people from their rural ghettos to areas where there are more job opportunities will be the only way in which they have a better chance of achieving material progress. In this area there certainly will have to be substantial government assistance for this desirable event to occur, even in the short run of a decade or so, before an impact is made on this problem. I look forward to seeing how the legislation will assist villages and towns to cope with this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two about the low-rental housing projects that have been carried on in my area under the aegis of the provincial government. It is my understanding that 75 per cent of the funds going into low-rental housing is supplied by the federal government. In the beginning it was largely assumed that local housing committees, consisting of interested citizens, would have a large input into the locations, housing standards, etc. Perhaps some towns have functioned better than others, but certainly some towns are showing severe disillusionment with their role. The general feeling is that the towns are largely bypassed by officialdom from the city of Winnipeg and that the input at the local level is seriously reduced.
The idea of a local housing committee seems to be a good one, if it would function properly. It is obvious that even with highly trained experts and information a particular village or town will make serious mistakes. I have noticed that low-rental housing in my town are not in keeping with other houses in the area in which they are situated, although the houses themselves, as far as I know, are reasonably adequate. I believe that the federal government, having so much financial input in these building
National Housing Act
projects, should be aware of the disillusionment of the local housing committees and should take steps to rectify the situation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a group of house owners who, so far as I can see from the minister's speech, will not benefit from this bill. I refer to the so-called mobile home owners. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who fall into this category and who apparently receive no assistance for housing in the form of loans, etc., available to other Canadians. Yet many of these people are the ones working at unpleasant jobs, living on our frontiers and opening up new parts of our country. There are many who live, of necessity, in small communities for a time. All these people in many ways deserve more facilities for mortgages, loans, etc., than their more permanently situated Canadian friends. After all, the present housing act has a considerable element of subsidy about it. It seems likely that the use of mobile and movable homes in small communities will expand in the future. Certainly, they seem especially logical for use in our northern communities. This bill, seemingly, has done nothing for home owners in this category.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the House for the time allotted to me.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on such an important bill. I wanted to say these few words, because this bill is extremely important and deals with one of the prime factors of our economy.
As the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) has said, we are faced with a basic economic problem and we have to solve it. This bill is far from providing the proper solutions we need to deal with the housing problem.
Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act is pinning people by the throat; citizens see their names used as security by financial institutions. This is where we stand now, Mr. Speaker.
Homeowners are in a position to realize this. Some 25-, 50- or 100-year old buildings are still mortgaged for more than their actual value; they are so heavily mortgaged that their owners can no longer afford to have them repaired. This is our present situation, Mr. Speaker.
I would now like to elaborate on the human aspect of housing and the right of ownership. Man has requirements that have to be met and he requires a certain degree of freedom to be truly the master of his destiny.
Private property, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most vital needs of man. Every citizen should own a home, a garden, furniture, a regular supply of consumer goods, his car, the tools of his trade, etc. It is man's personal property that enables him to settle on a parcel of land which belongs to him and to organize his own activities as well as those of his family. It is through property that he lives in unison with the physical universe.
Mr. Speaker, if life is a journey, man must be able to come to port as often as his activities permit him to do so. That port must be his own.

March 22, 1973
National Housing Act
Today, Mr. Speaker, what should be every citizen's harbour is owned by somebody else, because houses are over-mortgaged. The loans granted for 40 years to allow individuals to have a house, tend to get them into a 40-year debt and are far from making homeowners of them.
It is then, Mr. Speaker, that a citizen stops and "recharges his physical and moral batteries" and plans for tomorrow if he owns his house. Man can only come to fulfilment if he is deep-rooted in a land of his own which he can use as he sees fit. But man must also be deep-rooted in society.
Mr. Speaker, a citizen who owns a piece of land, who owns a small house, is very much interested in the administration of his municipality, his province and his country. But if he does not own anything at all, how could he be interested? On the other hand, there is no problem for the man who works alone, who has a property, a trade and enjoys the result of his work.
Mr. Speaker, if ownership is a good thing and a true need of man, and if furthermore it is a guarantee of freedom and independence, why take it from the individual to transfer it to a state which will abuse it. The answer is to ensure ownership to everyone without however taking anything away from anyone.
This is where the principles of-Social Credit can come into effect. But I will not say more on this matter, for I think I have already said enough. Personal interest is and remains the most powerful motive for human activity. As long as it is limited to a small number of individuals, and condemns the great majority of the others to work, without interest, it becomes absurd and perpetuates a society of masters and slaves and not a well structured society of men.
I have much to say on this subject, but as it is late, I will limit myself to those further comments. I should like to say a few words about the measures we could take to give our citizens the means to get at least the necessities, that is a suitable roof, under normal conditions. Now, we cannot do it today because Canadians are too poor. Why are they so poor? Why do they go without houses of their own? It is so because they were dispossessed by this despicable system under which interest rates are too high. And as a solution, they should be reduced and money should be made available to all Canadians because housing is a basic need.
All this, Mr. Speaker, should be financed at administrative cost. That is what we are asking for, what we could do and, in this way, we could give all Canadians what they are entitled to. Taxes and interest rates should be lowered; municipal taxes and property taxes should be deductible for income tax purposes.
Presently the II per cent federal sales tax on building material as well as the 8 per cent provincial tax-that turns out to be 19 per cent-are applicable on property at the expense of those who want to build a house.
Mr. Speaker, this is prohibitive and we should fight to death against these odious taxes which boost the cost of houses and prevent citizens from possessing what they are entitled to.
People are discouraged by the repayment period. It is cruel to require someone to go into debt for 40 years in order to be able to live in his own house with his family.
Anyone wishing to build a house should be able to pay it over ten years at the most; 20 years, 30 years, 40 years is much too long. People get discouraged. Moreover, the cost of houses is too high.
In view of the present state of technology, the government should ask experts to find other means of building houses at a lesser cost and with cheaper building methods, because there is surely something to be done in the building area. Our building methods are old-fashioned. They are too costly and increase the building costs. We should, therefore, find other methods.
I ask the minister to intervene and to try and convince the government to assign researchers exclusively to the field of housing; so that they may find real solutions, adequate building methods which would result in lower building costs; building costs must be reduced by at least 50 per cent.
If we are to find ways of building houses at reasonable prices, something will certainly have to be done, and we know that there is something to be done at this time.
I listed a few sectors in which we could bring about reductions in building costs, promote research in order to find ways of building cheaply, thus enabling all those who wish to become home owners to do so, because if we really want to have strong, determined and honest citizens, they must own something.
If we want to bind our citizens to our country, to have them love this country, we must create the necessary ties. To bring them closer to their country, we must see to it that they own something, so that they may settle on a piece of land belonging to them and say that that small piece of land is their own. They must also be in a position to become more ambitious citizens, the pride of this country.
I still have many things to say, but as it is getting late, I shall be satisfied with these few remarks.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the floor. I am entitled to a question, I believe, since the Standing Orders allow us two 40-minute periods. I only want two minutes of attention.
A few years ago, in order to complete the program of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the province of Quebec had offered a 3 per cent grant which applied to interest paid to those who borrowed from the corporation. At that time, this 3 per cent premium was all the more valuable as it represented 50 per cent of interests since the interest rate was then 6 per cent. As this premium was based on the wages of new owners, it was paid to a large number of purchasers who could qualify quite easily. However, we find that fewer and fewer new owners can qualify for the 3 per cent premium since the maximum annual earnings allowed to qualify are $7,000. If interest rates have changed, Mr. Speaker, wages paid to workers have also increased.
However studies have been made by various organizations with the co-operation of the caisses populaires, and as these studies have shown that it is impossible-

March 22, 1973


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should just like to bring to the attention of the House that I was under the impression, as I thought all hon. members were, that there was all-party agreement that we would have only two speakers, both of whom have now spoken. It comes as a great surprise to me to hear the member of the Creditiste party now attempting to make a speech. I hope that he and other members of his party, one of whom had agreed to the arrangement, will honour the agreement. I thought the hon. member was just raising a question, and I think all hon. members would have allowed a question, but now we are getting into another speech. Perhaps the hon. member was not here, but now he has been advised of the agreement that there would be no more speakers, I hope he will understand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: On the point of order, I agree that there was such an arrangement. [Translation]
As I understand it, there was an agreement to recognize two members from each party. If the House agrees, as the hon. member asked to speak only for a few minutes, perhaps he should be allowed to keep on. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that there was an agreement to conclude the debate tonight, but I was not aware of the limit set as to the number of speakers.
As those studies showed that it was impossible to consider home ownership unless a person earned $10,000 a year, one must conclude that the $7,000 maximum required by the government of Quebec for the qualification of new owners has been exceeded. Therefore my question:
Did the hon. minister responsible for urban affairs meet the provincial authorities concerned and directly involved in the program? If so, what will be the results? Can we hope for the early implementation of more flexible provincial regulations, especially by the province of Quebec, to encourage the people who have enough courage to consider buying a home in spite of their $8,000 or $9,000 annual income?

Motion (Mr. Basford) agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Because of my agreement not to make a speech at this point, hon. members have missed one of the greater parliamentary orations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to keep this House late; on the other hand, it is not my fault that we are running over our time. On February 28, in answer to a written question regarding the raising of the Irving Whale, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) advised me that the data which he had on hand favoured the leaving of the barge at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The minister also indicated that tenders had been received for the raising of the ship or relieving it of its cargo. The estimates ranged from $1,770,000 to $4,400,000. The minister indicated that the tenders were much higher than estimated. He also went on to point out that there was no guarantee that there would be no risk of pollution as a result of the methods of salvage submitted.
I found the answer disappointing, disheartening and disturbing, Mr. Speaker. We are in this country becoming belatedly more and more conscious of the grave danger to our ecology from massive pollution. We hear daily about the very legitimate anxieties of the people of British Columbia as consideration is given to the transfer of great quantities of oil from Alaska down to other parts of the United States. I share the anxiety of these people and I am frustrated by the government's lack of leadership in this regard. But pollution in any part of the country is important, and the threat that the Irving Whale holds for the people of Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces is real; it is serious; it is important. I cannot rest content until either the ship or its cargo is taken out of there and our beaches, our fisheries, our tourist industry, our wildfowl are relieved of this constant hazard of the escaping of oil from the hull of that ship.
One thing in the minister's answer which shocked me was the revelation that since 1971 the only kind of inspection made of the hull of the Irving Whale was on the water surface or from aircraft. In other words, no divers have been sent down to examine the state of the ship, to examine the dangers of seepage of serious quantities of oil. Surely a most careful check should be made on the hull of the craft.
The minister in his written reply indicated that there was no guarantee that the tenderers would be able to remove the ship or its cargo without the danger of pollution, and of course I accept this statement. But I also heard from the minister a few days later, in reply to an oral question, that there was in fact no guarantee against pollution if the ship were left where it is. I cannot believe that in our stage of advanced technology it is impossible for the government of Canada, with all its expertise, to handle the job of getting the cargo out of the Irving Whale. If another land can place men on the moon; if our modern science can place instruments precisely on planets, surely to haaven the raising of this ship safely is not

March 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
beyond our technical competence and our scientific knowledge. I believe the ship can be raised.
I believe there is a good deal of importance attached to the second portion of the minister's reply, namely, the cost. I regret that the cost is so high that it could go up to $4 million. I cannot tell whether these are realistic costs, but I would have to say to the minister and his estimable parliamentary secretary that they must think also of the enormous cost which Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic community would have to pay if there should be, as a result of the ship being left there, an ecolo-catastrophe.
I think of what it would do to our fishing industry, our tourist industry and to the general well-being of our people. I say that an amount of $4 million is not toe high a price to pay. I strongly urge the minister to renew his efforts to upgrade his priorities and to call upon the very best minds, the best scientists, the best technicians and to spend money if necessary to the end that this threat which has been hanging over us for so long, since 1970, will be removed.
I cannot rest content while the Irving Whale is sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We know what happens to ships' hulks. I understand that the Norwegians are raising the great battleship Von Tirpitz because they are afraid of pollution. We live in an age when it is now considered technically feasible to go down to get the Titanic. That would be a "Titanic" undertaking. Surely the task is not too great so far as the Gulf of St. Lawrence is concerned. I can tell the minister he need not be sensitive about the cost. Surely no member of the House of Commons or no thoughtful Canadian could begrudge the expenditure of some millions of dollars if it protected the environment of my province and the neighbouring provinces. We talk about being environment conscious. I say that the Irving Whale is a good case in point where we can prove our sincerity in this field. I urge and I plead, I persuade, I enjoin, I implore the minister to move on the matter to move the Irving Whale, and do it safely and just as soon as humanly and technically possible.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that I shall convey to the minister the message he has given us tonight in such stirring fashion. I think, after the minister reads this particular speech which has been made on behalf of the hon. member's constituents and the people in the area concerned, he may respond in a manner satisfactory to the hon. member.
However, in respect of the answer to the question asked by the hon. member on March 5, I should like to say that there is no guarantee that marine pollution will not take place if the Irving Whale is left where it is. Numerous inquiries in areas of expertise on oil biodegradation and steel corrosion in the environment indicate that where the Irving Whale is, there is little information in respect of the oil which exists. However, it is suggested that the vessel would be safer from a pollution point of view if it were left where it is. It has also been suggested by salvage experts that there is a better than 50 per cent chance, 
unless conditions are perfect, that the vessel could break up during the removal process, causing a severe pollution problem.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONAL DREE COUNSELLORS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that are of great importance and that concern me a great deal. One of the issues which came to my attention some time ago, and which I brought to the attention of the minister, concerns the practice of professional DREE consultants which appears to me at least as objectionable. I brought this to the minister's attention on February 2. In fact, I asked him two questions that day, one having to do with the apparent confusion, the allegations by a company in Montreal called Alarme de Surete Inc., that DREE procedures involved them in unnecessary expense and ultimately involved them in litigation.
Subsequent to that I asked the minister about this business of DREE consultants. He replied that he did not see anything different between engaging a consultant of this type and engaging a member of the legal profession to carry on some type of counselling service. I say to the minister and to the House that there is a great difference between acting as a legal counsellor and acting as a consultant if, when acting as a consultant one is acting as a lobbyist or, to put it unkindly, as a fixer. I do not know the extent of what may be the activities of these DREE consultants, but it is a very intriguing subject and it seems to be spreading to other departments.
I see that my colleague from the NDP, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, (Mr. Broadbent), today dealt with the same sort of thing when t}e asked questions concerning the activities of the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin. In today's Montreal Gazette there are some interesting quotes and references, one of which is that Mr. Pepin does not deny he is taking advantage of his past experience as minister. Part of his staff are former government officials but they would have left the public service anyway, said Mr. Pepin. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the character of this former minister. He was one of my favourite ministers in the House-


Mr. Prud'homme:: And mine also.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -and I am sure that he intends nothing wrong in what he is doing, any more perhaps than these consultants intend anything wrong. It is not generally known, but for the record let me say that there are several of these firms functioning in a so-called advisory capacity, mostly in urban centres. There is a prominent firm called Major and Martin which operates from 1440 St. Catherine Street West in Montreal. Here in Ottawa there is a prominent firm celled Cam Ure which operates from 2827 Riverside Drive. There is another, a former employee of the Prince Edward Island government, who acts as a DREE consultant.
March 22, 1973

The need to know your way around government red tape in order to ensure a favourable and quick grant no doubt has prompted these men to leave the government service and set up counselling firms, and also the apparent constipation of DREE at the decision-making level provides a continuous supply of frustrated clients for these people.
This, to my mind, is a fairly serious situation. Surely DREE, with its many hundreds of employees, has people who are qualified and whose duty it should be to take frustrated people in tow and to help them in their search for legitimate assistance from the department and so avoid the trouble and expense that these taxpayers, these would-be industrialists or would be entrepreneurs are encountering.
To the best of my information, the cost to people who are so frustrated that they must resort to consultants is considerable. According to my information, a retainer is charged and perhaps as much as 10 per cent of the grant obtained, or some other fixed charge is made to cover operating expenses and possible loss if they are not successful in getting a grant. Again, I suggest that probably 20 per cent of the total number of applicants are using counselling services. I suggest that is a reasonable estimate and it amounts to a considerable number of people. I would like to know the percentage of applications accepted of those people who are using these consultants, as opposed to those who are "going it" on their own.
Another thing that I do not like to see is a situation which I know sounds ridiculous. The next thing we know is that these firms are continuing to prosper. They apparently are over their frustration and have solved the problems of applicants, and the next thing we will find is that they have applied for a DREE grant themselves. This is a sort of reductio ad absurdum, but the way things have been going it would not surprise me.
I would hope that when the committee meets in the near future, the minister or some of his officials will be prepared to bring an estimate before us of just how widespread this practice has become. I hope they will give us the necessary information and, hopefully, will be able to assure us that the administrative processes have been improved to the point where this kind of nefarious service for applicants is no longer necessary and, according to their best information, has been stamped out as far as possible.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the questions raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity of being able to place on the record facts relating to counselling or guidance which is made available to companies applying for federal funds under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
The minister in his reply on February 2 made it very clear to the hon. member that such assistance is available from his officials and, if any changes are required to make it more effective, that he is willing to make these changes. It is important to note, however, that while the
Adjournment Debate
basic responsibility for preparing information required for the analysis of a proposal must rest with the applicant, companies applying for DREE incentive grants have access to various departmental officials who are willing to explain the program at length. Industrial development officers working in Ottawa and the regions are prepared to counsel prospective applicants to make them aware of the various details and benefits under RDIA.
The hon. member also referred to-I quote from his question of February 2-"professional DREE counsellors who are making substantial profits acting on behalf of DREE applicants." Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is a reference to professional consultants in the private sector. These professional consultants do exist and some companies do engage their services to help them in preparing materials and documents. The department is aware that several consultants were formerly employed by DREE, but there is certainly no evidence of any breach of the Official Secrets Act respecting the use of confidential information, or any preferred treatment.
In conclusion, may I say I was glad that the hon. member did not want to cast any shadow on one of our ex-colleagues who in the past held the unanimous respect of this House. I refer to the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin. If the hon. member had made any comments that reflected on that hon. gentleman, whom we all know, I would have devoted my entire three minutes to answering the insinuations that, thank God, he did not make.
Even though what I am about to say may not be part of the answer to his question, I am sure the hon. gentleman will be interested in it, Mr. Speaker. I was just reading a few notes on this subject, and may I say that if we consider it wise, not only for DREE but as a general principle for all other departments, for an officer who will be evaluating a proposal not to be too closely involved in its preparation, I think this could be the subject of future useful discussion and debate.


MANPOWER-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-INQUIRY RESPECTING GRANT TO &quot;CENTRE EPIC&quot;, MONTREAL
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, because of the lateness of the hour I will try to be as brief as possible and to speak as quickly as I can. Yesterday I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) about the granting of $128,000 under the Local Initiatives Program to a group of Montreal businessmen, allegedly to start a health centre called Centre Epic, to fight the unhealthy effects of overdrinking, oversmoking and underexercising. I asked the minister if he would consider rescinding that grant, and whether he would list all applications that were turned down in Montreal, because this group of wealthy businessmen had received this grant of $128,000.
The question is whether a government program such as LIP should have funds going out to wealthy business groups, or whether they should be earmarked for those disadvantaged people in society, community groups or other people who need them, need jobs and need to better themselves in our society. I noted that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said in Montreal that grants for local initiatives programs are for the

March 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
advantaged as well as the disadvantaged groups in our society, according to an article in one of the newspapers.
This group, Centre Epic-"etude pilote en collaboration avec 1'Institut de Cardiologie"-in Montreal received a $128,000 grant. Mr. Speaker, the group was set up in 1968. I notice that on the board of directors we have such distinguished businessmen as Philipe de Gaspe Beaubien, president of Telemedia and Sport Participation Canada; Jean Boulanger, general manager of Banque Canadienne Nationale; Robert Dulude, lawyer and secretary of Mont-real-Matin; Pierre Shooner, general manager of the Montreal Chambre de Commerce; and Maurice Bigras, assistant general manager of the Provincial Bank of Canada.
I also understand that about 170 members of this centre have donated $1,000 apiece to get it going. The facilities are open to members only, and the membership fee for the health club is $150 a year. The facilities include a swimming pool, sauna, two gymnasiums, physiotherapy room, track, and equipment room which are at the disposal of the members.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said this centre would benefit more than just the members; it would benefit 10,000 or 15,000 people in the Montreal area. I understand that the yearly dues are $150. It will provide assistance, through health evaluation courses, for health evaluation reports. Again I go to the article in the Montreal Gazette. I find there that use of the health centre facilities will be restricted to dues-paying members, although health evaluations made with federal studies and computers will be available to any Montrealer referred to the centre by a medical doctor. They are not saying they can use the facilities; they are saying they have access to health evaluation reports. I wonder how much health that will bring to many ordinary citizens of Montreal.
Because of the lateness of the hour I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reply to my question, particularly on the point of whether we should be disbursing
revenue for a program like this to a group in the city of Montreal, or anywhere, that is made up of business people who are millionaires or presidents of companies.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what the LIP criteria require is that persons employed on LIP projects' be unemployed and seeking work prior to their being hired. Consequently, the organization, individual or municipality managing a project may be affluent, which is often the case in many large and reputable charitable organizations. Those who are employed on this project and creating the centre are people who were previously unemployed.
Centre Epic, which is derived from the French term for the Heart Institute Pilot Study, has received provincial concurrence and support of members of the Institute of Cardiology in Montreal. It was assessed and approved as meeting all the criteria of LIP programs, and will create 1,095 man-weeks of employment for those unemployed in construction trades. It will also provide a centre for preventive medicine dealing specifically with cardiac problems in collaboration with the Montreal Institute of Cardiology.
It will provide for recreational and medical research facilities in co-operation with the Montreal Institute of Cardiology and is going to be operated, as I understand it, as a non-profit foundation for the benefit of many Montrealers. Actually, the facilities of the club, which has some 200 members, are being built on a scale to accommodate
4,000	persons. In sum, the program aims both at the creation of jobs and at community benefit, and we think that on both these scores it has rightly been given a LIP grant.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will no doubt be disappointed to learn that the motion to adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House now stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Friday. March 23. 1973