1973-03-16

Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that I have reached agreement with the Hon. Thomas Wells, the Minister of Education of Ontario, regarding the provision of supplementary funds to Ontario school boards in the National Capital Region for a pilot project in increased teaching of French as a second language.

These additional funds are to be made available in the context of an experimental project. In the first year, approximately $2 million is to be provided through the Ontario Ministry of Education from the bilingualism programs budget administered by my department. The cost of research involved in the experiment, as well as its evaluation, will be borne by the Ontario government. [Translation]
A decision on the exact amounts of money involved in the program will be made after proposals have been received from the four boards concerned on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region. I expect that the province will be receiving submissions from them shortly, after which we look forward to further consultations leading to implementation of the agreement at the beginning of the next school year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize how pleased I am personally that we have been able to reach agreement on this new arrangement, which we expect will go a long way toward strengthening bilingualism in the National Capital Region. This form of co-operation, in a carefully evaluated experimental program, could, we think, lead to important new advances in this field. We also expect it will provide substantial new data on techniques of second language teaching which will be of value across the country. I am also very gratified at the initiative which has been taken by the school boards concerned and I believe they should be complimented on their foresight and interest in a problem which is of concern to all Canadians.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for sending a copy of his statement to me. I want to say to him, through you, Sir, that the statement is most welcome. Perhaps, indeed, it could be characterized as a landmark. First, it recognizes
that the national capital is a particular area of need and that since the government of Canada is the major employer in the area the federal government has a major responsibility to ensure that the young people of this area, the majority of whom look forward to careers in the public service, will have a reasonable opportunity to compete and to advance. Second, it recognizes the very reasonable proposition that, over the long haul, second language training is better undertaken not when one has reached the age of maturity but when one is young and can be motivated to learn for the right reasons.
It is also vindication of the position I took during the campaign and in this House. We are, in effect, attempting to remake Canadian history in the national capital area, and we cannot effectively remake 105 years of that history in five years. It will not take 100 years either, but it must be recognized by everyone that the object of the whole exercise will never be achieved except in an atmosphere of acceptance and understanding. It is heartening to know that what was said and done in the latter part of 1972 has not been in vain. In that respect I welcome the statement.
I know that the four school boards in this area will be overjoyed with this announcement. I applaud their initiative. Their ratepayers have been pushing for action in second language training at a time when their expenditures are being curtailed. I am sure this will ease the burden for them. More important, it will ease the minds of parents who, with their children, have found themselves in the midst of a bilingual hurricane recently.
Most of all, Mr. Speaker, the young people of the national capital area will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this announcement. It is in their name that I welcome this announcement, for many of them will have doors opened for them in the private as well as public sectors that might otherwise have been only ajar and in some places closed. I congratulate the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) on his success in negotiating this agreement.
For our part, we naturally welcome the establishment of a pilot project in the National Capital Region, especially as it is well-known that the school boards in question have often asked for help to go ahead with a program likely to promote bilingualism in this highly sensitive area of our country.
Having expressed our enthusiasm at the start, I should now like to make a couple of points that are perhaps a criticism of the government's bilingualism policy. First, it must be understood that, although there was a pretty


Bilingualism
clear need for a project in the National Capital Region, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that a pilot project in the National Capital Region is going to lead to conclusions that apply to situations in other parts of the country.
Second, I would like to point out to the minister that he is going astray, because it is obvious that in several areas of the country the teaching of a second language, be it French or English, is deteriorating instead of improving.
I would like to ask the minister if in the very near future and through the provinces he could get in touch with the authorities of English-speaking universities in Canada and ask them to reconsider as soon as possible the decision taken a few years ago not to require from students seeking admission to university a satisfactory knowledge of the second language.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to congratulate the minister for that achievement.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, speaking after the previous speakers, I would like, on behalf of the Social Credit party, to congratulate the Minister for the initiative that he has taken in co-operation with the province of Ontario in order to launch a pilot project for a period of one year.
However, I see that foreigners are somewhat surprised when it is proclaimed throughout the country that there are two official languages in the National Capital. Reference is made to a second language when I go in Ontario; when I am in Quebec, the second language is English. It seems to me that in the National Capital, we should simply suggest a grant for the promotion of the French language in the National Capital.
A language, Mr. Speaker, as all are aware of it, cannot be forced upon anybody. Whether it is your first or your second language, the choice is up to you. I suggest that the hon. minister has taken the best course by giving all the English-speaking population in the National Capital area an opportunity to improve their knowledge of the French language and achieve thereby greater fulfillment and participation in Canadian life. Bilingualism cannot be forced upon Canada through legislation. I believe that projects like this one, attempting to involve the greatest possible number of English-speaking citizens, will achieve the best results. In Quebec, we are happy to involve the greatest possible number of French Canadians in learning English. Bilingualism broadens one's culture, whether it is English or French. It also is in keeping with the reality of a country like Canada.
Once more, I must congratulate the hon. minister as well as the Ontario School Boards for having concluded this agreement and I am sure there will be no regrets on any one's part and that both parliament and the province of Ontario will be commended for this move.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefiord):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That this House address a note of protest to the government of the United States for having applied a clearly discriminatory measure against the Miehelin industry in Canada as a result of the compensation paid to it by the Canadian government, and that this note read as follows:
The members of the House of Commons of Canada unanimously protest against the decision of the government of the United States to apply a discriminatory protectionist measure against the Miehelin tire industry in Canada, and regret that said government of the United States takes so little note of Canadian economic planning while our country offers the United States, more than any other country, possibilities for advantageous exchanges and transactions in Canada. The members of the House of Commons of Canada sincerely hope that the measures taken against the Miehelin Company will soon be dropped by the government of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion of urgent necessity to prevent the government of the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot present arguments in support of his motion. Hon. members have heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.
*
* *


SHIPPING
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in French and English the Darling report on the payment of operating subsidies to United States shipping in the Great Lakes.
* *
*


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said he



would table a letter sent to certain ministers. I rise under Standing Order 41(2) to table copies of the letter sent to provincial ministers of housing and/or municipal affairs by the minister asking that they freeze the rents applicable to senior citizens in public housing projects.


ST. PATRICK'S DAY
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, since this House this morning has heard considerable and due concern expressed about the status of the official languages in this country, and since tomorrow is the great day itself, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York North, that this House give immediate and hearty recognition to the fact that tomorrow is March
17.	Erin go bragh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the blame that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday placed upon his deputy minister for the contents of the departmental directive of March 9 regarding the priorities to be followed by manpower offices in filling jobs. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this means that his government has abandoned the principle of ministerial responsibility for the conduct of the department.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: In no way, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the responses of the minister in the past few days have indicated that he intended to share any political blame-


Mr. Hees:: You don't share it. You take it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that he intended to share any political blame with the government for any act or omission of ours. It is clear to me that the minister, yesterday, was answering a question of fact which was put to him. In no circumstances, to me or to anyone else to my knowledge, has he indicated that he found the conduct of the deputy minister one that he wanted to blame publicly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, as leader of the government, he approves of a minister, in this case the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, allowing a directive of this importance, affecting the welfare of so many Canadians, to go out without the personal examination, personal supervision and personal approval of the minister? Is this the standard of ministeri-26789-73
Oral Questions
al responsibility in matters of this importance that the Prime Minister expects of his ministers? Is this standard of responsibility satisfactory to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the results have not been satisfactory and the minister has said as much to the House. But in matters of administration of this kind there are bound to be some decisions taken at various levels in the department of which the minister is not aware all the time. I do not know whether, with regard to this kind of directive, it is a rule for the minister to have seen it in advance or not, but I do know that as a matter of practice in administration things are done all the time in ministers' names, and they should be done that way. The minister can only check the most important and those that traditionally or legally or by regulation come up to him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that a directive of this importance, potentially and actually affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, is a directive that can be delegated properly to the bureaucracy, to a deputy minister? Or is it a matter-I put it to the Prime Minister very clearly-that he expects his ministers to supervise and accept not only parliamentary responsibility but personal responsibility as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that under our system a minister must, and does in fact, accept responsibility for everything that is done under his administration. I repeat that as a matter of practice the minister of a department cannot possibly know every detail of every act done by every official within his department.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does any co-ordination exist between the Canada Manpower Centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission? In other words, does the Unemployment Insurance Commission cut off claimants by computer before manpower officials have had an opportunity to interview the claimants affected and offer them a job?


Hon. Robert K. Andreis (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is co-ordination between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and it has been my impression since taking this portfolio that the desire of all hon. members is that there be greater co-ordination between the two agencies. With regard to the operation of disqualification procedures and benefit control, I elaborated on that in my statement the other day and I do not think I can add anything to it at this time.


Mark Willson Rose: With a great deal of respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has begged my question. I was asking him about the order in which these claimants are cut off


Oral Questions
by computer, and the interviewing techniques and methods used by manpower officials. If people have not had the opportunity of being offered a job, I think it is grossly unfair to cut them off by computer. I will come to my question, Mr. Speaker, because I see you are becoming a little anxious. In light of the minister's reply yesterday, and since it is virtually impossible for 40,000 people to be interviewed by 400 benefit control officers, what methods are used to declare people ineligible?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, UIC claimants are referred to manpower, and where jobs are identified as being available in the area the benefit control operation goes to work. With regard to the impossibility of conducting interviews, benefit control officers can interview, and are charged with the responsibility of interviewing, six people a day, or 30 a week, or 270 over nine weeks, which is the period under discussion regarding the disqualifications that I mentioned the other day. Since there are some 360 benefit control officers, simple multiplication would indicate the ability to conduct 97,000 interviews.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of a reply given to the House a moment ago by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have had an opportunity to do some mathematics, and I would not want the minister to be accused again of misleading the House. I think that the figure he gave the House would certainly be possible provided all of the 350 benefit control officers were named to a particular area rather than spread across the country working every day where disqualifications-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think the hon. member would suggest that this is a point of order. It is a point of debate between members. If he has a further question he might be recognized in a moment, but I wonder whether it is really a point of order. It does not sound like one. In any event, he might like to indicate how it is a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had stated the point of order a little earlier. Because of the need for clarification, and rather than having the minister accused of misleading the House, I should like to ask him whether or not all 350 of these benefit control officers were indeed working in the Toronto-Hamilton area where the disqualifications occurred, and did these benefit control officers actually interview 40,000 people before the claimants were disqualified?


Robert Knight Andras: In answer to the final portion of the question, I cannot guarantee that they were all interviewed. That was the subject matter of a question put to me yesterday which I said I would investigate. As to the figure I was quoting, I was talking about the potential in the same way as I think the comment about the absolute impossibility of doing it was raised yesterday. Both are conjectures, but one is certainly as sound as the other. Ninety-seven thousand potential interviews would, theoretically, certainly look after 40,000 disqualifications. As to the final part of the question, I will investigate that and let the hon. member know.


MANPOWER
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Justice. I should like to ask the minister whether he would advise his colleagues that where there has been exercise by any person of a power to govern delegated by a statute, whether it be in the form of a directive or an order, it is a regulation and must be considered as such, and that this House expects the law to be observed.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of this question and the minister will answer it early next week.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the policy or practice of his department in carrying out the blitz operation that has been conducted across the country to assemble the BCO's from various centres in one area-that is not birth control officers but benefit control officers-to carry out a centralized operation in that area with the express aim of hitting people hard and in a hurry in order to get at the most people as quickly as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the implication in the question I would have to say no. Generally speaking, in the larger centres the benefit control operation goes on continuously. However, where there has been identified the existence of particular jobs in a smaller centre and the existence of people on claim who have skills in these jobs in that smaller centre, then benefit control officers might be sent from another area to conduct the interviews. That is the way the operation works and that is the way I tried to describe it the other day.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the hon. gentleman indicate the approximate relationship between the number of people who were disqualified and the number who, having gone through the appeal procedure, were later reinstated, and whether in fact it is in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent reinstatement, thereby really calling into question the value of the blitz procedure the minister has instigated?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I question the figure of 80 per cent. I cannot give precise details, but I want to make this point which I made in a statement the other day. Sometimes disentitlement is made on the basis of failure to be able to produce proof of search for work where there is work in existence in a community and entitlement is res-



tored by virtue of the fact that the interview leads that person to go and search for work. If that is the case, benefits are restored during the period between the interview and the finding of work. I think that is the proper way to do it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have another supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of supplementary questions, but perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask one more.

I think that the hon. member for Charlevoix would like to direct a supplementary. I shall recognize him after the last supplementary of the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. gentleman. In view of the fact that people lose their benefits during the period of disqualification even though they are reinstated, and in view of the fact this process has been carried out right across the country-I could give evidence to this effect if I had the opportunity that the minister has on motions- and knowing that this has caused a great deal of hardship, will the minister make a statement on motions again outlining the extent to which he has been able to clean up this blitz process that has caused so much anguish, and also report to the House on the response he has received from the internal inquiry by the board that he said would be able to report yesterday? Would he make such a statement on motions on Monday?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I will be in a position to make a statement on motions on Monday. I am consulting with the advisory committee on Monday evening, I believe, but I am not sure whether the time of that meeting has been set yet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but my question is not a supplementary. May I ask it just the same?


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member in a moment.

The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and following the first round of questions we will return to these many supplementaries.


MANPOWER
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of his answer to the Leader of the 25789-731
Oral Questions
Opposition to the effect that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration shared responsibility for the mistake that was made with his deputy minister, does this government not accept the principle that has been accepted by all Canadian governments since the beginning of the parliamentary process that a minister accepts full responsibility for what goes on in his department and does not share it with any of his civil servants?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member and those who applaud him read the blues they will see that I said the minister shared the responsibility with the government, not with his deputy minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: He shared it with his deputy minister yesterday.


George Harris Hees: You said "deputy minister", and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You did.
 * *


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the very distinguished, respected and perceptive member of the House, the hon. member for Crowfoot. I ask my question of that hon. gentleman in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Som


a hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: That just occurred an hour ago, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What time is the party?


Frank Howard: Because of the importance of transportation questions in western Canada, to which the government is giving some priority, will the hon. member tell the House when the steering committee of that committee will meet?


Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I might inform the House that the steering committee will meet as soon as the parties involved give me the names of the members they wish to act on the steering committee. Then we will sit down and try to plan our program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Oral Questions BILINGUALISM


APPLICATION OF SUMMER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO TEACHERS
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he received any representations to the effect that the second language summer courses scholarship program worked out by the Canadian Council of Education Ministers be made available to teachers as well as students?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know if I have received such representations, Mr. Speaker, but I shall check on this.


MANPOWER
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to assist the Prime Minister to preserve his rather shaky credibility-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That's a good warm-up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows as well as other hon. members that he cannot ask a question in those terms.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you got one of those ski sweaters?


An hon. Member:: The minister will need one next year.


Gilles Caouette: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell us whether, following such representations, it would in effect be possible for teachers to take part in this program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all I can answer the hon. member is that I shall see what is the exact nature of the request and examine it thoroughly.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, this question is supplementary to those directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that well over 40,000 people have been disqualified by the benefit control officers in the past few weeks, is the government of the opinion that with continued vigilance perhaps 100,000 might be disqualified?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, that is the last thing in the world about which I would want to make a forecast.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there have been problems in connection with disqualification, has the government any further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to offer which would make it less attractive for people to be on unemployment insurance so that disqualification would not be necessary?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my prime purpose is to protect the generosity of the best unemployment insurance scheme in the world. We are trying to ensure that the credibility of that scheme is maintained with the Canadian people so that people genuinely unemployed and genuinely in need of income during an interruption in their regular earnings are in fact going to get it.


Peter Reilly: In view of the fact that the minister has lost no opportunity to implicate his deputy minister in this affair since March 9, and in light of parliamentary tradition which requires him to accept full responsibility for the conduct of business in his department, will he now publicly accept that responsibility and clear the name of his deputy minister, or will he resign?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the involvement of the deputy minister came about mainly as the result of my answer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Hamilton West, which appears on page 2241 of Hansard. He asked me this direct question:
Was that directive released with the approval of the minister, or did his deputy issue it contrary to the instructions or directions of the minister?
My answer was as factual and as honest as it could be. The only alternative I would have had to put it differently would have been to lie.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Peter Reilly: I rise on a question of privilege, and I place myself in the hands of the Chair on this, Mr. Speaker. The minister's reference to the deputy minister was not confined to a simple honest answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West. The minister on several occasions, not only in this House but outside the House through the medium of television, implicated his deputy in this sorry affair. As a member of the House representing many thousands of civil servants whose interests, I suggest to Your Honour, are adversely affected by this kind of sorry conduct, I demand of the minister that he publicly clear the name of a loyal civil servant or resign from the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


FOOD-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF NUTRITIONAL LABELLING AND CONTENT PROVISIONS THIS SESSION
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the United States Food and Drug Administration has now issued nutritional quality guidelines to supplement its nutritional labelling rules already in effect, does the Canadian government plan to introduce nutritional labelling and content provisions this session to protect Canadian consumers?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice so that I may look at the recent United States decision in this respect and answer later.


FINANCE
Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in light of the deepening international monetary situation the suggestion has been put forward that perhaps one way to arrive at a solution is to neutralize the holdings of Eurodollars by multinational corporations, I am wondering whether, when the President of the Treasury Board represented Canada an expression was made about this opinion at the meetings in Paris?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no report on any statement that might have been made by the minister in Paris. He will report to me when he comes back.


James McPhail Gillies: Has the government discussed the possibilities, the impact and the effect of neutralizing Eurodollar holdings of Canadian corporations and the impact that would have on the international monetary situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss that matter with the minister, but I cannot speak on behalf of the Minister of Finance who is being represented by the President of the Treasury Board.


STUDY OF EFFECT OF REVALUED CURRENCIES ON CANADA IN ORDER TO TAKE STEPS TO CONTROL INFLATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the increased cost to Canadians of some 25 per cent to 30 per cent on goods imported from Germany and Japan as a result of the revalued mark and yen, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he plans to authorize a study by any department of the government in order to determine the over-all effect of the revalued currencies on
Oral Questions
Canada so that steps can be taken to control our run-away inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the moving of currencies up and down in various countries with which we trade is, of course, under constant study by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by the Department of Finance. Its effect on inflation is one that we are also aware of. I know of no particular study that has been done as a result of the recent movement of the yen and mark, but I repeat that the question obviously is very much at the core in the international section of the Department of Finance.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS-AGREEMENT BY COUNTRIES TO TAKE MEASURES TO FIGHT INFLATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. I should like to be more specific than the last questioner. Now that Canada has joined in a 14-nation monetary agreement in Paris where all countries have agreed to take measures to strengthen the fight against inflation, would the Prime Minister inform the House what further measures his government intends to take in Canada to fight inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any announcements that will be made in this respect will be made first in the House of Commons.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my further question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United States and certain other countries agreed at the same Paris conference to take fiscal measures, including allowing higher domestic interest rates, to help relieve the world monetary crisis, would the Prime Minister inform the House what added fiscal measures the government plans to take and whether domestic interest rates will be allowed to rise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member would expect this kind of information to be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. I doubt that it should be done by way of a reply to a question.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. lean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State concerning the encouragement extended to the teaching of the second language in the schools of the national capital area and I would like to ask him a few questions on this subject.
Could he tell the House whether the $2 million grant for the teaching of the second language will be used also for the teaching of English in French-speaking schools?


Oral Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the full essence of the question. The funds are essentially directed to the pilot project to improve the learning of French in the national capital region among English students. The evaluation of the success of this project will be carried out by the province and the funds involved in that evaluation will be supplied by the province.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
It is a recognized fact that teaching English to Frenchspeaking classes is done more efficiently than teaching French to English-speaking classes. I would therefore ask the hon. minister whether funds made available to the provinces, Ontario in particular, will be used to assess the success in teaching English in French-speaking schools as a second language?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is originally envisaged, but I think that the concern the hon. member expresses and that he expressed to me before privately is something that we could take up with the provinces. I am sure there would be no long-term objection to making an evaluation of both.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of all the time the government has been giving to the question of confidence recently, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government holds that the corporate tax measures in the May, 1972, budget go "to the root of the government's policy" and involve fundamental and "basic principles" of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Prime Minister advise the House if he is aware of whether these measures are considered matters of confidence by the hon. member for York South?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its memorandum to the cabinet, is urging that the price of industrial milk be increased immediately by 60 cents per cwt because of the ever increasing cost of production, could the minister tell the House whether a favourable answer will soon be given to this request?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we received the request and we are studying it. As the hon. member knows, the decision has to be made before April 1 and it will be.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since the amount of 60 cents per cwt quoted in the brief matches production costs for November 1972, could the minister tell the House if he will take into account the increase of production costs between November 1972 and March 1973?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is talking about extra cost, especially protein cost. We are considering this also to see if there is some way or some measure by which we can offset this cost.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on a supplementary.


MUSHROOMS-DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE IN IMPORT REGULATIONS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What department of government, if any, made recommendations or brought about changes in the regulations pertaining to the importation of mushrooms in Canada in any form?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that there is a direct link between milk and mushrooms. Perhaps the suggestion is that it is cream of mushroom soup.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member having asked the question, the minister might reply. We will soon be running short of time, and I would hope that supplementaries will be related as closely as possible to the original questions asked. The minister might reply now to the mushroom question.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, sometimes one has to use whatever pretext one can in order to get in a question, and I guess mushroom soup would be as good as any. I ask the minister what department would be instrumental in bringing about a change in the importation requirements with respect to mushrooms in any form?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the department that has control over regulations governing food and the ingredients in food is that administered by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I guess I did not make my question as clear as I should have. I would like to direct two minor questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Why did he not have an opportunity to comment on a change that affects agriculture? Further, if there has been a change, as I understand there has been, is it to be in tariff regulations pertaining to mushrooms coming into Canada, is it to be permanent or is it applicable to only one shipment of mushrooms?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to know more than I do about this subject-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -at least if one were to accept the premise to his question. I have been consulted, and the hon. member knows very well that I have been in close contact with the Canadian mushroom industry which I believe is an important industry. Further, I have been given assurance by my colleagues who have control over the proper standards that are to be maintained by our processors and other matters that this industry will be kept healthy in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope this does not mushroom into a debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has a supplementary.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Bell:: Speaking about mushrooms!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: In view of the concern of the mushroom growers of Canada, particularly those I know in western Canada, and also in view of the fact that there are 300,000 cases of Canadian mushrooms already processed and available for sale that have not been sold, will the minister reconsider his policy pertaining to importing mushrooms into Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my policy concerning the importing of mushrooms has not changed.


George Harris Hees: Whose has, then?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: These imported mushrooms will have to meet the standards that any processor in Canada has to meet. I have been given the assurance that they will not be allowed to be dumped into Canada. As I said, I am sure the mushroom producers are aware of what I have been doing. I have been in constant contact with them and I am sure they have-how do you say it-a great deal of confidence in the fact that I am not going to let them down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There are just about four minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar also has a supplementary, which will be the last one on this subject, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova.


SUGGESTED REVIEW OF REDUCTION OF TARIFFS ON VEGETABLES AND MEAT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I would like to ask the minister whether, as a result of his meetings with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and their request that the government review its decision unilaterally to cut tariffs on a wide range of vegetables and meat, he can assure the House that this action will be reviewed in light of its possible disastrous consequences on sections of Canadian agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in his question the hon. member is talking about the possible disastrous consequences on agriculture. The Minister of Finance has made it clear that if there are any disastrous consequences on agriculture we will take action. We are watching the situation very closely, and when any member can bring us evidence that there are disastrous consequences we will act.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration supplementary to other questions asked earlier. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if there is a blitz on in his department against administrative inefficiency and excess expenditures to correspond with the blitz against UIC claimants?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
At the beginning of the week, the inmates of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary enjoyed a topless dancers show. Could the minister tell us if it is his intention to present such shows in other institutions and if that initiative is part of the new rehabilitation policy?


Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the urgency of restoring rail passenger service to southwestern Ontario, and in light of the minister's statement recently in the House that prior to accepting the report made last year by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications he would have to consult with the Minister of Transport and Communications of the province of Ontario, could the minister inform the House now whether such a date has been set for that meeting? If so, what is the date and, if not, would he be willing to set such a date within the next week?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to meet with the Ontario minister and even the Prime Minister, Mr. Davis, before the end of March.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Now that the minister has undertaken to do this consulting would he agree to meet with the new chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the hon. member for Crowfoot, so that for the benefit of the Committee the substantial knowledge of the hon. member can be maximized to its fullest?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I did in the House this morning was to send my congratulations to the new chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about two minutes left before the end of the question period. Would hon. members resume their seats. It will not help hon. members to stand while the Speaker is on his feet. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will be recognized for a brief supplementary because we are coming to the end of the question period.


AIR TRANSPORT
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is very urgent. In view of the fact that plans were contemplated within the minister's department which, if implemented, could result in the long run in the dislocation of certain air traffic facilities, can the minister say whether he has investigated this matter and can he now assure the House that any such plans will be terminated?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian air traffic control system is constantly under review to ensure that the highest degree of safety in
(Mr. La Salle.]
our skies is maintained. In so far as the air traffic control facilities at Gander are concerned, I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to hear that we have no plans to relocate the facilities.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that three weeks have passed since the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs made a report to the House recommending an increase in the basic pension along the lines of the report of the joint study group, can the minister tell the House whether there is hope that such a bill will be introduced at an early date?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister oi Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the joint study group was examined and the Veterans Affairs Committee has reported to the House. It is now being studied by the government. We expect a report in the not too distant future.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccla@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Now that the Ontario government has decided to recognize its responsibility in settling the elevator strike in the province, will the minister send a message of congratulations to Premier Davis for finally accepting his responsibility?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is more a representation than a question. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte. I apologize to him; he had a supplementary previously and I failed to see him in his corner of the Chamber.



FINANCE


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the presentation made by national agricultural organizations on behalf of agricultural commodities which have been detrimentally affected by proposals in the budget, would the Prime Minister assure the House that he will give


consideration to changing these proposals before it is too late for some sectors of agriculture?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of cabinet with these organizations and, indeed, in the House, the Minister of Finance has repeatedly said that he had the power to make these changes if he found that they affected agriculture adversely. As the House knows from the budget, tariff cuts were brought in for a year but the government has power by order in council to make that period shorter.


Fred Alward McCain: That is too late.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 15, 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. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, last evening-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, the central thrust of my comments last evening was that the program provided in the bill illustrates better than anything else the neglect of housing that this government and its Conservative predecessors have shown at the federal level since the second world war. The list of programs, the talk about the neighbourhood improvement program, new provisions for guaranty standards, the residential rehabilitation program, assisted home ownership and the co-op improvements clearly illustrate that we have had nothing since 1964 in terms of housing legislation and nothing of real significance since the National Housing Act was passed. When I tried to document at some length last night the extent and seriousness of the situation in Canada, I suggested that the reliance this government has shown in the past and the Conservative party before it, on the private financial institutions to meet the needs of housing in Canada has simply not been justified.
After all, the over-all objective is to provide homes for all Canadians, and particularly to meet the needs of average and low income Canadians. The kind of changes that have been introduced since the mid sixties by the government have not accomplished this. All they have done has
National Housing Act
been to stimulate the growth of homes in total numbers; they have not solved the distribution problem. They have not assured that the homes have gone to the people who need them most. In fact they have gone to those Canadians in the top 20 per cent income bracket. What we need is a significant change in our financial institutions in particular to bring down interest rates and to ensure that money goes where it is needed in significant quantities.
I should like to comment briefly on four of the programs included in this bill. First of all, there is the neighbourhood improvement program. The New Democratic Party welcomes the new emphasis that the government apparently intends to place upon improving our neighbourhoods that could deteriorate and decline. Instead of continuing with their old program, which really amounted to bulldozing such communities out of existence, destroying the sense of community and historical continuity when they tended to move people hither and yon and replace the old residences with rather dehumanizing monstrous structures that did not meet the needs of the people who once lived in those areas, they have made changes in this new bill. We rather like that. We like the new emphasis which the minister referred to of concern with rebuilding and maintaining a sense of community in existing neighbourhoods.
We have two reservations, however. We are concerned that the required standards might impose an unacceptable burden of cost on those who can least afford it, such as, for example, pensioners and non-unionized workers in the larger cities. To this end we will be proposing amendments to clause 12 at the committee stage, the effect of which will be to remove any such burden from our pensioners and low income people who live in such neighbourhoods.
The second objection concerns provisions which, in effect, are escape clauses. We suggest that these will permit the unacceptable kind of bulldozing away of neighbourhoods that this program is supposed to eliminate. We suggest that clause 10 is an escape clause, and we were surprised to find that the minister had allowed it to remain in the bill. If our interpretation is correct, this clause will permit the kind of bulldozing that has gone on in the past to continue. We object to that most strenuously.
I should like now to turn to the residential rehabilitation assistance program. This provides for financial assistance for repairing residences. There is to be assistance of up to $2,000 in forgivable loans per dwelling unit. Our first concern is that there should be no ceiling; there should not be a $2,000 or a $3,000 ceiling; there ought not to be any ceiling on the amount to be granted, in order to bring certain minimum standards into being in all affected areas across Canada. We believe that the cost of financing basic electrical systems, heating systems, plumbing and structural components of housing ought to be borne for those eligible under this program. Until these basic mini-mums are covered, there ought not to be a ceiling on the amount of money that is to be made available to people under this scheme. The amount that a borrower may borrow should be scaled to income. From our reading of the legislation, it is not clear that this is to be done. It has been suggested that it will be done, but we want to make


National Housing Act
sure that it is to these ends we will be introducing amendments to make sure that these goals are achieved.
Our next area of concern under this program is that to do with the needs of rural Canada which, according to the Dennis report and other studies, are most important. It is part of the conventional widsom of members representing urban ridings that the need for housing changes in Canada exists almost exclusively in the urban parts of the country. This is not the case, particularly with respect to the need for rehabilitation. We will be looking at the minister's budgetary proposals later, we hope soon in this session, to make sure that the needs of rural Canada with respect to rehabilitation will be met.
Next, I want to say something about the assisted home ownership program. When this program was introduced last year, the government suggested it would meet all the needs of low income Canadians. Appropriately, I think the minister has modified his enthusiasm on that point. The program will, through the reduction of mortgages, through extending the period of mortgage repayments up to 40 years, and the provision of annual grants, take real steps in assisting low income Canadians; however, by no means will it be the panacea that some government spokesmen have suggested it will be for meeting the housing needs of low income Canadians. Its virtues have been greatly exaggerated. It will benefit almost exclusively people in rural areas of Canada and small cities.
The reason for this is that, effectively, only dwellings below $25,000 in cost will meet the eligibility criteria. That means that the average person in Toronto, or in my community, Oshawa-Whitby or indeed in any big city, such as Vancouver, or other cities on the west coast, will simply be ineligible for aid under the program. You simply can't buy a house under $25,000. It is important that the minister does not raise false expectations in this regard. We will be studying the proposal and we will stress the importance of making the merits of the program clear. It must be seen by all that only those living in rural areas and small cities will benefit. This part of the program will do nothing to bring housing within reach of the average Canadian in the major cities, on the west coast, in Ontario, or in the province of Quebec.
What we need, and nothing in this bill moves in this direction, is the provision of housing for people in those areas to which I have just referred. They need homes that they can afford to purchase. To this end there must be a substantial reduction in interest rates. They must be brought down to between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. In addition, the government, under provisions in the financial mechanisms bill, must take steps, particularly concerning the banks and trust companies, to ensure that there will be an adequate flow of money for meeting such housing needs. Nothing in this bill, and nothing in the financial mechanisms bill that the minister introduced, will move us in this direction. There is a complete failure on the part of the government under this program to meet the needs, of people in Canada who earn between $8,000 and $12,000 per year and live in our larger cities. This is a major gap in the government's legislative program, and we will be proposing at the committee stage amendments that will be intended to meet those needs. In the debate on the financial mechanisms bill in particular, we shall make

concrete proposals that will overcome that major disadvantage in Canada's housing programs.
I should like now to turn to the co-operative housing provisions. We see in this provision a great advance over anything that has previously existed in Canada. We, of the NDP, believe that co-operative housing is and should be seen by law to be part of the non-profit private sector in housing. We think major emphasis must be given to the encouragement of co-op housing as one of the most effective and socially desirable ways of dealing with the housing needs of average and low income Canadians. With this in mind, we shall propose two significant changes. First, we will propose an amendment to make it clear that low interest loans will not be made available only to what have been regarded as charitable co-ops, but that they will be made available to all housing co-ops in Canada. I welcome the minister's comments in his speech which suggest that he intends to take steps to amend the legislation along these lines.
The second point with respect to co-ops is this: we object to the provision which puts a 95 per cent ceiling on the financing of co-operative housing projects. Co-operative projects we believe should be put on exactly the same basis as non-profit housing corporations active in other sectors of the housing program, and thus be eligible for 100 per cent financing. We think the requirement by the government that people put up five per cent acts as a deterrent which should not be part of any government program, the object of which is to encourage the spread and development of co-op housing in Canada.
In conclusions, may I say that we shall support the bill. Most of its provisions might be simply considered as a catalogue of certain areas that have been neglected in the past. On the other hand, we reject the view that much of it is new. Most of the provisions are to be found in other, existing legislation. There have been loopholes in the CMHC legislation. By bringing all these provisions together in one legislative package, however, we shall make it known to all Canadians that this wide range of programs is available to them, and therefore more Canadians will be able to obtain benefits from such provisions than was the case hitherto.
May I stress this, however: although accepting this bill, we still reject the basic view held by the Liberal party and by the Official Opposition that the private, commercial, financial marketplace will meet the housing needs of Canadians. We categorically reject that. For decades, one government after the other at the federal level has suggested that by tinkering with the Bank Act and fooling around with mortgage regulations, somehow we were going to provide houses that were needed for average and low income Canadians. It has not worked.
To repeat a point that I made yesterday, three million Canadians still live in grotesquely inadequate housing. To continue to rely on the private market mechanism, even to the degree proposed by this government, will be to perpetuate serious social housing inequalities in Canada. Therefore, when we debate the financial measures which will be required to implement some of the laudable objectives of this bill we will, (a), be rejecting the bill that will be coming later from the minister and, (b), making a proposal of our own which will, if it is accepted by the


government, see in Canada the allocation of funds during the next five to 10 years which will establish, from one coast to the other, housing as a social right for all of our citizens, just as now at long last we have medicare and education established as a universal right, available to all regardless of income. That is the kind of housing program we need. That is still not the kind being suggested by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the various statements from the official opposition or the New Democratic Party, because we discover in them a divergence of principles. One tends to deny everything whatsoever, to be over-critical and to oppose everything; the other admits that everything must become state-controlled.
The spokesman for the New Democratic Party has just finished his speech by opposing, once again, the economic contribution of private enterprise, and wishing that the State alone deal with housing.
Mr. Speaker, I have been quite interested by the remarks of the minister when he introduced Bill C-133 and I think that if though some shortcomings can still be found surely the proposed amendments will widen the scope of the former law. I wish to commend the minister while warning him against the regulations most often prepared by the administration and which sometimes make good legislation less accessible to those they were intended for.
This act, as the previous one, is aimed at encouraging and facilitating private investments in the field of housing. In my opinion, one of the first objectives of Bill C-133 is to give a wider role to our banking institutions, insurance companies and trust companies which are authorized by the federal government to grant housing loans under certain conditions but with certain guarantees from the government.
We realize that the government wishes to grant housing loans only after the would-be owner has tried his luck with all the other private institutions. But this advantage of the law becomes a shortcoming on several occasions as regards its administration. Indeed, some public servants have a tendency to consider the letter of the law rather than its spirit and this gives rise to many groundless refusals.
It is because I have seen this kind of thing happen that I warned the minister at the outset of my remarks about these minor defects which might stand out at the administration level. But I am glad to see that it is at the direct loan level that this law will enable the corporation to fulfil its social function in the sectors where financial institutions do not dare venture or cannot invest often because of a lack of guarantees.
I would like to draw the attention of the House on a statement made by the minister on January 30, 1973, concerning new communities. The minister expressed himself thus concerning those new communities:
25789-74J
National Housing Act
To help accommodate urban growth other than by urban sprawl and to promote the development of regional growth centres, it is proposed to introduce provisions in the National Housing Act explicitly for new community development (Section 45.1).
This proposed addition will make it possible to assist provinces by either a loan and forgiveness mechanism or by a partnership cost-sharing arrangement.
Loans will be available to pubhc agencies for 90 per cent of the cost of site selection and acquisition of land, including linking corridors with other communities, for open space and for planning and servicing. The term of the loan will be up to 25 years but may be extended to 50 years where land is to be leased with title continuing to be held by the public agency. Fifty per cent of the loan would be forgiven for initial land planning costs and for land acquired for recreational and other social facilities.
As an alternative to borrowing, a province may enter into a federal-provincial partnership arrangement under which the federal government would share up to 75 per cent of the capital costs and profits or losses.
In parallel with the new facility, it is intended that the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs will promote the co-ordination and channeling of the appropriate programs and aids of other federal departments and agencies in the direction of new community development.
For both the loan and cost-sharing arrangements, additional grants will be available from the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and through the research and development provisions of the National Housing Act. These will facilitate new community experiments in such fields as urban transportation and communications, mixed land use concepts in contrast to traditional zoning practices, endeavours to reduce urban pollution and new management models in community development.
Mr. Speaker, that innovation complements the municipal aid programs still covered by the old act. However, I wonder whether, before he wrote those lines, the minister consulted with the provinces seeking their approval, or whether he simply throws the program at them, without consultation, with the attitude: Here is what we have decided unilaterally! You still have a choice: that of turning it down or accepting it. That surely is not the best way of asking for the co-operation of the provinces. Nevertheless, that is what happened at all the federal-provincial conferences.
The minister now knows to what extent the provinces, and especially Quebec, want to keep their autonomy in the fields assigned to them by the Constitution. Municipal and urban affairs lie at the very heart of those fields of activity. I quite understand that the federal minister adopts a fatherly attitude towards assistance to the provinces, but that is precisely what the provincial governments resent today, since at every meeting, whenever they can, they show the federal government that they are determined to argue from a basis of equality.
I wonder whether the present government will ever understand that this feeling of superiority-not to say supremacy-over the provinces must come to an end. For example, the federal government seems unaware, at least in its statements, that there is in Quebec a housing corporation that fulfils the same functions as the CMHC does at the federal level, because the province of Quebec is aware of its responsibilities to towns, municipalities and country areas.
If the federal government really wants to collaborate with the provinces, let it do them justice by redistributing the money that it is authorized to collect for them. And if


National Housing Act
it is going to grant loans, may the interest at least not be more than the cost of servicing. The federal government must stop playing the millionaire before the provinces.
Finally, the government encourages, urges the provinces to take part in this by offering to lend them money which they have a right to get. The minister gives us another example of this through the creation of his land development program and this is what we find at page 2 of his report, where he says:
One of the most critical factors in the cost of housing is the price of land. All governments must be prepared to act to increase the supply of serviced land if housing is to continue to be available and financially accessible to Canadians. An overall land strategy is necessary and to this end provincial and municipal governments will be encouraged to become more active in public land acquisition and servicing. The federal government is committing at least $100 million a year for the next five years for the public assembly of land, including assistance to new communities.
It is proposed to amend the land assembly provisions of the National Housing Act to make them more useful and attractive to governments.
The lending arrangement for land assembly, (Section 42), which expired by statute on March 31, 1972, would be broadened and established as a continuing program with 90 per cent loans available for any purpose having to do with housing.
The new arrangement would provide for debentures, as well as mortgages, to be used as security for the federal loan. In addition, where the province or municipality intends to lease out the land and thereby keep it in public ownership, the term of the loan will be extended from the normal 25 years up to 50 years. Repayment will be possible during the term of the loan, or as the land is disposed of, according to agreed terms.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have sufficiently brought this matter of federal-provincial relations to the attention of the minister; I am sure the minister will think twice before creating new programs without beforehand discussing them with the province.
One thing I found very interesting was that CHMC will be able to make a direct payment to the buyer to allow him to finish his house when the builder failed to do so. That is of utmost interest to me because I dealt with a case like that as recently as yesterday. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) will certainly hear more about it from his office since I intend to call on his officials.
This case is about a mobile home bought with a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing, and the construction and repairs have been at a standstill for months. It is a loan of $14,000 for the purchase of a mobile home which was paid $8,000 by CHMC. For the foundations and all the rest, the owner has already paid $2,800 cash to the builder plus a promissory note of $2,500 because he did not have the money to have the work done.
The owner noted everything that was missing or faulty in the building and made a report to those in charge of that at Central Mortgage and Housing. Everything has come to a dead stop and the local director of CHMC says he cannot give the balance of the loan until the house is completed. The last suggestion made to the new owner was that he get a lawyer and bring his case to court to see if he can get anything from his builder.
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that that owner can afford to spend from $500 to $1,000 to bring his builder to court?

It seems to me that CHMC should have the authority to order the completion of work using the balance of the loan.
I understand that once the act is amended, it will be much easier to intervene in such cases, and I believe that this was the purpose of the minister in this particular section.
The corporation should also provide for a further protection of small homeowners through a reduction of taxes and interest rates. The minister may go on telling us that these are low cost housing units, but one can hardly believe it when taking a closer look at it. Today the smallest house costs $20,000. We must not forget that on this amount, the homeowner will have to pay 8 per cent provincial tax, 11 per cent municipal tax, the federal tax on building materials, which means that this 10 per cent down-payment which is required today from the homeowner is just designed to cover taxes.
The interest rate will often range between 9 and 12 per cent, according to the financial situation of the borrower. The poorer he is, the more he will pay. If you add to this amount municipal taxes, school taxes, fire insurance plus the insurance on the loan itself, and if you spread instalments over forty years, you will find that this poor "low income" homeowner had to pay five times the price to get a forty year old house. And all that when the owner has succeeded in securing the services of a conscientious contractor and of judicious inspectors who were not in connivance with the contractor to gyp him and force him to make repairs on very short notice.
I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) has mentioned such examples in his speech that everybody can read on pages 1478 and 1479 of Hansard for February 20, 1973 and in which he listed the numerous complaints filed in his riding.
It reads:
In view of complaints reaching us from Ville Belair, Val Saint-Michel and even Ville Vanier and other locations in my constituency, I am led to wonder, Mr. Chairman, at what level the studies have been conducted, and to what end? Were these studies fruitful? Did they focus on improving the quality of houses or on downgrading it?
... the president of the Association des proprietaires de Place Pierre-Bertrand said: "How come the governments concerned accept the recurrence of the same problems?"
In fact, the residents of similar projects in Montreal and Chateauguay are faced with identical construction defects. How is it, added the chairman, that once the building completed contractors suddenly disappear pretending they are bankrupt? How is it that sometimes after that they reappear with somewhat changed names and sometimes with the same names?
Mr. Chairman, I know a contractor who changed his name five times in 15 years. As the saying goes:
How does that grab you? After 15 years, he is still in business with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Some people are led to believe that contractors doing bad work are simply incompetent. I for one strongly believe the contrary. I am convinced that the contractor who has succeeded in "playing" with the millions of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is highly competent. In fact, those contractors, and there is more than one, are highly competent people.
Even the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation knows its business; in fact, since last spring, we have been asking for an enquiry to be conducted and for someone to inspect these slums. We said that it was cold and there was ice in there. So we request-


ed that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials investigate. They agreed and visited those houses on a day when the temperature was 55 degrees in January.
Why did they select this day? This also took experts from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation!
I think it abnormal that contractors of this kind are still in business and multiplying their victims, especially under the protection of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We have in front of us a statement which, I believe, speaks for itself-
The CMHC has already achieved good results. It continues to prepare and revise projects which are still very good but, unfortunately, it allows too many which are not.
All I ask the hon. minister today, all I want to know is this: what can we expect from the department, what can the people who have been cheated expect and are there still honest individuals in the CMHC who can take their responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that after so many explanations, illustrations and demonstrations, it can be concluded that things do not always go smoothly in the administration of the corporation. We will merely invite the committee to submit each new provision of the act to an in depth study and to make amendments.
In short, we want the committee to conduct a careful review and to have those responsible for implementation of the act appear before them first of all. Officials appointed by the government and responsible to parliament for implementation of the act should appear before the committee for questioning, as well as the contractors with whom the CMHC has dealt.
It would also be interesting to have some contractors appear who are worse than chameleons, one firm having changed names five times in 15 years. The minister has the right to meet those people.
It would also be advisable to have owners, perhaps represented by their associations, as witnesses before the committee. I feel that such evidence will make it possible to develop a more effective, more humane and more equitable legislation for all Canadians.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of real pride that I rise to speak in support of Bill C-133 presently before the House. This bill, taking into account as it does the real sociological implications and requirements of the present time, is doing something which I think has long been necessary in this country, namely, putting emphasis on those objectives which will result in the kind of communities for which I think we are all looking. I challenge any member of the opposition to take issue with the objectives and measures sought to be put into the act. Perhaps I could do no better in opening than refer to the Montreal Gazette of today which states that this bill includes measures to assist community planning, to attack land price increases, to give aid to co-operative and non-profit housing groups, to support attempts by low and medium income families to buy their own homes and to promote the restoration and preservation of old residential areas and cities.
Some few weeks ago our minister stated that the challenge before us is to preserve and improve our living spaces in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and our great
National Housing Act
cities in the face of the rapidly accelerating trend to urbanization. If we needed a stimulus in rising to this challenge, we have before us the depressing example of many urban areas of north America and the world that have become virtually uninhabitable because of congestion, pollution and decay, with all of the associated symptoms of crime, disease, poverty and the destruction of the human spirit. At the other end of the population shift, in the rural areas, is the threat of depopulation, abandonment and disappearance of a style of life and a scale of values that is uniquely Canadian. In Canada, we still have time to head off this kind of future by intelligent, rational planning and a concerted national effort involving all of the governments and people in all walks of life.
In attempting to face this challenge, it has been necessary to recognize the problems laid out so adequately by our minister in respect of the physical and social environment in which housing is being constructed. First of all there is the problem of availability, making sure there is enough housing in sufficient variety for the growing population. There is the problem of accessibility, making sure that housing is within the income reach of people who need it. We have the problem of housing quality, making sure that housing is not only sound but that it continually reflects advancement in design and technology.
There is also the problem of planning for the future, mounting research programs to increase our knowledge, re-examining and adapting our institutions and working out new styles of intergovernmental consultation and cooperation in the field of housing and community planning. We also must consider changes in the age structure of the Canadian population which is likely to present a challenge to us, especially in the last few years of the decade. Elderly people are going to represent a substantially greater proportion of the total population, and the demand for senior citizens' housing will be very much greater. Housing for elderly people already receives a significant volume of funds, but the prospect is that within the next few years those funds will have to be multiplied.
I was not born a rich Tory, so possibly I look at housing from a different point of view. I have spent the last 25 years in the construction industry. I can think back to my earlier formative years when I was living in a third storey tenament. We had three rooms to house my mother, my father, my sister and myself. We had to carry water in buckets up three flights of stairs for our normal household needs and we had to carry our dirty water back down. The only convenience was one common to all tenants in the backyard, and that was not a garden.
In those days, the thinking was that we should build huge low-cost housing units in order that we could move all these people and demolish these rat traps-and they were rat traps. When it rained the roof leaked in many places; at night we were always awakened by traps going off that were not filled with just mice, but rats as well. These were the conditions out of which we moved into low-cost housing intended to provide us a different environment.
Mr. Speaker, shall I stop now and continue after lunch?


National Housing Act


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was talking about the conditions some of us experienced in the late twenties in moving to the massive housing developments that were constructed in the thirties in order that these terrible slum accommodations could be demolished. Row upon row of well constructed houses were being built to move these families into accommodations the like of which they had never before experienced. They had running water, a real luxury. They had electricity, another luxury. Each house had a little garden. Trees were planted and there were hedges. There were also parks and open spaces. In every way, the environment was very pleasant. Within a period of two years the trees had been broken; the hedges had been pulled up and the children played in the street because they must walk the distance of a block to the park. The locks of the houses were destroyed and the community as a whole was slowly being destroyed.
I mention this in connection with this bill because we all recognize that today changes are not made simply by moving people out of the accommodations in which they are presently living or attempting to change their standard of living. The change must be brought about by a mix involving the different levels of society and the example of other people, whether neighbours and so on. At the present time we are very fortunate in Canada in that in many areas we see this mix of different social levels which is so essential if we are to achieve our objective and give everybody the opportunity they seek.
Shortly after the war, the kind of low-cost housing I was speaking about was still being built in Montreal. I was involved in projects in Montreal in the St. Michel and Saint Laurent areas where, in those days, houses were being built at a price of between $8,000 and $9,000 with down payments of around $500. I mention these figures because many figures have been thrown at us by previous speakers in respect of the high cost of housing. I want to compare what happened immediately after the war with another side of the situation.
Let us see what is happening today. Within 20 miles of downtown Montreal, less than a 30 minute drive on fine expressways, one can find well constructed homes the down payment on which is $750 and the cost of which is $14,000. These houses are on beautiful lots and are within two blocks of the lake and the river. They are within walking distance of churches, schools and shopping centres. Those houses are being built in large numbers. So, Mr. Speaker, let us not generalize and use as a basis for that generalization the conditions we find at present in Toronto.
I want to refer specifically to conditions in Toronto because it is acknowledged to be one of the fastest growing cities in North America. It is also a city in which you can find houses going up in fantastic numbers. Costly they may be, but they are being built because they are being bought. They are being bought because people think they are a good buy, because they want them in that location and at those prices.
Because of my keen interest in this subject, I listened very attentively to the three lead-off speakers for the opposition parties. I was particularly keen to learn their proposals, and not just to hear their usual objections to everything that is introduced by the government party, because that is taken as normal these days. But what concrete suggestions did they come up with, Mr. Speaker? I noted the second speaker made some proposals which I found very interesting. I noted, too, that the third speaker made some proposals, which I did not find quite so interesting, but they were certainly specific. I will deal for a moment with the lead-off speaker for the Official Opposition, and I am very glad to see that he has entered the chamber so that I can address my remarks to him through you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) spoke for a long time. I tried very hard to find something in his speech that might be a specific proposal. I did not succeed. In fact, I might say that he must have been boring his chief supporter, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), because at one point I thought he was asleep, but then he yawned and I realized he was not. And he did waken up to applaud very loudly when the hon. member for Calgary North referred to an elephant eating a peanut. I could not discover the relevance of that, but this is the kind of thing we get when we listen to the Official Opposition trying to put forward something that should be worthy of them by way of valid comment, criticism, and suggestions for improvement.
One of the things the hon. member for Calgary North stressed, and that I want to deal with briefly, was the relationship that exists between the federal government and the provinces. He did this through many indirect references. He talked of revenue sharing with the provinces. He talked, for example, of the elevator strike, which certainly most of us consider to be a provincial responsibility. But what interests me is that at no time did he make any specific proposal whatever on what could be done to get at the root of the problem, which is the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if it is a constitutional problem why do we not have some specific proposals from the Official Opposition for amending the constitution, so that we can tackle this problem?
The hon. member also made us listen to a piece of poetry at the end of his speech, and I listened very carefully to see how my favourite province was going to fare in that poem. I found, as with most things with which the Official Opposition is concerned, that Quebec did not appear once in the poem. It just wasn't there, as with all their considerations. So far as they are concerned that province is not taken into account, and perhaps because of this the hon. member's speech was distorted. He obvi-



ously had not talked to the chief representative of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec.
Before the election I was in St. Hilaire, and I saw what was going on there. I was very proud of it. Excellent housing was being built in St. Hilaire at low cost, as was the case in Quebec City also. Instead of painting such a dark picture all the time, I would like to see members of the Official Opposition come up with some specific and positive suggestions, if they have any. However, I found this particular speech completely barren.
I want to make one other point. A couple of weeks ago I was invited to a social function of an association of home builders. My wife and I were taken by a very significant fact, namely, that almost all the participants were very young people, people in their late twenties and early thirties, who were home owners. I might say that they came from an area near Montreal, Pierrefonds, where quality homes are being built on a massive scale which these people can obviously afford, and in which they enjoy living.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I ask everybody interested in this subject to take the trouble to read the pamphlets and literature that are put out by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). I find them easy to read. They clearly spell out what he is trying to achieve. I strongly recommend them to all people who have an interest in what the government is trying to do for the low income families in this country-assisted home ownership, non-profit housing corporations, residential rehabilitation, and neighbourhood improvement-all slanted to the low income level. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this legislation and I have no hesitation in giving it my 100 per cent support.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), and was glad that he threw this side a challenge. I hope he will listen to this debate to learn the philosophy of this party, and to understand the debacle in the housing field that the minister and the government have pushed down the throats of Canadians, without any regard to how Canadians want to live and are entitled to live.
The philosophy of this party was set out by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It is that every family should be able to own a home, or at least have an equity in a home, where there is a backyard. And where possible that home should be a single family home, or a semi-detached home, or at the very least a townhouse. It is about time we looked after people properly, and not in the way that some socialistic democratic Liberal party would want them looked after. It is the inalienable right of a family with children to be able, if they desire, to own their own land and their own home. You will not find this party talking about leases forever, with the chance that you never can own anything in Canada. It is important for our children to have grass in the backyard, to be able to reach down and touch the earth as they grow up, to say "This land is ours-this Canada is ours". The philosophy of this minister has been such that this has been denied many people. To some extent, the philosophy of this minister, put forward to this House last Monday, was the concept that if you are poor that is it.
National Housing Act
I am going to talk about how many people are going to be poor very soon as a result of the actions of this minister. The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned the fact that only 4 per cent of families in metropolitan Toronto could afford to buy a new house. I suppose the rest are poor. I have talked to young families with incomes up to $14,000 a year who are without a hope of ever getting a home of their own. What does the minister offer? "We will let you live with the landlord if he provides apartments and multi-units, and if 25 per cent of them are rented to poor families we will provide even larger subsidies". This government and my friends to the left are in favour of more high-rise buildings, more crowding, no backyards for kids and to some extent that is what this bill promises.
The approach in this bill has been described by others, and I am going to repeat it, as a band-aid approach from a band-aid minister from a band-aid government. In January, when that famous housing conference was held, that was the comment made by the ministers from Nova Scotia, from Alberta, Ontario, the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and the member for Vaudreville (Mr. Herbert), from the province of Quebec. We did not hear that before, either. It is the complete lack of policy, the lack of drive and purpose and the enormous lack of leadership that categorizes this government and condemns a greater number of people to live in high-rise apartments with smelly corridors and condemns a great many more children to learn to ride their triK.es in high-rise apartments or to learn to play in those zoos they call playgrounds behind the Central Mortgage authorized apartment developments.
We have not heard anything about the enormous cost and problem of inter-urban transit. The hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will be speaking on this subject later. In metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Speaker, ten railway lines ran out from the city but only one-possibly two if you can call the other a railway line-is being used for inter-urban transit. Even that is only possible because the province of Ontario is prepared to pay the CNR a profit so that the city can have some commuter service. They get little if any, help from this government.
It has been clear, Mr. Speaker, that in almost every situation the lack of serviced land is responsible for high costs. Because of a number of factors, the cost of serviced land in metropolitan Toronto has risen from about $4,000 in 1958 to $19,000 in 1972, and I am told that this year it will cost between $22,000 and $24,000. This price rise has effectively denied home ownership to all but about 4 per cent of wage earners, those who earn over $16,600 per annum. I say to the hon. member for Vaudreville that if he were unfortunate enough to have to move to Mississauga his emolument as a member of this House of Commons would hardly enable him to buy a home.
Some people, including the present minister have taken the position that speculative holdings by large corporations have created a monopoly in land ownership and that this is the problem. In my experience, Mr. Speaker, this argument is totally without reason. Any land holder in and around metropolitan Toronto, including every major developer, has plan after plan filed with the municipalities and the province which for one reason or other have


National Housing Act
been held up. After shaking out all the sociological causes for holding up plans for subdivisions, the basic problem is found to be the lack of capital in the hands of the province and municipalities which would allow development to proceed. It must be remembered that money is required to keep the municipalities going forward, to provide sewer, water, road, parks, recreation, transportation, social services and so on. These services are required not only for the new development but must be maintained for the existing development on the periphery or near the new development.
At present in the metropolitan Toronto area, large developers are required to provide pretty well all the internal costs of their plan of subdivision. There are external costs, however, which run throughout the municipal jurisdiction-for example, trunk roads, municipal bus services, extension of hydro, water and sewage services, as well as new arenas and community centres. These are necessary if a development is to proceed. In slow growth areas, perhaps some of the places that the hon. member for Vaudreville was talking about are still slow growth areas, new development can be financed from existing assessment. In fast growth areas-


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on a question of privilege.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the first new references of the hon. member because I thought he was talking about some other location. It is apparent now that he is talking about my riding, and I should point out that it is Vaudreuil.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am most pleased to hear that, Mr. Speaker, as I never could manage the pronunciation. Mr. Speaker, in a slow growth area the problems of development can be financed from existing assessments; in a rapid growth area new assessment does not come along fast enough to finance the growth required and consequently problems arise. In my town of Mississauga, the Don Mills Development Corporation, through Erin Mills, has been very generous with the municipality in terms of subdivision agreements. However, right from the moment the new houses were occupied, people in the existing community found that the access roads were plugged with cars and they could not find a seat on the GO train from Clarkson, so had to stand all the way to Toronto. You can understand that to some extent the original residents resent and obstruct development when such facilities come under heavy pressure. It makes no difference whether the developer is a private or public developer. The ownership of land in no way affects the problem facing the existing community which is the dislocation caused by the influx of large numbers of new residents.
In 1968, the Hellyer Task Force was looking into the general question of development and it felt that if the government could control huge blocks of land it could make sure that the new land developer would bear the entire cost of development. Unfortunately, there are more costs than just the cost of new development. There are areas where government assistance is needed to assemble land. The major problem and the one that the minister

does not want to bother looking at, is that we have the land developed and held by large private land banks already.
The problem is, how can we bring land on stream. We must break through red tape and make it possible for land to be serviced. Nothing has been suggested by the minister, when speaking on this bill, that would bring new lots on stream and make it possible for sufficient subdivision plans to be registered so that the shortage of serviced land will immediately be corrected. As a result of rapid growth, there is not sufficient land in and around metropolitan Toronto to even begin handling the requirements for serviced land. What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that those who hold the few remaining blocks of serviced land are able to demand higher and higher prices; because our system is such that rationing always takes place in those conditions.
I suggest that in the greater Toronto area, or even in the southern Ontario area, there is a demand right now for at least 100,000 single family lots. Enough lots must be placed on the market to drive the price down. At present hardly enough land for 12,000 shelter units is being put on the market annually. I understand from a major developer that he could sell almost everything he is allowed to develop, but that he has to ration his product to two, three or four builders; even then, he must continue to turn down applicant after applicant who wants to build houses, because not enough serviced land is available. An emergency has developed; the log jam must be broken. This bill will do nothing whatever to attack that problem.
The value of accommodation in our society is determined by supply and demand. Even in a socialist society, and my friends to the left know all about this, units theoretically are made available on a needs basis;


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the hon. member know about that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yet I am told that money paid under the table determines the priority of applications. There is no need for the government to buy farms and gobble up good land. There is a need for land already set aside for development to be put on the market. We must make sure it is serviced, and make sure that land needs are planned.


John Edward Broadbent: God bless free enterprise.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A few years ago there was a surplus of land on the market in some places, but developers knew that they could get good prices for it. Today there is less than one half, less than one third, in some cases I venture to suggest less than one tenth, of land needed available on the market. Consequently, prices have risen.
Existing communities see certain advantages in no further development taking place in their areas. After all, the arenas have been erected, the parks are open, and they do not want to see roads further congested as a result of development. Often, if one goes to a ratepayers' meeting, one will find the local residents opposed to further development, because they do not want their children to move


to another portable school. What we must do is attack this problem.
At present the federal government collects approximately $400 million per year in sales taxes on building materials. This tax is charged at the manufacturers level. It is a tax collected on building, and a good part of it is a tax on shelter. From the point of view of the tax collector, then, the government has an interest in promoting construction. Eleven per cent of the cost of each brick used accrues to this government. Surely, part of this money, collected as a direct result of development, should go back to the communities that pay for the cost of development.
The responsibility of the federal government lies in the field of banking and finance. Therefore, the federal government ought to make block financing available to provinces and, if necessary, directly to municipalities, perhaps on some sort of bonus basis, in order to encourage more serviced land to be put on the market. Block financing would compensate municipalities and provinces and make development possible; also, it would make development less objectionable to local residents, because developers, municipalities and provinces could say that existing residents will be able to get social amenities in advance of new developments taking place. Block financing would encourage municipalities and provincial planners to allow development to take place, and ratepayers would recognize that new development in their particular area would improve their quality of life. Cash would be made available in advance for the erection of rinks, access roads and sidewalks; and rapid transit lines, schools and other amenities could be installed and operating in advance of development.
Existing populations in areas, instead of sensing that development would harm them or destroy certain activities in their communities, would welcome new development. If block financing were adopted, towns, cities and provinces would force development ahead, because they would not be penalized as a result of development activity. They would make sure, as well, that developers pay their own costs. They could put pressure on developers and on those who own blocks of available land and say, if you do not develop this land, we will tax you as if you had developed it; otherwise, there would be no control as to the amount of land that could be brought on to the market. The extra serviced land for development that might be brought on the market in the long run would drive the price of land down. No longer would owning a vacant apartment site be a good investment; no longer would the extra lot beside one's house be so attractive. In addition, as more serviced land would become available and as prices would fall, there would be less desire on the part of people to speculate in the land market. People would be discouraged from behaving like squirrels.
We need to get things back as they were. At one time there was a vacant lot down the street and another one across the street. You know, vacant lots in older communities added charm to those communities. We did not then develop the sterile types of communities that we now seem to develop. A few houses were built in one year, and a few more were built in another; a few vacant lots were filled in, and the community did not look as if it had all come off one drawing board, with three sets of plans,
National Housing Act
three different roof designs and front doors of three different colours. Our communities were worthwhile. That is the kind of thing to which we must return. We cannot continue building housing of such a kind that, when you walk into a subdivision, you can tell almost to the day when the houses were built and which monster building corporation built them all. This is not the kind of thing that ought to be encouraged, but that is the approach we have taken in the past; that is the way Centred Mortgage and Housing Corporation operates and that is the way the present ministry, which adopts bandaid approaches, chooses to operate.
I now want to turn to the question of land banking. This particular program interests me, because it shows the velocity of this government in acting. Suppose the federal government were to utilize its money to buy land. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the question arises, where? Around metropolitan Toronto and for some considerable distance outside Toronto, most of the land is owned by persons either using it for their personal recreation and enjoyment or by persons holding it and hoping to develop it. If the government were to buy land fairly close to metropolitan Toronto it would, in effect, be buying land from one proposed developer and, in reality, we should merely witness a transfer of title.
For example, suppose that the government were to buy land presently held by Don Mills Development Company Limited in the Erin Mills site, Mississauga. All that would happen in that instance would be that a corporate bum would get paid-I thought you would like that-for having done nothing to develop the land. It would in fact represent, again for my friends to my left, another corporate rip-off. Perhaps that is what the minister has in mind. The only alternative is for the minister to go out into the countryside where land is held by original farmers and create new towns there. That sounds very idealistic. However, new towns that were recently created in Ontario and everywhere else were not just created because someone decided to see them there. They were developed because of the economic interest of the people in the community.
A town develops because there is a railroad, a good harvest or a good mill site. It is certainly true to say that none of the towns in Ontario or, indeed, all of Canada, were started just because the land was cheap. If the federal government decides to buy land somewhere in the countryside, let us examine some of the first things that will follow from such a course. First, trunk road services would have to be built, to the site, as well as other transportation services, to connect the new development with the rest of the country. Having spent huge sums of money to make access possible, a reason for the town's existence would have to be created. The town must have business centres and industry in which people can work. Such development does not occur'by merely wishing it. Each step along the path of development requires a huge loan, subsidy, grant or advance if it is to follow to a successful conclusion. Following this, construction must proceed. Roads must be put in, houses must be built, schools must be provided and all the services connected therewith.
Unless occupancy of the houses, factories and schools is held up until the whole new town is a cohesive unit, what


National Housing Act
do you get? You have a myth on your hands. If you are going to build a new town, you have to build the whole thing before you allow anybody to move into it. That is the whole problem of the new town concept presented by this minister.
Let us look at the question of servicing. Suppose, for example, the minister does buy a block of land. The first thing that is required is the provision of primary services. In order to provide those primary services, they must be brought to areas of existing development owned by existing owners. However, as soon as you bring a trunk sewer through undeveloped land or put a trunk road through private land held by private owners, those private owners immediately insist on their right to hook up to these services.
With this new town concept, what you really do is create string urban sprawl. It is politically impossible to say to someone that a new road, new trunk sewer and new hydroelectric service in front of his property cannot be used by him. It is politically impossible to do that. What you find all along the line between the proposed town site and the place where services can be obtained is a political requirement allowing all those persons to hook up and, therefore, you get urban sprawl. One of the things that is in fact being advocated by this minister in his new community concept is more urban sprawl.


Mr. Basiord:: Nonsense. It is straight Tory nonsense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The major problem with the new town concept is the huge time lag. It takes a couple of years to acquire land, probably five to eight years to complete the planning and arrange the financing and another eight to 10 years for construction. In the meantime, investment goes on without any return whatsoever. One must surely ask, after analysing the scheme, does it cost any less?
We have all seen government in action. We have all seen how government programs lead to waste. Many of us have analysed the government's attempt in the Malvern area in the east part of Toronto. This land was picked up over 20 years ago. Minimal taxes have been paid on this land throughout this period of time. People employed in government have been required to look after the land. I doubt whether their wage costs have ever been pro-rated against that land. Huge sums have been spent on planning. People employed in government have had to make representations to other governments. Finally, Mr. Speaker, that land may be brought on the market.
After analysing all of the costs, will there be cheaper house lots or not? I suggest that clear example indicates that the cost of land to the ordinary purchaser 20 years or longer after the original purchase is not cheaper. I suggest that it is actually a disaster.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Why are the provincial Conservatives bragging about it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: As far as current demand for serviced lots is concerned, the delay in constructing a new town does not meet the demand of today. One is looking at a delay of 10 to 15 years, and in the meantime nothing is done to attack the pressing problem of today. Land banking and new towns are not the answer to housing require-

ments for today. Such propositions do nothing for young people getting married today and who wish to raise a family. They do nothing for children presently being raised in high-rise apartment buildings. They do nothing to combat present high labour costs.
It is much easier for a town to grow from an existing core. In an existing core, there are churches, stores, some form of public recreation and some form of transportation. Additions can be made to the present transportation and recreation facilities. If the central government is prepared to block fund the municipality and the province to make this development in small towns and areas possible, that block funding must cover the whole social cost of development. That is the kind of approach that must take place. That is not the approach we are receiving in this bill. We already have large private land banks around most of our major cities and towns. The only advantage of public land banking is that the profit in development accrues to the public, providing, of course, there is ever a profit.
Looking at some of the results of Crown corporations, I wonder where the dividends are to the public treasury. We have the CBC. Where are the dividends? We have Air Canada. Where are the dividends? We have "had" the CNR, and we know what dividends we get from that corporation. Private corporations, on the other hand, are subject to a corporate tax rate of 50 per cent. Half their profit goes to the government.


An hon. Member:: That is the real rip-off-the government rip-off.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: So, from enterprises conducted in the private marketplace, governments benefit to the extent of 50 cents on the dollar though they have no share in equity or ownership. We already enjoy half the profits made by land developers. Why should our philosophy change now? Private development companies, many of them large corporations, are able to employ competent, top-rate staff. On the other hand, many of those presently employed in the planning departments of our cities and towns, as well as in government, just cannot compete in the private enterprise world. They show no evidence of being efficient, capable, driving or profit-oriented. In my opinion, the efficiency of production is destroyed when government gets into the act. We have seen this happen many times in various fields of activity and I see no reason to expect it to be different in the one now under discussion.
Many of the people in the new Liberal-New Democratic Party obviously think that to make a profit is terrible. To supporters of this party, making a profit is not a terrible thing.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Better support the tax cuts so that they can make more.


James McPhail Gillies: Bring them in!


Stanley Ronald Basford: All talk and not much action.


James McPhail Gillies: When are you going to bring them in?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It has been suggested that speculation in land has driven prices up to unrealistic levels. What has happened, in fact, is that the cost of the only land which can be serviced, or is likely to be serviced in a relatively short period of time, has been driven up to unrealistic levels in the areas around our great metropolitan centres. If more land were rapidly placed on the market, the probability is that those who hold parcels close to the cities would no longer be able to ask what amount to extortionate prices for them. The prices offered would be less; the holders would be obliged to cut their prices in order to sell their land.
If it could be clearly demonstrated that land is capable of development, municipalities should encounter no problem, particularly in the Province of Ontario, under the Assessment Act, in making arrangements to tax the land at its market value thus forcing speculative holders either to sell or to develop it. No individual should be allowed to take advantage of the public by holding land off the market indefinitely without, at least, paying a penalty by way of tax charges. If, as a result of block funding to the municipalities in respect to part of the development cost land is put on the market, the general price of land will fall. The government should take seriously the representations made to it by the provinces at the housing conference last January to which the minister referred.
Finally, I want to say this. It is unconscionable that shelter should bear a tax, as it does. Food bears no tax. Even cocktail mix bears no tax. If shelter is to bear tax, the revenue from that tax should be rebated to those who bear the costs of development, that is to say, to the municipalities and provinces where development is taking place. Such a rebate, such a block funding to the municipalities and to the provinces, would drive down the cost of land, and that is the major problem. The federal government has declared it is making $100 million available for the purchase of land. Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of land in Canada. We are the one country in the world which has an abundance of the commodity called land. The minister's whole approach to housing is, density, density, build the buildings higher, crowd the people closer together and make this country like Holland. The solution is not density, the solution is a really concrete attempt by the government to put forward a solid philosophy that says my children and your children should have a right to buy a home and raise a family.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: After hearing the speech of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should laugh or cry. It is bad enough to see the Liberals in power, but I just shudder to think what would happen were the Tories in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: The hon. member said the Liberals have the problem of density, density, density. But the Tories have the problem of dense, dense, dense. He would have us believe that the people of Ontario enjoy the finest housing in all the world. Let me remind him, Mr. Speaker, that a great many people in Ontario would have no place to lay their heads if the federal government did not take a strong initiative in the provision of public housing. Even now, the waiting list for such housing in Toronto is
National Housing Act
approximately 18,000. Yet the hon. member says that everything is well in Ontario because the land is controlled by the private developers who have the private land banks. He says: please do not encroach on these boys because if you let them participate with the private land bank the prices of land will just drop and drop. Well, this is complete nonsense. I just wanted to tell the House that this is the way I feel after listening to the hon. member for Peel South.
Last night I heard the minister pontificate on the government's proposals regarding housing. He used a fiery rhetoric with an anglican solemnity which almost impressed me sufficiently to think he had just returned from Mount Sinai with a new set of tablets to create the new Jerusalem in housing for Canada. But after reading his remarks I realize that this just is not so. X now realize what he is really trying to do. First, he is guilty of housing hokery-pokery. Second, he is perpetuating a housing charade with regard to the housing needs of Canadians. Why do I say he is guilty of housing hokery-pokery? We talked in the past in terms of urban renewal. Now he talks in terms of NIP, standing for neighbourhood improvement program. In the past we talked about home improvement. Now, he talks about RRAP which stands for residential rehabilitation assistance purchase program. In the past we talked about home purchase assistance. Now, the minister talks about AHOP, the assistance for home ownership program. Of course, I guess it sounds very smooth, very sophisticated. But what it amounts to is a lot of housing hokery-pokery.
The minister is also guilty of performing a housing charade. One cannot criticize the philosophy set forth in the Hellyer task force report which said every Canadian is entitled to clean, warm shelter, or the statement of the Canadian Social Development Council that every person is entitled to housing as a basic human right whether he can pay for it or not.
These are the philosophies that have been developed across this country, and last night the minister added to them by saying that it is the aim of this government to provide good housing at reasonable cost as a social goal and government obligation. We cannot quarrel with that philosophy, but we can quarrel with the performance of the government. We recall that in 1968, when the Liberals swept back into power and set up the Hellyer task force, this was a time when we had the great "participatory democracy" theme. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), Robert Campeau and two others travelled across the country to ascertain the needs of Canadians for housing accommodation. I should like to cite the four conclusions or recommendations that came forth from that group.
First of all, they said that the private market can serve the needs of Canadians for housing. That is absolutely wrong. If that were the case, we would not need bodies such as CMHC, the Ontario Housing Corporation and the many other housing corporations across the country to take care of our housing needs. Secondly, they said we should free interest rates. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that interest rates were frozen by the government. The hon. member for Trinity, a Liberal at the time, was a


National Housing Act
minister and was all for freeing the interest rate. As a result, we had the highest interest rates in the country.


James McPhail Gillies: And the biggest construction year.


John Gilbert: I will speak about the Conservative record in a moment, and I hope that the hon. member for Don Valley participates in the debate. The third conclusion come to by this task force was that the problem of public housing should be attacked. Public housing has not recovered from the assault made on it by members of the Hellyer task force since that date. They tried to "ghet-to-ize" public housing and people instead of telling us what public housing required for improvement. There was a great deal of room for improvement in the form of recreational centres and other social requirements which fit within the public housing concept.
Lastly, the task force talked about direct funding by municipalities to take care of housing. It was on this issue that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is a constitutional purist, differed from the hon. member for Trinity, and they parted ways. The hon. member for Trinity sat as an independent Liberal, then played with Action Canada for a while, and finally joined the Conservative party. So we now have within the Conservative party the two great architects of the Hellyer task force report, the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Don Valley.
From 1969 to the present day three things have resulted from the housing policies of this government. First, the cost of housing is the highest ever experienced in Canada, and this has added significantly to inflation in this country. Secondly, the cost of land is at its highest level. Thirdly, we have the highest interest rates. Last May and June the minister was reminded by me of these three facts, and he bristled with self-righteous indignation at the suggestion that these were the results of his policies.
What is the main criticism of housing policy in Canada today? First of all, the supply of houses in Canada has been dictated by the land developers, the builders and the financial institutions. This really is the major criticism of housing policy today. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have responded to this situation with a fawning, suffering acquiescence not worthy of the original intentions of the legislation as set forth in 1946. It has played the part of the friendly banker. It has played the part of the economic regulator by turning the money tap on and off. Now at last it is putting forward a framework that can only be successful if we have an energetic participation and thrust with regard to funding of these programs.
The second criticism is that the government is not taking steps to counter high interest rates, which are a major part of the cost of housing today. The lengthening of the mortgage term is not the answer: all this does is increase the cost of a house. Surely we have a social responsibility in the matter of housing. The profits of banks and insurance companies are nothing short of "Shylockian" and unconscionable. Catering to financial institutions in the hope that they will put up money for mortgages is a ridiculous approach. Surely we should say to them that they have a social responsibility to build homes in Canada and that a certain percentage of their money should be allocated to housing with interest rates no higher than 5 per cent to 6 per cent. This is the money

that most Canadians put into banks and insurance companies, and if left on deposit earns 3 or 4 per cent interest; but when these people want to buy a home they have to pay the bank anywhere from 9 to 9} per cent interest. As I say, banks and financial institutions surely have a social responsibility to furnish funds for housing at a reasonable rate of interest.
Thirdly, the government has failed to provide housing at a cost that averages no more than 20 per cent of the personal income of Canadians. What is required is a massive land assembly program by the government, a large volume of public housing and the granting of higher priority to families living on incomes under $8,000. These are all measures that the government has failed to take.
Yesterday evening the minister, with joyful pride, attempted to give an example of the cost of a home to a purchaser under AHOP, the assisted home ownership program. He said that a married man with a wife and two children could buy a $19,000 home under AHOP for $137 a month principal, interest and taxes and would thereby be saving the difference between $137 and $170. The question immediately arises: where can homes at a price of $19,000 be bought? The minister also indicated that a person's income would have to be no higher than $7,500. Certainly one would be unable to buy such houses in the large cities of this country, so they must be available in smaller towns and cities. I suggest that some people, even in small towns and cities, have a difficult time making $7,500 a year. Therefore I suggest that the minister's AHOP program will be very limited and unfruitful.
When it comes to solving the problem of inadequate housing for people of low income, this program is what I would call tokenism. I am sure that when the minister goes home tonight and thinks through these things he will have a very uneasy feeling with regard to the success of the program.
Now let me deal with some of the programs that are set forth in the bill. Last night the minister said he had the support of the co-ops, the credit unions and the Social Development Council of Canada for the framework of these programs, but he was quick to underline the fact that that support was conditional upon funding being forthcoming. I hope the co-operatives, credit unions and social development councils will not be disappointed, but it will be at least one year before any visible results are obtained.
In respect of AHOP, I can imagine how many private builders would take advantage of its provisions. In respect of NIP, I feel that only a few cities will attempt in the near future to take advantage of the program. In respect of RRAP, I am sure there will be some exceptions and that is why the minister last night said, I am sure with great reluctance, that he would not indicate the amount CMHC will be prepared to allocate to these funds but will wait until the committee stage of this bill. He did not have that reluctance last June when the government announced several programs aimed at the same problem. In fact, at that time he gave the allocation of moneys and we well recall that one allocation was $155 million to AHOP. That $155 million, worked out on the basis of the


average cost of a home being $25,000 , will produce roughly 7,500 homes. The production of only that number of homes to meet the needs of low-income Canadians is not satisfactory.
The purpose of AHOP is to provide the means whereby low and middle-income families may purchase homes. If we build these homes at so-called low rates of interest, 7} per cent to 8 per cent, with mortgages extending over 40 years and the average work lifetime ending at age 60, this will mean that a man who buys a home when he is 30 years old will be 70 years old before he has paid off the mortgage. I do not say this to embarrass the minister, because he knows the necessity to extend the period of mortgages, but 1 remind hon. members of the House that similar programs have been attempted in the United States which have resulted in very high interest rates and default penalties. In fact, these default penalties have been around 8 per cent to 9 per cent in the United States, while the normal default rate in respect of mortgage payments is about 1 per cent.
In a press release of June 12, 1972, the minister described AHOP as an additional alternative to public housing for low-income families. I pointed out at that time that the proposed $155 million funded for this program would produce only 7,500 homes. The minister has now left us hand hanging in respect of how much will be allocated under the present program. Surely it is obvious that this program will be directed toward rural towns and small villages in Canada. On the basis of the June proposal, the task force calculated that a family would require an income of $7,500 to be able to purchase an apartment valued at $20,000. Apart from the problem of the unavailability of 20,000 units in Toronto, the task force noted that 25 per cent of families in that city have an income of less than $7,000 per year. If that is so, the percentage of persons with incomes of less than $7,000 in small towns and cities would be much higher than 25 per cent, thereby limiting the program drastically.
If AHOP is an alternative to public housing, it is a very poor approach and we should condemn it in the same way we condemned the attempt of the hon. member for Trinity to deal with public housing in the report of the task force of 1969.


An hon. Member:: Slum housing.


John Gilbert: As the hon. member suggests, this would be similar to slum housing. It would be slum housing built by private enterprise, with public funds. This is what the minister is so proud of. Apparently he would rather put money in the pockets of the developers than provide amenities in public housing units.
My second point relates to the new communities program, land assembly or land banking. The minister waxed quite eloquent on this subject last night. He said $500 million would be available over the next five years tc various governments participating in land banking. He cited Ottawa as an example of what he hopes to get under way in the near future. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) quite rightly reminded him of the Malvern project. Let me remind hon. members that even though that project is 20 years old, the land could be sold at a price far below the private market price provided it
National Housing Act
was not sold originally to private builders. If this land were to be sold to private developers at high prices, they would in turn add the increased cost to the price of the homes in the area.
The people of Canada know that most housing in this country in the next ten years will be constructed on land already owned by a few large builders and developers. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Most homes built in Canada within the next decade will be built on land now owned by private builders and developers.


An hon. Member:: We got it that time.


John Gilbert: The Dennis report set forth CMHC requirements in respect of estimates for the next ten years for housing in this country. If we read that report we will find requirements set out for the next ten years. Toronto requires 19,600 acres of land to satisfy housing requirements in the next ten years. The acreage required is now controlled by six developers in the Toronto area: they control 18,000 acres. Calgary-its leading spokesman for the Tories spoke last night-requires, according to CMHC, about 7,500 acres. Six of the leading developers in Calgary own 7,000 of those acres.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We could solve the problem, but you want to stand in the way of progress.


John Gilbert: CMHC estimates that in the next ten years the city of Vancouver, the minister's own city, will require 8,000 acres for the construction of new houses, yet six leading developers in Vancouver now own 6,900 of those acres.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What would we do without you?


John Gilbert: I am sure the hon. member for Peel South feels discouraged about the speech he made last night and is attempting to qualify it now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: He is trying to recover.


John Gilbert: He is trying to recover and acquire a little knowledge along the way. I will forgive him for his enthusiasm. In view of these facts, where does this leave the government in respect of land banking? I suggest it leaves the government with very little room for manoeuvring.
I note that the hon. member for Don Valley is in the House and I hope he will not be embarrassed when I mention some of the companies which own this acreage. There are three firms which now own in excess of 5,000 acres. The companies are Bramalea Development Corporation-I am sure that means something to the hon. member for Peel South-the Canadian Equity and Development Company, which is controlled by the Cadillac Development Corporation, Bronfman (Seagrams) Interest, and George Wimpey Canada Ltd. These are three subsidiaries of Monarch Construction-Richmond Costain Ltd., or three subsidiaries of British building companies. If you add to that Marlborough Properties Limited, you have all the private land in Toronto within the control of these large companies. I did not mention the Fidinam Company. Probably the hon. member for Don Valley will be happy to rise and indicate the large interest that group


National Housing Act
has in Ontario. Is it any wonder that 36 per cent of the cost of NHA homes applies to land?
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who owns the property in Vancouver. It is owned by Western Realty and Marathon Realty Limited, a subsidiary of the CPR, Dawson Developments Limited, Imperial Construction Limited and Intercontinental Construction. All these land holding developments make full use of the deductions under the Income Tax Act: they apply all the interest charges, the municipal taxes and the capital cost depreciation. The result is that Cadillac Development had net earnings for the period 1966-1971 of approximately $63 million. How much did they pay in taxes? They paid $20,506. These are the boys the Tories want to protect.
Let me tell you about Marlborough Properties. They had net earnings for the period 1966-1970 of $12.1 million and did not pay one cent in taxes. These are the boys who take advantage of the tax provisions of the Income Tax Act. These are the boys to whom the hon. member for Peel South referred who own all the raw land and want the government to provide the services. Does this not make one feel great with respect to the neighbourhood improvement program? Surely the neighbourhood improvement program is to be preferred over urban renewal, because at least the philosophy is to improve neighbourhoods rather than bulldoze them.
The Dennis report urges that a freeze be put on NHA funding of city centre redevelopment projects in excess of 50 units to at least discourage developers breaking up existing neighbourhoods. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever been in the city of Toronto you will know that the method used by the developers is to break up existing homes. It will be very interesting to see whether CMHC will implement that proposal of the Dennis report. The RRAP program, the non-profit program and the co-operative program have been dealt with and will be dealt with in more detail by my colleagues. So I now come to the last chapter of my speech.
I think we are deeply indebted to men such as Dennis and Charney who have brought forward reports telling us what the situation is in respect of housing in Canada. The minister spoke highly last night of the research program. I hope he retains men like Dennis and Charney, who have social vision and responsibility in respect of housing projects and needs in Canada and can tell him where terrible housing conditions prevail.
My colleague from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) pointed out that there are 750,000 homes in desperate need of repair. This involves approximately three million people. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the innovative program the government had which probably came about as a result of the work of the research department of CMHC. Under this program $200 million of the taxpayers' money was allocated to the private builders so they could do something innovative in Canada. What did they do? First, they bought the land from private developers and paid the highest possible price. Much of it was land which the private developers had difficulty using or selling. Second, CMHC relaxed the building standards. Therefore, we had under that innovative program smaller homes and higher

density. I hope the research department will do a little more work in respect of housing and look to countries such as England, Sweden and Germany. It should pick out some of their best ideas and apply them to the housing needs of Canada.
I have one final comment in respect of warranties. Last evening the minister spoke about how generous the government would be when a private developer fails to finish a house because of lack of funds or bankruptcy. He would go to the lending institution, draw the money and give it to the poor purchaser. Then he said another problem is that many people buy homes in which they find many defects in materials and workmanship. He said, however, that that matter will be left for a while and brought forward later.
One of the crucial problems that has arisen in respect of public and private housing in Canada is the poor workmanship by private enterprise. Many people have wrung their hands and screamed in their efforts to get the builder to return and complete the home in a proper and workmanlike manner. As the minister said last night, when one purchases a steam iron he has more protection than when he purchases a home. Yet the minister wants to put this program forward. The federal housing authority in the United States has had in its legislation for some time a protection warranty covering defective workmanship and materials. Surely it is high time this government acted quickly in this regard. After listening to my speech, Mr. Speaker, you may think I will not support this bill. However, after a great deal of soul-searching I am prepared to support it, but I give it the same type of support as I gave the increase of 42 cents for the old age pensioners at Christmas, 1970.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of taking part in the debate on Bill C-133 because these amendments to the National Housing Act will certainly encourage the construction of homes in my riding. In addition, the changes suggested in this bill will allow for the continued application of the program already in operation, thus giving new hope to low income families, older citizens and others who hope to get decent housing.
In co-operation with the municipalities of Vanier and Ottawa, and the government of Ontario, the federal government helped with the construction, in my riding, of six building for low-income families and senior citizens. These represent 608 units and the federal contribution amounted to $7,410,000 over the last two years. Mr. Speaker, the electors of my riding of Ottawa East are extremely proud of the importance given by the federal government to the construction of such housing.
I represent a constituency divided in five clearly defined districts containing a municipality, Vanier, which is partly surrounded by the city of Ottawa. It also contains old historical neighbourhoods, judged by all to be worthy of being remembered. I will remind my colleagues that one of the greatest urban renewal projects in Canada was carried out in my constituency: the development of Lower Town in Ottawa which began seven or eight years ago and which will be completed I imagine in two or three years.


Mr. Speaker, I am discussing Lower Town because the experience has not always been a happy one. It is therefore a pleasure to realize that Bill C-133 contains very strict provisions concerning the planning, development and implementation of urban revewal projects.
There certainly will be in my constituency other improvement programs for residential neighbourhoods inhabited mostly by low income individuals and I have no doubt that the experience gained in the Lower Town project and other similar projects will contribute to humanize such programs.
There are areas in my constituency where housing development has the absolute priority; we still wish to keep these areas and I am convinced that the governments, in the light of the experience gained in Lower Town, will approach the problem in a more humane fashion and that the social and economic factors will have the importance that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, if we are frank and honest I think we must admit that a good many things can be attributed to human error. In lower town the dispersing of the population, the breaking up of a community, in the name of urban renewal by what has been called bulldozer methods is now something in the past. I am glad to note that in Bill C-133 we find certain guarantees and a very real preoccupation with proper planning and the development of our older neighbourhoods. Speaking of older neighbourhoods, Mr. Speaker, we are proud in Ottawa East to have areas which are not only historically important but contain very architecturally valuable and interesting houses. They demand attention in order to preserve their aesthetic and cultural values.
Unfortunately, modern development and the high cost of land, coupled with sometimes absentee ownership and the prospect of speculative profits, have doomed many interesting old structures to high-rise developments. We must keep in mind the value of these dwellings and, if possible, encourage their purchase by interested citizens of moderate income who may want to repair and renovate these older homes and in so doing preserve the quality, the design features and the beauty of the old architecture. We must keep some of the past about us so that we may feel a sense of perspective of time as we look at our surroundings and cherish the best of our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that Ontario was one of the first provinces to announce it would take advantage of the amendments to the National Housing Act and that it would assist financially privately owned enterprises in the field of housing, provided the latter supply a certain number of units, for a given period, to low-income families whose rent would be established according to their income.
However, I must mention the fact that, while establishing a regional office in Ottawa, our national capital, the Ontario Housing Corporation did not deem it necessary to obtain the services of bilingual personnel which could give to the Ottawa people, with a Francophone population of over 100,000, information and services about housing.
National Housing Act
In the case of Ontario, which has adopted institutional bilingualism a few years ago and which makes much of that fact, I find this an abnormal and unacceptable situation.
One of the amendments which pleases me most in Bill C-133 is the one that will allow average or low income families to acquire their own house. Many of those families living in rented houses could, with some assistance, become homeowners. For those who want and prefer to be owners rather than tenants and who can benefit from that program, this represents an interesting alternative. The amount of assistance which could be provided to the families will depend upon their income. That assistance will be provided in three ways: first, the reimbursement period for the mortgage loan can be extended up to 40 years. The rate of interest on the mortgage will be reduced, according to the family's income, starting with the regular market rate to the rate nearer that charged the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when it borrows its funds. If the extension of the reimbursement period and the reduction of the mortgage interest rate is still not enough, the federal government could grant a loan to keep, within tolerable limits, the monthly payments the family must pay.
Another amendment which I find very interesting is one to enable many public-spirited organizations to build or purchase decent housing they could rent on a non-profit basis to low income Canadians. This sort of housing is usually intended for the aged, but could also be used for other special groups, such as those in the low income bracket in general.
These amendments to the National Housing Act will raise the amount of the loans available to non-profit organizations from 95 to 100 per cent of the loan value of the projects involved. The loans will be repayable over periods up to 50 years, and will carry a low rate of interest.
In addition to these special loans, the federal government will grant subsidies to these organizations, of up to 10 per cent of capital costs. Non-profit organizations very often need help in launching their housing programs, in planning them and developing them to the point at which they can apply for loans. The federal government will provide special funds for getting started, lending up to $10,000. Non-profit organizations will also be eligible for loans and subsidies under the new housing rehabilitation program.
I am happy to observe that special attention has been paid, not only to home improvements, but also to the quality of the neighbourhood and surroundings. There are in my constituency several areas inhabited by low or middle income Canadians, where community services are lacking and the community spirit is crumbling away. We have been trying for some years, with social activities programs, the creation of citizens' committees, training in citizenship and various other measures, to encourage citizens to become aware of their surroundings. With a degree of help and encouragement to their inhabitants, some of the old areas of our town could be preserved, and become pleasant, wholesome places to live in. Bill C-133 proposes help to municipalities in planning, buying land, building or improving community facilities, etc. Of


National Housing Act
course, municipalities are creatures of the provinces and under their jurisdictions; the success of the program is dependent to a large extent on the participation and cooperation of provincial governments.
This neighbourhood improvement program will be subject to federal-provincial agreements. These agreements will specify how the money will be spent, how the residents of these neighbourhoods will take part in these programs and how new housing will be found for people who may be displaced as a result of activities under this program.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Ottawa East is an old neighbourhood and I am happy to note that it will be possible under the amendments to be made to the act, for an owner in an urban section designated for this purpose through a federal-provincial agreement to borrow money in order to repair and improve his home. The objective will be to make housing meet minimum health and security standards. It will be possible therefore for low income people to improve the quality of the plumbing, heating and electricity systems in their homes.
The amount of help will depend on the amount of work to be done and the income of the owner. Loans will be available within the limits that will have to be set up by regulations and if the housing unit continues to be occupied and maintained, a portion of the loan up to $2,000 could be forgiven. This forgiveness of part of the federal loan will not be dependent on any contribution from the province or the municipality.
In general the program will be used in concert with the new neighbourhood improvement program but it will be available in the case of housing projects built by non-profit corporations, or cooperatives. Under special federal-provincial agreements the program will apply to sectors located outside the neighbourhood up for improvement.
One of the terms of the loans is that suitable standards of maintenance and occupancy be in effect in municipalities. The purpose of that requirement is to help ensure that once repairs are made the property will not deteriorate again.
In conclusion I would say that it has become more and more evident that people buying houses need as much protection as people who buy cars or television sets or make any other investment of this kind. The proposed amendments to Bill C-133 deal with the problem of bankruptcy or insolvency of the builder. The mortgage loan insurance factor under the act ensures substantial protection to lenders. The proposed amendment will allow the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ensure that the purchaser of a new house receives a complete housing unit by lending him the required funds to complete the house through the mortgage loan insurance fund. I think that this measure is essential to the protection of the consumer.
In conclusion, I express the wish that municipal, provincial and federal governments will continue to design new, objective and viable programs and that through consultation with the population which must participate in the setting up of urban programs we can build cities where it is pleasant to live.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it seems rather a coincidence that I should rise for the second time this week and have the opportunity to speak this afternoon, when just this morning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) mentioned that he was tabling the Darling report. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have any marine knowledge and so cannot take credit for this very informative report which I understand had something to do with shipping.
This afternoon I have the privilege of speaking on Bill C-133, the amendments to the National Housing Act. I have listened with a great interest to the many eloquent and well qualified speakers, most of whom come from metropolitan areas of tremendous growth. However, I think that even a voice in the wilderness should be allowed to speak for that great disadvantaged area, rural Canada. Many of our small towns and villages have ample land available at low or reasonable prices. When I hear these prices of $18,000 or $20,000 being bandied around, in my area they would refer to about 600 acres; then I learn that it is a city lot of 100 by 150 feet.
I am well aware of the great need for housing in mushrooming areas and I know that we cannot stop these great areas from growing. While we poison the whole area around us we shall continue to grow.


Mr. Woolliams:: They are doing that fast.


Stan Darling: I am told that the great problem is not the cost of land itself but the cost of serviced land and the many other costs such as sewage, water, schools and roads, to name a few. In our great province of Ontario many smaller municipalities are able to instal water and sewage systems on a rental basis. I give full marks to the minister and the provincial governments for a co-operative program such as this.
As the head of a small municipality for nearly a quarter of a century, I can speak with some authority. In Burks Falls we were continually inhibited through lack of a sewage system, but we finally committed ourselves to it. We asked the permission of the Ontario Municipal Board about 15 years ago. At that time the cost was $160,000. The chairman said that we reminded him of a horse that was on the street, dead, but would not lie down. He said we had no money and no possibility of getting it. Under the new system we did get it. But instead of $160,000 it was $1.5 million. That is a hell of a lot of money, in plain English, Mr. Speaker. For the ordinary householder in my village it means a minimum of $130 a year for 40 years for the sewage system. However, having it enables us to qualify for grants for municipal housing, Central Mortgage and Housing programs, senior citizens' housing and low-rental housing which are certainly needed.
I am hoping, despite the very substantial grants, that even more money can be found for the many smaller towns and villages across Canada so that they can instal sewage systems. I feel that the maximum amount payable by a householder in respect of a sewage system should be $100, and the provincial and federal governments should bear the excess costs. This would improve the economy of


a great many small municipalities that at the present time are stagnating or are not progressing.
In 1910 there were about 1,500 people in my riding. Parry Sound, the largest town in the riding, has a population of 6,000. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a beautiful riding which now has a population of approximately 61,000. Some of the illustrious members who spoke earlier today were speaking of ridings with populations of hundreds of thousands. They were wondering where to put the people. Mr. Speaker, they do not have to look too far north. I know a great many areas are decentralizing, but Toronto goes to Mississauga or West Hill-perhaps the pioneers go as far as Oshawa or Bowmanville. It is time they started looking farther north. I may be accused of being parochial, but the same thing applies to the rural areas around metropolitan Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver and the Maritimes. It is time this House realized that we can do something other than encouraging the building of great, mushrooming, concrete jungles.
It is a well-known fact that it is the dream of every Canadian to own a piece of this country during his lifetime. Some will want it in their early years, while others wish to own a cottage for their retirement. It is up to us in government to meet these needs of Canadians as soon as possible. The problem in many small towns, is not land, but funds for financing housing projects. Interest rates should be comparable to those in the more buoyant economic areas of our country.
Another attraction would be the fact that the lots would be much bigger, enabling people to have gardens of their own. Houses would be spaced much farther apart, giving families more privacy. If funds are made available for individuals to build their own homes, with only small down payments being necessary, many more jobs would be available in those communities. That, too, would keep the populations at home in those communities. For example, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a small contractor who endeavoured to bid on some low-rental housing which was to be erected in his town. The contract went to a contractor of this great city in which we sit, which is 300 miles away from that town. I suppose the local man was not able to provide a bond, or something like that. Perhaps the two contractors should have got together and done the job. At any rate, the large contractor built the homes, and they were not satisfactory.
An hon. member speaking previously in the debate criticized the high price of some of these homes and their poor workmanship. That was the case in the example I have given. On top of that, after this high-minded contractor left, he owed a great deal of money to subcontractors and they had a terrible job collecting it. Perhaps some are still trying to collect. I feel that when such contracts are let in the smaller areas, top priority should be given to local contractors. Local help would be hired and raw materials could be purchased locally.
Your have already heard, Mr. Speaker, members representing urban areas pointing out that housing is in big demand in those centres because of the tremendous growth in population. We concede that we are moving into a period when the great majority of our population will be
National Housing Act
living, or existing, in these great mountains of concrete and steel. Surely it is just plain, good business and common sense to try to save our small communities from becoming extinct by providing capital and incentives to maintain them and, if possible, to help them grow.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, therefore, should give serious consideration to locating industries in these have-not areas and providing even higher grants and other incentives in order that good industries may locate in them. I believe it is a proven fact that employers who have established plants in recent years in small communities have enjoyed much better relationships with their employees and there has been less turnover, fewer strikes and, I am sure, better productivity.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if housing units could be built to less rigid standards in small communities in order to reduce building costs. Houses there would not need to be as large. I know in many subdivisions a house must have a minimum number of square feet, which puts it beyond the price range of many citizens.
There is one other type of housing which I feel should be emphasized very strongly, that is, the senior citizens' housing unit. These should be erected and available in every small town across this country, even where there is no sewage system. A great many of our senior citizens in their declining years are living at present in great big homes which are costly to maintain and on which taxes are too high. If small, modern apartments were available, many of them would be only too pleased to dispose of their larger homes and move into those units. This would provide homes at reasonable cost to many young families who might not be in the position to afford a new house. I can speak with some knowledge on this matter, as in my own village we have senior citizens' units which are serving that much needed purpose. Our municipality has been fortunate enough to have another 24 units approved. They are to be built later this year.
The provincial and federal governments are to be commended for co-operating in providing low-rental housing accommodation, but these units must also be made available to a great many smaller towns and villages which at present are not able to qualify. Again, I feel that these could be built in areas where there would be no possibility of pollution, in towns that cannot afford sewage systems or even water systems.
I spoke earlier about the cost of installing a sewage system in our town. A great many municipalities would not even gamble to that extent, and they are lying dormant. My previous remarks apply also to senior citizens' homes. If they were made available, other homes would be released for the market. Certainly it would be more economical if governments were to combine their activities and build, say, five or six units at a time for senior citizens. Doing this would be cheaper than sending senior citizens to senior citizens' homes where they must be looked after at a much higher cost. I have just resigned from the board of management of a senior citizens' home in my riding on which I served for seven or eight years. Although we ran, I think, a very economical operation, I believe it cost us between $10 and $11 per day, per resident. Building the units I have talked about would be more economical. Further, such action would be a money-


National Housing Act
maker if the provincial and federal governments combined in taking action.
There is another type of housing that I hesitate to mention. When you talk about it, people treat it as a dirty word. I am referring to mobile homes. I am aware that a great many municipalities are strict and do not allow them, but I am quite sure that if a park were properly laid out and the right types of homes were erected, such homes could provide much needed housing for those who cannot afford permanent, brand new homes. Also, such units would provide young people and those who are retired with a roof over their heads and they could call the home their own. They can be purchased with little or no down payment. I am aware that in most cases they may be purchased this way provided that land for their erection is available. At present, interest rates are not satisfactory; lenders are charging as much as 12 per cent and even 14 per cent. Surely the government could step in, provide funds at much lower interest rates and make available the amenities and safeguards which are available to other homes.
What I am about to say I have said before and will keep on saying. I am reminded of the story of a young woman who was in a Salvation Army band. She was playing a drum and someone asked her what she did, how she did it, how she enjoyed it, and so on. She looked at the questioner and said, "Well, all I do is beat this damned drum". That is what I intend to do. I shall say again and again what I am about to say. The 11 per cent sales tax on building materials should be removed immediately. I am certain that this move would provide a much needed shot in the arm for the building of private homes especially as compared to large commercial buildings. The owners of commercial buildings just add the extra cost to rents and so pass it on. We have asked time and again on our side of the House for this tax to be removed. Builders have been requesting it. Still the government makes no move. I wonder if possibly the government might come forward with a compromise and perhaps reduce the tax or cut it in half.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is a good time to recognize that it is four o'clock. We will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is some agreement that we consider item No. 9 under private members' notices of motions, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this the understanding reached by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr.   Sean@: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should conduct a full and complete public inquiry into the proposed expansion of Mount Hope airport, and that immediate attention be given to possible alternate sites for such proposed expansion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to place before the House a motion which I hope hon. members will consider in the same spirit as it is offered. This being the eve of St. Patrick's Day, I also hope that it will have some kind of Irish luck with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).
The acceptance of this motion would result in two concurrent and related actions on the part of the government-the holding of public hearings into the expansion plans for Mount Hope airport and the consideration of possible alternate sites for such expansion. The latter is perhaps of great interest only to hon. members from the area involved. However, I believe that the question of public hearings on a matter of such a serious nature will be of genuine concern to all members of this House.
I favour an expanded airport facility to serve Hamilton and the surrounding region as do, I believe, the majority of the residents of the area. The southern part of Ontario, particularly the city of Hamilton, continues to grow in terms of population and in its importance as a centre for industry and business. Hamilton is one of two cities of its size in North America without adequate airport facilities needed to keep this momentum going and to continue to offer the opportunities and economic benefits now available to its citizens. However, we all recognize that the location of airport facilities involves consideration of many factors, including ones which have a direct effect upon the quality of life in a region and which therefore must take priority over factors based upon commercial expediency.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the existing plans for airport expansion at Mount Hope as proposed by the Minister of Transport deserve, and indeed demand, the closest scrutiny. One of my chief concerns throughout the long history of this airport question has been the tendency on the part of some, including the Department of Transport, to view the proposals as strictly a matter of concern to the city of Hamilton or, even worse, just to the Hamilton city council. I would like to think that this attitude is an incorrect impression on my part and that references to the facility as the Hamilton civic airport stem solely from the fact that the city pays considerable sums of money as its part in maintaining the existing airport facilities.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as one who was bom in Hamilton, who has already argued that it needs improved airport facilities and who has the honour of representing a constituency with approximately half its population within those city limits, I have no intention of downgrad-


ing the city of Hamilton's legitimate efforts to obtain the best possible airport in the most convenient location. At the same time, this affection for my hometown and determination to assist its progress does not blind me to the needs and rights of the residents of municipalities surrounding Hamilton and the expanded airport. By its own admission, the Department of Transport wants to upgrade the facilities to create a regional airport. We know the department has had meetings, some of them closed even to Members of Parliament, with officials of the city of Hamilton. But what about the people of Ancast-er and Binbrook, Stoney Creek and Saltfleet, Glanford and Mount Hope? They, too, have a right to be heard. They will not benefit as directly or as substantially from the improved airport, yet they are expected to bear a much greater share of the burden in terms of expropriated land, displaced homes, noise and air pollution.
I invite the Minister of Transport, his parliamentary secretary and officials of their department to visit these communities which contain some of the most beautiful and peaceful residential areas that this land can offer. I further invite them to consider the impact that the present expansion plans will have on these communities and the effects upon their residents. Then I make a simple request not to abandon plans for better airport facilities, not even to dismiss out of hand the existing plans, but simply to reconsider these plans and to give full and fair consideration to possible alternate sites for the airport facility. I ask the department to check out the possible alternatives for a location where land is less expansive and less densely populated, where there would be room for long-range planning and where flight paths could be devised to keep noise and air pollution away from the built-up areas. The means, I suggest, for such consideration is that of public hearings.
As a new member, Mr. Speaker, I have already experienced enough of the frustrations of daily parliamentary life to be wary of committees, commissions, inquiries or even hearings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I have also learned to be wary of parliamentary secretaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Especially some of them.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: I only trust the ministers. According to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), we will know in a few weeks how many OFY grants he has approved for the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth. I also recognize that the holding of public hearings may delay the construction of the airport facilities wherever they may be located. However, these airport plans for the future, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that a brief delay taken now in the cause of cautious study would pay dividends in the years, and perhaps decades ahead, when all residents of the Hamilton-Wentworth area will feel the effects of the decisions made today. Another reason I seek such hearings to be held in public and, I hope, convened by a respected and neutral third party, is that they would bring government
Airports
and the people together or, should I say, bring government back to the people.
I shall not be too surprised, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. parliamentary secretary, in giving the response to this motion on behalf of the Department of Transport, protests that the department has indeed considered other sites and has most certainly engaged in ample public dialogue. That is what we have been told before. If that is the case, why does the department refuse to make public all its documents relating to studies of alternate sites? If the department continues to claim that enough public dialogue has been held, I can only conclude that it simply did not like what little it has listened to and does not want its plans, drawn up by civil servants in Ottawa and Toronto who will never have to live beside their own creation, disturbed by the feelings of local residents.
Ideally, this or any other airport expansion should be greeted by public understanding, good will and co-operation. But if it expects, or aims for, those feelings from citizens, government must first be willing to be truthful, straightforward and open about its intentions. Whatever the causes, the department has not fulfilled all these prerequisites and I am afraid this failure has bred mistrust, suspicion and hostility. In its own interests, but also for the sake of the residents involved and in the interests of democratic government, I urge the department to exhibit its good faith by a willingness to level with the people, to listen to them and to learn from them.
For all the foregoing reasons, Mr. Speaker, and for those that time does not permit me to express, I propose this motion and I appreciate the consideration extended by the House.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, important as the airport is, there is another matter which is of far greater importance, as I am sure the hon. member whose motion is now before the House will agree. This matter of far greater importance involves the manner in which a committee of this House is functioning. It is appropriate that the hon. member who just moved a motion in this chamber is wary of committees, because that is closely related to what I am about to say.
There is a committee of this House which is attempting to bypass the concern expressed earlier in this chamber when it referred a certain subject matter, namely, the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The intention was that the committee should engage in a study in depth of the whole question of aboriginal rights. The committee has bypassed this subject matter and is, in fact, dealing with all manner of other subjects, as is its right since the estimates of the department are before it.
Much more germane is the motion in the name of my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) seeking to set up a committee to deal solely with the question of aboriginal rights. This is of far greater importance than many other things we deal with in this House. Accordingly, I move, seconded by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):


Division
That the House do now proceed to another order, namely, notice of motion No. 49 standing in the name of the non. memoer for Northwest Territories which motion relates to the establishment of a special committee to investigate all aspects of the question of aboriginal rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-
Kent)
Lefebvre
L'Heureux
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacGuigan
Marchand
(Kamloops-
Cariboo)
Morin (Mrs.)
Messrs.
Munro
(Hamilton East) Ouellet Pelletier (Hochelaga) Poulin Prud'homme Railton Rondeau Roy
(Laval)
Smith
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Tgtrault
Trudeau
Turner
(London
East)
Walker Watson Whicher-53.
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Howard) which was agreed to on the following division:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if that was a vote of confidence?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First of all, I am very disappointed that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) voted against his own notice of motion.
(Division No. 15)
++YEAS
Baker
Baldwin
Barnett
Beatty
(Wellington-
Grey-Dufferin-
Waterloo)
Bell
Blenkam
Brewin
Broadbent
Clarke
(Vancouver
Quadra)
Crouse
Darling
Dick
Diefenbaker
Ellis
Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Fraser
Messrs.
Gleave
Grier
Hales
Haliburton
Harding
Hargrave
Horner (Crowfoot) Howard Howie Knight Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lambert (Edmonton West) Leggatt Lundrigan MacDonald (Egmont) Maclnnis
(Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean
Macquarrie
Marshall
Masniuk
McCain
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
O'Sullivan
Patterson
Peters
Reilly
Rose
Schumacher
Stanfield
Stevens
Symes
Whittaker
Woolliams-55.
Andras
Basford
Bgchard
Boisvert
Buchanan
Cafik
Caouette
(Charlevoix)
Clermont
Cullen
++NAYS
Messrs.
Cyr
De Bang Dubg Ethier Faulkner Fleming Fortin Gauthier (Roberval) Gauthier
(Ottawa East)
Gillespie
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Herbert Hopkins Isabelle Jamieson Lachance Latulippe


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: You cannot reflect on a vote.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that at four o'clock the whip of the loyal opposition rose and suggested, through Your Honour, that we proceed with notice of motion No. 9 earmarked for the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. The Chair asked for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with same.


An hon. Member:: Why are you crying?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, may I humbly suggest that we agreed unanimously to do so, and because of that I feel the motion of the hon. member was out of order and that the vote should not have been considered this afternoon.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 49-


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A point of order cannot arise from a point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then I rise on a question of privilege. I did wish to rise on a point of order, but I will rise on a question of privilege since I have been taken to task. There was no agreement on this subject, by the whips or by anyone, that we continue for the full hour. May I say that the parliamentary secretary has no right to reflect on the way in which any hon. member votes. The hon. member had the opportunity to make his speech, and he finished in the proper way. I think the parliamentary secretary should withdraw any reflection which he implied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 49, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth).



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee of the House of Commons, consisting of eleven members to be named, be established to investigate all aspects of the question of aboriginal rights of the native Indian and Eskimo people of Canada, with powers to report from time to time its observations, opinions and recommendations thereon; and
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as it may deem advisable or necessary, and to delegate thereto all or any of its powers, except the power to report directly to the House; and to employ such staff at it may deem advisable or necessary.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Orders, you could not state that the debate on motion No. 49 had begun, if a member was rising on a point of order or raising a question of privilege. I rose before you called notice of motion No. 49. I therefore ask that we return to the point of order, before dealing with notice of motion No. 49.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that I did not see the hon. member for Lotbiniere before I called motion No. 49. I will now hear him.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that while the whip of the Progressive Conservative party had the floor there was no simultaneous interpretation so that we were unable to understand what he was saying.
Furthermore, I feel that we have not yet reached the study of the notice of motion, but are dealing with a point of order. Are we dealing with notice of motion No. 49? It will be noted that several of my colleagues and myself definitely rose on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are dealing with motion No. 49. The hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we have reached this stage, but I am not really happy to see what
Aboriginal Rights
appear to be stalling tactics on the part of some hon. members. I would very much like to have this motion come to a vote. I feel as strongly today as I did when I first came to the House that this is a very important matter, and while we still have time today I would like it to come to a vote.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on this motion and I may speak right until five o'clock. I find it rather strange that two or three evenings ago in the standing committee on Indian affairs there was a clear intention expressed by members of the committee to proceed with the question of aboriginal rights during the next three sessions of the committee. In fact, we will have witnesses coming before that committee next week and for the following two weeks. It seems to me that what has happened here this afternoon is another example of what first occurred late on Tuesday evening, when that committee invited the Prime Minister of Quebec to appear before the committee in a way that was guaranteed-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The amplification system was not working when the hon. member was speaking. However, it is working now.


Ian Watson: The first clearcut example of playing around with a most serious problem for the sake of politics occurred the other evening in the Indian affairs committee when we invited the Prime Minister of Quebec to appear before that committee on the question of aboriginal rights in a way that was guaranteed to assure a rejection of the invitation. This afternoon we are again playing around with a serious problem that affects equally the Indian and Eskimo peoples of this country and we are doing it in a fashion that is not helping their cause in any way. We are simply playing politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Watson: This House is playing politics with a problem that will require a non-partisan approach if we are to solve it. The Indian and Eskimo peoples of Canada expect a non-partisan approach from us in solving the aboriginal rights problem, the housing problem, the educational problem, the employment problem-in fact, the whole wide band of problems which we all agree exist so far as the Indian and Eskimo peoples are concerned. I do not think any party in this House can claim to have a greater interest than any other in these extremely serious problems which affect our native peoples. I do not think that any party in the House can claim to offer the ideal solutions, because I do not think we have ideal solutions.
If we are to approach effectively this whole problem of aboriginal rights, we will have to act initially in the committee, hearing the representative Indian groups as well as hearing from other concerned groups. We will have to determine an effective approach in the Indian affairs committee. I certainly have not seen any example or indication that that committee itself has adopted a clearcut approach upon how it will tackle the problem of aboriginal rights.


Frank Howard: It certainly did since you were chairman.


Aboriginal Rights


Ian Watson: When I was chairman of that committee we approached the educational problem in a non-partisan way and we came up with suggestions that were non-partisan. In fact, they were quite critical of the government. I also suggest that we produced results because of that non-partisan approach. The whole idea at the time was that we stimulate public opinion and force the government in the right direction. If we are to use the committee system effectively, we will have to get away from this fooling around with politics in committee.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so because the hon. gentleman raises questions with respect to proceedings in the committee. The other night in that committee the only person who raised matters in a partisan way was the hon. gentleman and his colleagues in the Liberal party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is a point of debate; it is not a point of order.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the particular point that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has raised. I submitted at that meeting that an invitation to a prime minister of a province-


Mr. Peters:: Premier.


Ian Watson: He calls himself prime minister. I submitted that any invitation sent to a prime minister of a province should at least be submitted in a way that would have assured success. What is the point of inviting somebody to a meeting if you know from the beginning that he is not going to be able to accept your invitation?


William Arnold Peters: You may know that.


Ian Watson: Every member of the committee should know that the Prime Minister of Quebec could not accept that invitation.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was a member of the House present at that committee meeting. I assure you solemnly, Mr. Speaker, that to the best of my knowledge no other member, with the exception of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) could possibly have known that the premier of Quebec would refuse that invitation. I would suggest-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.