1973-03-21

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF 1973 EASTER SEAL &quot;TIMMY&quot;

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the presence in your gallery of a young man from Saskatoon, Danny Musgrove, who is this year's National Easter Seal "Timmy" and a real inspiration to the children he represents. He is, I think, the first national "Timmy" from outside Ontario. Despite a couple of artificial limbs he plays goal and defence. He is able to manage the trombone as he did on the Tommy Banks show a week or so ago, and just last week when the Silver Broom championship curling tournament was being opened in Saskatoon he teamed up in an important way with the Governor General. He held the broom and the Governor General threw the stone which landed on the button. He is accompanying the Prime Minister later today to London, Ontario. I thought I should bring the presence of Danny Musgrove to the attention of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the Clerk of Petitions.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the escape record at Millhaven Penitentiary, 16 inmates from the minimum security institution, five of whom are still at large, and 20 from the alleged maximum security institution, in view of the current sit-down strike at Millhaven, and in view of the concern expressed by a spokesman for penitentiary guards with regard to the rehabilitation program at the institution, I ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be directed to study security and rehabilitation policies and personnel at Millhaven Penitentiary.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



IDENTIFICATION OF MEMBERS OPPOSING STANDING ORDER 43 MOTIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I rise to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Since it is impossible for members of this House to identify those of their colleagues who oppose the proposing of a motion under Standing Order 43, since this can throw doubt on the integrity of hon. members who are suspected, often wrongly, of having opposed a motion, and given that I am not questioning the courage and convictions of each of my colleagues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the member or members who oppose the proposing of a motion under Standing Order 43 be required to identify themselves clearly by standing up when the Chair asks if there is unanimous consent.


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

March 21, 1973
Proposed Pickering Airport


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I would move the following motion related to the government's failure to honour its promise to set up an independent study group to permit citizen participation in the Pickering airport decision. The motion, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), reads as follows:
Whereas the Minister of Transport announced on January 30 the government's intention to proceed with expropriation for the new Toronto airport at Pickering but at the same time announced that an independent study group would be set up to permit the public to participate in the question of the airport; and since the minister stated at that time that it was the government's intention that the study group should report within 12 months; and whereas over seven weeks have elapsed since that statement with no announcement of the study group's formation and therefore still no opportunity for the citizens of the Toronto region to participate in this important decision, which by the minister's own admission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member is making a speech. We can easily get into difficulties if motions under Standing Order 43 are argued. I believe it is well established practice that dn hon. member should not argue his case but he should indicate as briefly as possible the subject of his proposed motion and come to the point so that the Chair can seek the views of the House.


Ronald George Atkey: I shall put the motion very briefly, Mr. Speaker. It is:
That the matter to which I have just referred be placed immediately before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for consideration and action.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INDUSTRY


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order

41(2) I wish to lay on the table of the House in both official languages, pursuant to section 19 of the Textile and clothing Board Act, copies of two reports, the first respecting men's and boys' shirts and the second respecting acrylic yarns.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43,1 ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a pressing matter.
Knowing that hon. members are aware of the precarious financial situation of at least 40 per cent of the Canadian people, I wish to move a motion intended to help the Canadian consumers fight inflation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House apply immediately a compensated discount of 10 per cent on the retail sale of all basic food products, including milk, bread, potatoes, some meats and vegetables, to be determined jointly by the authorities of the Departments of Finance and National Health and Welfare, and that the Standing Committee on Finance, Commerce and Economic Affairs make an inquiry to determine the technical process by which this discount will be applied, and table its report for approval in the House in 60 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion therefore cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Wise: Is the present government considering any financial assistance for grain storage facilities to farmers or existing grain elevators?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Yes.

March 21, 1973___________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________2435


Mr. Wise: What does the government consider the poverty level to be and (a) how many Canadians are now living below this level (b) how many Canadians on fixed incomes live below this level?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: As far as Statistics Canada is concerned: There is no existing official statistical concept of poverty in Canada. However, Statistics Canada has established low income cut-offs which have been used to delineate low-income families from other units. For the year 1971 the low income cut-offs were as follows: 1 person unit, $2,013; 2 person unit, $3,355; 3 person unit, $4,026; 4 person unit, $4,697; 5 and 5+ person unit, $5,368; (a) Using the above low income cut-offs Statistics Canada estimates that the incidence of low income among unattached individuals was 37.6% and among families of two or more persons 15.9 per cent in 1971. This translates into approximately 3.9 million low income persons. (These data are the revised estimates originally published in Cat. No. 13-206 Income Distributions by Size in Canada, Preliminary Estimates, 1971.); (b) It is not clear how "living on fixed incomes" is being defined. However, the following unpublished estimates are available from the same source as quoted above: In 1971, 53.9 per cent or approximately 351,000 low income unattached individuals received their major source of income from transfer payments; in the same year 49.1 per cent or approximately
400,000	low income families reported government transfer payments as their major source of income.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations which received subsidies under the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71,1971-72,1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of direct loans, grants and government insured loans, in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Herb Breau: 1. No companies have received direct loans under the GAAP. Consulting assistance grants were provided to the following firms:
1968-	69: Jean Demers Inc., $16,550. Spices & Botanical Products Ltd., $14,100. Northland Sportswear Ltd., $1,725. Morrison-Lamothe Bakery Ltd., $10,469. Keith Day Ltd., $1,250. Industrial Shipping Co. Ltd., $5,000. Total: $49,094.
1969-	70: Fishery Products Ltd., $6,827.50. The Slater Shoe Company (Canada) Ltd., $1,750. Total: $8,577.50.
1970-	71 Bernard Casuals Ltd., $1,633. Ideal Fur Co. Ltd., $670. Tweed Veneers Ltd., $4,706.91. Les Chantiers de Chibougamau Ltee. $4,750. Dynast Forest Products Ltd., $7,096.81. Total: $18,856.72.
1971-	72: Levesque Plywood Limited, $17,500. Dominion Fence & Wire Products Ltd., $2,500. Savoy Shoe Co. Ltd., $1,790.71. The Valley Shoe Co. Ltd., $5,060. Consolidated Computer Inc., $103,525.47. Empire-Brent-
Order Paper Questions
wood Industries Ltd., $7,236.79. Milady Dress Co. Ltd.,
$800.00. Total: $138,412.97.
1972-73 (to January 31, 1973): Consolidated Computer Inc.,
$1,238.45. Chibougamau Lumber Ltee., $12,241.58. Total:


[Stage Direction]
The names of corporations which have received loans from private lenders which were insured by the GAAB, are confidential.
2.	The main objective of the GAAP is to help manufacturers take advantage of export opportunities arising from the Kennedy Round and to assist manufacturers of textile or clothing goods or footwear to improve their competitive position in domestic or export markets. Assistance also is available to manufacturers who have been injured or threatened with serious injury as a result of Kennedy Round reductions of Canadian tariffs. In addition, manufacturers of textile or clothing goods or footwear may be eligible for financing assistance to adapt efficiently to disruptive import competition which is threatening or causing serious injury. Assistance is also available to manufacturers to enable them to adjust to changes in conditions affecting access to foreign markets, which conditions are attributable to the imposition by a foreign country of a temporary import surtax or other measure having a similar effect.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of the recipients of grants under the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program (CASE) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Herb Breau: 1. The information is commercially confidential.
2.	To assist in upgrading the performance of small businesses in the manufacturing and tourist accommodation sectors by providing a management counselling service.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown by province of the following items under Vote 5a and 10a of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of Manpower and Immigration (a) payment to employers and provinces under agreements entered into for Training-on-the-Job Program, $59,836,711 (b) Training Allowances under the Occupational Training Act, $3,302,896?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: March 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
(a)	Canada Manpower Training On-the-Job
Program
Estimated Amount Payable by
Province	Canada
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Total Atlantic Region Quebec Region Ontario Region Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
North West Territories Total Prairie Region British Columbia Yukon Territory Total Pacific Region


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government giving consideration to any request by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association that legislation be changed to make fire fighters eligible for the Canada Pension Plan at the retirement age of 60 which would conform with the usual municipal retirement age for this occupational group and, if so, how soon will a decision be announced?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: A Subcommittee of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee studied the proposal that the Canada Pension Plan be changed to make fire fighters eligible for retirement pension at the age of 60 whereupon a motion was adopted by the Main Committee to give further study to the matter. It must be remembered that the Canada Pension Plan can be amended only with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces with at least two-thirds of the population of Canada. As yet, it has not been possible to obtain the necessary concurrence.
Canada Total


[Stage Direction]
(b)	Training Allowances
Estimated Amount Payable by
Province	Canada
Newfoundland	$	62,302
Prince Edward Island	20,432
Nova Scotia	77,134
New Brunswick	85,705
Total Atlantic Region	245,573
Quebec Region	1,038,067
Ontario Region	1,451,657
Manitoba	26,564
Saskatchewan	198,790
Alberta	93,221
North West Territories	8,975
Total Prairie Region	327,550
British Columbia	228,047
Yukon Territory	12,002
Total Pacific Region	240,049
Canada Total	$ 3,302,896
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the purpose of the recently announced study by the Economic Council of Canada of the labour force to discover the nature and extent of unemployment in Canada?
2.	Did the government indicate in its announcement of LEAP that the nature and extent of employment was known and (a) if so, what is the reason for the Economic Council study (b) if not, will the government consider such factors before converting from LIP to LEAP?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. The purpose of this study will be to explore the dynamics of the Canadian Labour market. This study is an integral part of the Council's on-going research program. It was undertaken at this time because of widespread concern about the persistence of unemployment in Canada.
2. (a) No. (b) LIP is not being converted to LEAP. LEAP is a separate and distinct experimental program designed to create long-term projects that will enable the department to study new ways of helping those who are not likely to become employed through existing program or normal labour market activity.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government giving any consideration to the compensation of merchants who suffered financial losses as a result of their inability to sell stocks on hand of certain kinds of fireworks and firecrackers because of the ban on such sales announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources September 27,1972?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The government expects to be able to announce its decision on the question of compensation at an early date.
[Mr. MacGuigan.J


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Department of Public Works issue a contract for the rental of a building for the Post Office Department and Manpower Centre at Ste-Marie, in the constituency of Beauce and, if so (a) were tenders called (b) how many were received (c) what was the amount of each (d) what were the names of the tenderers (e) on what date will the Department take possession of the premises?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. A Registered letter of Intent to lease was sent to Mr. Cliche on October 31, 1972. (a) Yes. Tenders were called closing on March 15, 1972. The public tender call was advertised in two daily newspapers, and one weekly newspaper as follows: Le Soleil, 390 Est, St-Vallier, Quebec,
March 21, 1973

P.Q., and L'Action, 3, Place Jean Talon, Quebec, P.Q.; both carried the advertisement on February 1, 1972. Le Journal Constructo, CP 9753, Ste-Foy, Quebec 10, P.Q., carried the advertisement on February 2, 1972. (b) One; (c) $31,687.50 per annum for the initial five years; (d) Mr. Eugene Cliche; (e) Subject to satisfactory completion of the building September 1, 1973.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many farmers were overpaid under Operation Lift and by how much?
2.	As of January 1, 1973, how much was reclaimed?
3.	How many court actions have occurred in the attempts to collect overpayment?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Three thousand eight hundred and ninety-two farmers were overpaid under Operation Lift in the amount of $532,449.
2.	$245,271.
3.	None.


Mr. McKenzie: How many surveys and forms have been distributed by Statistics Canada to small businesses in Canada in each of the past four years (1968-1972)?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: Commercial businesses with less than 20 employees, and with relatively small total revenues and sales are classified as "small" business for statistical purposes. To minimize the response burden for them, Statistics Canada provides small businesses with abbreviated survey questionnaires. In addition, the use of sampling in some surveys means that reliable information on all small firms can be obtained by surveying only 5 per cent to 15 per cent of the total, the sample size depending on the particular survey in question. Over the years 1968 to 1972 inclusive, the average number of different surveys designed to collect data from small firms varied from 56 to 59. Most questionnaires are designed for surveys of specific industries and the maximum number of Statistics Canada surveys a small firm engaged in a single activity would be subject to in one year is four. Periodically, Statistics Canada asks some of the smaller firms for information on the nature, location and organization of their business in order to maintain its survey mailing lists and reporting structures up to date.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration are working in the office at Victoriaville, Quebec?
2.	What is the yearly or monthly rent for the premises (a) in total (b) by square foot?
Order Paper Questions
3.	How many job applications were handled by or through that office during the past fiscal year and what was the number of (a) new applications (b) previous applications?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Public Works as follows: 1. 17 permanent; 2 casual.
2.	(a) $11,880 p.a.; (b) $2.50 per square foot p.a.
3.	(a) 3,135; (b) 5,290.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Who was the Chairman of the Nanaimo Harbour Commission in 1971?
2.	How many tons of pulp were handled through the Nanaimo Port in 1971 and what was the Chairman's estimate for 1972?
3.	In what manner is the pulp delivered to the Nanaimo Port and for what reason?
4.	Are the Ports of Roberts Bank and Prince Rupert operating at full capacity and, if not (a) for what reason (b) is it intented to expand the Nanaimo Harbour?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a committee to coordinate the expansion of all ports?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Mr. D.
Robinson.
2.	306,440 short tons; there was no estimate of 1972 pulp shipments.
3.	By barge, truck, and rail for assembly and shipment to export markets.
4.	(a) It would be possible to ship additional tonnages through Roberts Bank and Prince Rupert but the facilities at these locations are not appropriate for the increased traffic which it is planned to accommodate at Nanaimo, (b) Yes.
5.	The expansion of ports is co-ordinated by the Canadian Ports and Harbours Planning Committee.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the government's plans for necessary services to provide aids to navigation, including conventional aids, satellite assistance, and new electronic devices, both underwater and onshore with respect to Arctic navigation?
2.	What forms of communications are being planned, including weatherfax information, to be made available to all ships transiting the area?
3.	Will such ships be required by law to carry weatherfax receivers and, if so, on what date does the government intend to announce such requirements?
4.	Will there be some form of continuous ice patrol, such as exists in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which will be continuously collecting ice data for the weatherfax in those areas being used by commercial shipping?
5.	What unclassified information has the government been given which was derived from the United States nuclear submersible vessels data gathering program?
6.	What is the government's assessment of such information received?

March 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Canada maintains approximately 2,500 conventional aids in the Arctic. As shipping patterns develop in response to the exploitation of resources, it will be necessary to extend this system to serve new routes and terminals. We have the capability to meet this requirement, (b) Satellite navigation coverage is already available in the Canadian Arctic; we have no plans to increase this coverage, (c) Parts of the eastern Arctic, including Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, are within Loran "A" coverage and the entire region will shortly be covered by the worldwide Omega navigation system. We have no plans to introduce any electronic system into the Arctic at this time, but will follow developments in marine transportation and will respond accordingly, (d) The use of underwater electronic devices for commercial navigation was discontinued many years ago. Canada has no plans to revert to the use of such devices.
2.	We are planning the extension and improvements to existing communications facilities through the associated ground stations that have resulted from ANIK. There are no plans for the extension of the present weatherfax communications.
3.	Effective January 1, 1973, the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations require that an Arctic Class ship or a Type A ship be provided with a facsimile terminal capable of receiving transmission from stations Halifax CFH and Edmonton VFE and from ice reconnaissance aircraft on certain frequencies.
4.	The Atmospheric Environment Service has operated the ice reconnaissance service on behalf of the Canadian Coast Guard for many years. This service operates in the Arctic in summer and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in winter. The service has recently been re-equipped with new aircraft and more effective ice sensing equipment. The ice reconnaissance service will be increased as required.
5.	Not received by Ministry of Transport.
6.	N.A.


Mr. Hollands: By age and by province, how many persons in the wage level per annum of (a) $8,000 or more (b) less than $8,000 received Unemployment Insurance benefits as of December 31,1972?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Unemployment Insurance Regulations provided for maximum insurable earnings of $7,800 per annum in 1972, and statistical information was completed on this basis; however no breakdown by age is available.
Estimated Number of Beneficiaries in December 1972
Earnings of Less than $150 per week	Earnings of more than $150 per week
Province	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	iotai both SexesNewfoundland	
18,200	7,180	25,380	2,000	120	2,120	27,500Prince Edward Island	
2,530	2,160	4,690	270	40	310	5,000Nova Scotia	
14,450	10,695	25,145	1,550	180	1,730	26,875New Brunswick	
15,360	11,550	26,910	1,640	200	1,840	28,750Quebec	
93,300	77,000	170,300	17,700	2,000	19,700	190,000Ontario	
69,600	90,575	160,175	21,000	3,200	24,200	184,375Manitoba	
11,500	10,000	21,500	3,100	400	3,500	25,000Saskatchewan	
10,100	7,525	17,625	2,700	300	3,000	20,625Alberta	
15,700	16,850	32,550	4,300	650	4,950	37,500British Columbia	
28,700	33,900	62,600	13,400	1,500	14,900	77,500Northwest Territories	
230	315	545	80	-	80	625Yukon	
600	480	1,080	160	10	170	1,250Canada	
280,270	268,230	548,500	67,900	8,600	76,500	625,000


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the total number of bushels of (a) wheat (b) barley (c) oats, that were exported in 1972 (i) to which countries (ii) what was the bushel price for each type of grain?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: data on exports and price per bushel of wheat, barley and oats are shown in the table below for the calendar year 1972.
Commodity
		(ii)
Volume in		Price per
Bushels	Value	Bushel
(a) Wheat	
(a) Wheat Seed ..

507,073,836
641,818


[Stage Direction]
(ii)
Volume in	Price per
Commodity	Bushels	Value	Bushel(b)	Barley	
206,625,646	216,926,000	$1.05(c) Oats	
12,881,657	9,017,000	$0.70
(i) The attached list gives the countries of consignment for wheat, oats and barley.
Countries of consignment: (a) Wheat: United States; U.S.S.R.; Saudi Arabia; Venezuela; Trinidad-Tobago; United Kingdom; Malta and Gozo; Belgium-Luxemb.; France; Germany West; Italy; Netherlands; Portugal; Switzerland; Poland; Lebanon; South Africa; Algeria; Tunisia; Pakistan; Peoples Republic of China; Japan; Korea, North; Costa Rica; Cuba; Dominican Repub.; Guatemala; Finland; Norway; Fr. Africa N.E.S; Burma; Philippines; Ireland; Albania; Syria; Ghana; Nigeria;
March 21, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Mauritania; Morocco; Hong Kong; India; Malaysia; Singapore; Afghanistan; Indonesia; Taiwan; Thailand; Brazil; Peru; Venezuela; Barbados; Jamaica; Leuv-Wind Is.; Haiti.
(b)	Barley: United Kingdom; Belgium-Luxemb.; Italy; Portugal; Germany East; Poland; U.S.S.R.; Iraq; Libya; Japan; Philippines; Ecuador; Venezuela; United States; Ireland; Germany West; Netherlands; Switzerland; Hungary; Roumania; Cypress; Israel; Algeria; Korea, South; Taiwan; Peru; Panama.
(c)	Oats: Guyana; Bermuda; United Kingdom; Italy; Trinidad-Tobago; Ireland; Switzerland; Venezuela; Leuw-Wind Is; Panama; Argentina; United States; Belgium-Luxemb.; Barbados; Puerto Rico; Netherlands; Guyana; Jamaica; Dominican Repub.
Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received Canada Council grants in 1972, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: there were no such grants in the County of Northumberland in 1972.


Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received Canada Council grants in 1971, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?


Gilles Marceau: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: A $500 grant was made in May 1970 to sculptor Peter Kolisnyk, 139 Bay Street, Cobourg, Ontario, for the purchase of materials for four arts exhibitions held in the year 1970-71.


Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received Canada Council grants in 1971, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?


Gilles Marceau: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: A doctoral fellowship in the amount of $4,500 was awarded for the year 1970-71 to Mrs. Doreen P. W. Gor-sline, 29 John Street, Port Hope, Ontario, for studies in Slavic literature at the University of Toronto.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received Canada Council grants in 1972, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?


Gilles Marceau: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: A doctoral fellowship renewal, in the amount of $4,500, was awarded for the year 1971-72 to Mrs. Doreen P. Gorsline, 29 John Street, Port Hope, Ontario, for studies in Slavic Literature at the University of Toronto.


Mr. Stackhouse: Are (a) supply teachers (b) school secretaries eligible to claim unemployment insurance during July and August and, if so, will UIC send them cheques at their summer addresses?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Supply teachers or substitutes as well as school secretaries are eligible for benefits during July and August provided that they have at least eight weeks of insurable employment and will perform no work and receive no pay from their employer in respect of a period of seven consecutive days following their lay off or separation. Where a mailing address differs from the address shown on the Separation Certificate, an investigation is made to determine whether the claimant is in fact available for work. If it is determined that there is a reasonable relationship between the job opportunities in both the claimants mailing address and the address on the Separation Certificate benefit warrants will be mailed to the summer address, provided the claimant fulfills the other requirements for entitlement to benefit.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration consider providing some financial assistance to students in college preparatory programs, in the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, who intend to take a manpower-financed program when they qualify?
2.	How many students entered manpower programs in the Ontario colleges in 1971 and 1972?
3.	What was the average fee paid?
4.	What was the average award to the students?
5.	How many left before completing the program?
6.	How many found employment after graduation in the field for which they were trained?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. In addition to skill course purchases the Department also purchases preparatory or pre-vocational training for adults requiring academic upgrading either to obtain employment for which a designated academic level is a pre-requisite or to meet the entrance requirements of a vocational training course which would prepare the trainee for his desired occupation. This type of training, called Basic Training for Skill

March 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Development or BTSD, had 17,554 trainees enrolled in Ontario during fiscal year 1971-72. All full-time trainees authorized for training by a Canada Manpower counsellor are eligible for financial assistance in the form of training allowances.
2.	The total number of full-time Canada Manpower Training Program trainees enrolled in Ontario Colleges was as follows: 1970-71, 56,714; 1971-72, 56,104.
3.	The average training purchase cost for those trainees was: 1970-71, $653.75; 1971-72, $747.81.
4.	The average allowance paid to those trainees was:
1970-	71, $792.40; 1971-72, $806.62.
5.	The number of those trainees who terminated prior to completion of the training program was: 1970-71, 10,720;
1971-	72, 8,460. Approximately 25 per cent of those trainees discontinuing training did so in order to take jobs.
6.	According to the latest follow-up results for full-time institutional training, 70.6 per cent of the trainees who completed skill courses in 1971-72 were employed three to four months after graduation. 60.2 per cent of the graduates found employment in occupations for which they were trained, and the remaining 10.4 per cent found employment in occupations not related to their training course. The equivalent figures for 1970-71 are 66.4 per cent employed; 59.1 per cent in occupations related to their training and 7.3 per cent in occupations unrelated to their training.


Mr. Cossitt: Will the government consider changing Immigration regulations announced in November, 1972, so that those from other countries who were actually in Canada prior to the date of the said announcement can apply for landed immigrant status from within this country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Government is not prepared to restore Section 34 of the Immigration Regulations nor does it plan to make wholesale exceptions to the withdrawal of the right to apply for landed immigrant status from within Canada. The Department will continue to process those applications submitted before the revocation of Section 34. It will also consider those cases where there is evidence that a person called at an immigration office prior to the revocation to submit an application but where the application could not be dealt with. Sympathetic consideration will also be given to genuine political refugees as well as to cases where there are strong humanitarian and compassionate circumstances.


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: The following table provides data on the import of butter into Canada for the period January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972. Data are not yet available for January 1973.
Quantity
(lbs.)
Value Average Price ($)	per Pound
Australia	13,400	$	26,000.U.S.A.	8,937,200	$4,675,000.
$1.94u>
.52
TOTAL'2* 8,950,600	$4,701,000.	$ .53
<l>
Unique packaging and type of butter for specialized use.
<2>
Totals may not coincide with sums due to rounding. Other Dairy Products
The following table provides data on the import of other dairy products (excluding butter) for the period January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972. Data are not yet available for January 1973.
Country	Quantity (Lbs.)	Value ($)	Average PriceUnited Kingdom	992,700	605,000	$0.61Ireland	294,200	131,000	0.46Austria	1,718,800	745,000	0.43Belgium-Lux.	4,300	3,000	0.70Denmark	8,489,300	4,831,000	0.57Finland	2,457,400	896,000	0.36France	3,000,100	2,710,000	0.90Germany West	1,404,600	826,000	0.59Greece	1,504,300	854,000	0.57Iceland	4,900	2,000	0.41Italy	2,909,100	3,155,000	1.08Netherlands	5,282,200	3,390,000	0.64Norway	1,020,300	520,000	0.51Portugal	345,800	275,000	0.80Sweden	450,900	230,000	0.51Switzerland	4,564,100	3,730,000	0.82Poland	136,000	37,000	0.27Australia	120,100	64,000	0.53New Zealand	2,382,200	498,000	0.21Argentina	612,400	341,000	0.56United States	22,440,200	3,584,000	0.16TOTAL11*	60,133,900	27,424,000	'** Totals may not coincide with	sums due to rounding.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has Canada imported butter and other dairy products in the period January 1, 1972 to January 31, 1973 and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) from what countries (c) what were the amounts from each country (d) what was the price per pound for each of such products?
[Mr. MacGuigan.J


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	Did any school secretaries receive UIC benefits during the months of July and August in 1971 and 1972 and, if so (a) how many (b) how much were they paid?
March 21, 1973

2.	Did any supply school teachers receive UIC benefits during the months of July and August in 1971 and 1972 and, if so (a) how many (b) how much were they paid?
3.	In 1971 and 1972, were any benefit cheques mailed by UIC to addresses outside Canada and, if so, to what countries were they mailed?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. As the UIC did
not commence coding occupations until January 1, 1973, no information of this nature is available.
2.	As the UIC did not commence coding occupations until January 1, 1973, no information of this nature is available.
3.	In 1971 and 1972, benefit cheques were mailed to claimants in the U.S.A. under the provisions of the reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States respecting unemployment insurance. The United States is the only country with which Canada has such an agreement.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many LIP projects were there undertaken in the past year on Indian reservations?
2.	How many projects were there on Indian reservations in Saskatchewan?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. A total of 288 LIP
projects were undertaken under the 1971-72 Program on Indian Reservations across Canada.
2.	Nineteen.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ESTABLISHMENT AND SALARIES
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of External Affairs?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of External Affairs?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Two thousand six hundred twenty-six not including locally-engaged staff abroad.
2. Two hundred fifty-five employees earned more than $15,000 annually on January 31, 1970. The number of employees earning more than $15,000 annually on January 31, 1970, distributed according to $1,000 intervals is as follows:
Salary interval	No. of em
$15,000-$16,000	9
$16,000-$17,000	45
$17,000-$18,000	24
$18,000-$19,000	25
$19,000-$20,000	9
$20,000-$21,000	16
Order Paper Questions
Salary interval $21,000-$22,000 $22,000-$23,000 $23,000-$24,000 $24,000-$25,000 $25,000-$26,000 $26,000-$27,000 $27,000-$28,000 $28,000-$29,000 $29,000-$30,000
No. of employees 10 31 8
6
Nil
2

3.	Two thousand nine hundred one including 170 support staff transferred from other departments but not including locally-engaged staff abroad.
4.	Three hundred twenty-two employees earned more than $18,000 annually on January 31, 1973. The number of employees earning more than $18,000 annually on January 31, 1973, distributed according to $1,000 intervals is as follows:
Salary interval $18,000-$19,000 $19,000-$20,000 $20,000-$21,000 $21,000-$22,000 $22,000-$23,000
Salary interval $28,000-$35,000 $30,000-$31,700 $30,000-$34,500 $45,000-$50,000
No. of employees 22 23 27 40 Nil
No. of employees 1
8


DATA ON CANADIAN AND INDIAN POPULATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the last year for which figures were available, what was the total per capita investment in housing for the people of Canada?
2.	In the same year, what was the total per capita investment for Indian housing from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appropriations, band revenues and individual contributions?
3.	What were the average salaries and wages (excluding military pay) for 1971 earned by Canada's labour force?
4.	What was the average income of Canadian Indian families excluding general assistance and family allowances?
5.	What was the average age of death for all Canadians-male and female-for the last year which figures are available?
6' What was the average age of death for Canadian Indians- male and female-for the same year?
7.	Of the total Canadian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
8.	Of the total Indian population, how many families live in houses of three rooms or less?
9.	Of the total Canadian population, how many live in homes which are provided with electricity, with sewer services or septic tanks, with running water, with indoor baths?
10.	Of the total Indian population, how many live in homes which are provided which are provided with electricity, with

March 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
sewer services or septic tanks, with running water, with indoor baths?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. The total per capita new investment in housing for the Canadian population was estimated at $187 during the calendar year 1971.
2.	(a) $128.62; (b) $7.86; (c) $4.99.
3.	Not available as asked. The total salaries and wages paid during 1971 divided by the average number of paid workers was $6,916.35.
4.	See answer to Question No. 1879 tabled in the House of Commons December 1, 1971.
5.	Average age of death for all Canadians in 1971 was: Males 63.3; Females 68.2.
6.	Average age of death for Canadian Registered Indians in 1971 was: Males 39.4; Females 40.6. Excluding Newfoundland, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
7.	Distribution of families by number of rooms per dwelling is not available. However, 1971 Census data show that of 6,034,505 occupied dwelling units in Canada, 846,470 contained three rooms or less.
8.	See answer to Question No. 722 tabled in the House of Commons March 7, 1973.
9.	This information is not available for individuals, but 1971 Census data show the following number of dwelling units equipped with running water and installed bath or shower: Hot and cold running water, 5,592,515, dwelling units; Cold running water only, 201,955, dwelling units; Installed bath or shower, 5,584,510, dwelling units. The question on electricity was not asked in the 1971 or 1961 Censuses, and 1971 data on sewer services are not yet available. The 1961 figures are as follows, based on 4,554,493 total dwellings: Connection to sewer, 2,902,622 dwelling units; septic tank or cesspool, 948,257 dwelling units.
10.	See answer to Question No. 722 tabled in the house of Commons March 7, 1973.


POST OFFICE, ST. NORBERT, MANITOBA
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the Postmaster General give re-consideration to the order closing the Post Office in St. Norbert, Manitoba, having regard to a large petition having been taken up and the fact that it is the only bilingual Post Office in Metropolitan Winnipeg?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: There has never been a decision to close the St. Norbert, Manitoba, Post Office and it is not intended to do so.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Stevens: 1 What hotels or motels have been insured by the Export Development Corporation under Section 34 of the Export Development Act and for each contract (a) in what country is the project situated (b) who is the owner of the project (c) what are the category or categories of insurance (d) what is the applicable amount of insurance in relation to the total cost of the project in

figures and percentage terms and with respect to each category of insurance, rates charged and term?
2.	In what way were exporters in Canada benefited by each project so insured?
3.	Has any claim been made to date under one or more of the contracts?
4.	Is it proposed to issue any further contracts of insurance with respect to foreign investments in hotels or motels or similar projects under Section 34 of the Export Development Act?


Herb Breau: Export Development Corporation states that: 1. It has insured under section 34 of the Export Development Act a Canadian investment abroad in respect of one hotel; it has not insured a Canadian investment abroad in respect of a motel; (a) the project is situated in St. Lucia, British West Indies; (b) the principal owner and insured investor is Livingston Holdings Limited, Tillsonburg, Ontario; (c) as to the categories of the foreign investment insurance cover provided for the hotel investment, the insurance is against loss of or in respect of the investment by reason of the three risks of (i) government action that prohibits or restricts the transfer of capital or dividends from the country, (ii) expropriation, and (iii) war, revolution or insurrection; and (d) with regard to part (d) of the question numbered 1, (i) the contract of insurance in question covers 85 per cent of the amount of Canadian investment in the hotel. EDC receives as a matter of trade confidence particulars of the proposed Canadian investments abroad for which its foreign investment insurance is sought, and so as not to break faith with the investor, does not publish specific figures for the amount of each insurance contract or the cost of each project. There is often keen competition between intending investors for the approval of the government of the country concerned; and (ii) for each of the three categories of insurance mentioned above, the premium rate charged is an annual rate of 0.3 per cent, and for each the term of the cover is 15 years.
2.	The benefit to exporters in Canada lies in contracts for construction and for Canadian goods and services for the hotel, together worth approximately $1.8 million.
3.	There has not been any claim made to date under the contract of investment insurance in question or under any other EDC contract of foreign investment insurance.
4.	EDC is prepared to examine all applications for foreign investment cover and accepts those which meet all its criteria with particular emphasis on the benefits of the proposal to both the economy of Canada and the economy of the host government. These criteria would apply to foreign investments by Canadians in both hotels or motels.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-COST OF ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?

March 21, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. $6,565.46.
2. 6,000.


EXPORT OF SNOWMOBILES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada export snowmobiles and spare parts during 1971 and the first ten months of 1972 and, if so (a) to which countries (b) how many were exported to each country (c) what was the value of such exports?
tTranslation]


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: The attached table gives data on the export of snowmobiles and parts, for the calendar year 1971 and the first ten months of 1972: (a) the countries to which they were exported (b) the number of units exported (c) the value of the units and parts exported.
Snowmobiles Pleasure and Sport and Parts
1971	1972 Jan-Oct
(a)	(b) Units	(c) $000	lb) Units	(c) $000United Kingdom	.. 5	5	7	25Austria	.. 2	31	29	55Belgium-Luxembourg....	. . 34	33	-	3Denmark	. . 	-	-	1Finland	. . 46	55	423	257France	. . 18	12	15	13Germany West	. 68	66	20	13Greece	. . 2	2	-	-Italy	
Netherlands	.. 1 1	3 1	8	4Norway	30	119	114Spain	-	20	8Sweden	. . 429	348	1,041	635Switzerland	.. 7	6	-	-U.S.S.R	.. 3	2	-	2Yugoslavia	-	3	2Iran	.. 2	2	2	2South Africa	.. 1	i	Japan	.. 3	32	3	4Australia	.. 30	20	15	15New Zealand	. . 4	3	Ecuador	. . 	1	Mexico	, . . 	2	Greenland	-	-	1	3United States	.. 191,905	138,889	102,388	81,797T otal	... 192,561	139,544	104,094	82,952
Note: Totals may not coincide with sums due to rounding.


CANADIAN-OWNED COMPANIES ADVERTISING
Mr. Masniuk: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to encourage Canadian-owned companies to advertise this fact on all their products?
2.	Does the government consider that such a policy would encourage Canadians to buy more Canadian goods?


Herb Breau: 1. The government has
Order Paper Questions
no plans to urge or oblige Canadian-owned companies to advertise this fact on their products. Canadian-owned companies who wish to advertise the fact are free to do so.
2. There has been no detailed study of what the effects of such a policy would be. Study of the subject would have to take into account a number of factors including Canadian export interests, since purchasers and governments in other countries might respond adversely to the kind of policy in question.


NUMBER OF IMITATION PERSONAL LETTERS FROM PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the exact number of imitation personal letters from the Prime Minister accepted for mailing by the Post Office Department shortly before October 30, 1972?
2.	From whom did the Post Office Department receive these items to be mailed?
3.	What was the total amount of postage received by the Post Office Department for these items and from whom and on what dates was this postage received?
4.	Where these items of mail sealed and was each addressed to a specific individual at a specific address?
5.	Did each item carry eight cents postage and, if not, for what reason?
6.	What were the names of the electoral districts into which these items were mailed?


André Ouellet: 1. Unknown.
2.	From a direct mail firm.
3.	Postage paid by means of postage meter impressions. Amount unknown.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, five cents because mailings were made up in accordance with Post Office requirements and as such qualified for the reduced third class mail quantity rate of five cents.
6.	No record is kept of points of destination of mailings.


STATUS OF CANADIANS FORMERLY RESIDING IN UGANDA
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	As Canadians formerly residing in Uganda have been denied, on leaving Uganda, the right to remove their assets, bank deposits, etc., will the government give consideration, in view of the fact that it is making money grants to Uganda, to deducting the amount of all proven claims from such grants?
2.	What has been done by the Department of External Affairs in connection with the claim of Mr. E. A. Nicholson of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, who has been deprived of approximately $5,000 by action taken by the Uganda Government?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: There are no direct money grants being made by the Canadian International Development Agency to Uganda. All Canadian aid to Uganda is in kind, either by the provision of equipment or in the form of technical assistance.

March 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2. In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows: The Department of External Affairs, through the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi, is continuing to press its inquiries of the Government of Uganda for the release of the personal effects and funds of Mr. Nicholson, within the limits of the laws and regulations of Uganda which apply to Mr. Nicholson as a former resident of that country.


FEDERAL INCOME TAX OFFICE, SASKATOON
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is the federal Income Tax Office in Saskatoon being moved from the federally-owned London Building to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building?
2.	What has been the cost of operating the London Building during each of the past five years?
3.	Under the lease of the said Bank Building (a) what is the annual rental and for how long (b) is there a further rental period provided at the option of the lessee?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
Yes.
2.	1968-69, $69,035; 1969-70, $80,561; 1970-71, $77,226; 1971-72, $70,905; 1972-73, $71,730.
3.	(a) $152,273 per annum for five years; (b) Yes.


REMOVAL OF HIGHWAY BOOBY-TRAPS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to initiating or accelerating a traffic safety program aimed at removing booby-traps such as light poles, sign posts, trees, rock ledges and level railroad crossings from highways under federal or inter-provincial jurisdiction?


Jean Marchand: The
Departments responsible for federal highways all have active programs for road hazard identification and removal on roads under their jurisdiction. The responsibility for hazard identification and removal on inter-provincial highways rests with the provinces concerned. As announced earlier, new legislation is being prepared which would permit broadened federal participation in rail grade crossing removal and improvement funding, as administered by the Canadian Transport Commission.


GROUNDING OF &quot;IRISH STARDUST&quot;
Mr. Harding: 1.	(a) What was the estimated amount of oil spilled in the recent grounding of the Irish Stardust oft the B.C. Coast (b) what is the estimated cost of the clean-up and what does it involve (c) what is the estimated cost to be charged (i) to the government (ii) to other sources?
2.	What specific damage to the ecology resulted from this oil spill?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a) The
estimated total amount of oil spilled from the Irish Stardust was about 348 tons, (b) Clean-up of the oil and disposal of resulting contaminated debris has resulted in a total cost of approximately $278,400. (c) As of today the amount recoverable by the Government of Canada has not been established precisely. Charges are pending in the

courts and only after further negotiations can an answer to this question be given.
2. Damage to the ecology appears to be minimal. A specific answer to this question will be possible only after scientists have had the opportunity to study this facet of the incident in more detail.


OIL SPILL EMERGENCIES-CONTINGENCY SUPPLIES
Mr. Harding: 1.	What are the locations in each of the following areas where contingency supplies are stocked to meet oil spill emergencies (a) the Pacific Coast (b) the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (c) the Arctic Coast (d) elsewhere in Canada?
2.	What basic equipment do these contingency supplies include?
3.	What are the contingency arrangements for personnel in the event of an emergency?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport has established facilities for storage of marine pollution contingency equipment to meet oil spill emergencies at: (a) Pacific Coast-Vancouver B.C.; Victoria, B.C.; and Prince Rupert, B.C; (b) Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of St. Lawrence-St. John's, Nfld.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Dartmouth, N.S.; Saint John, N.B.; Quebec City, Que.; Sorel, Que.; Montreal, Que.; (c) Arctic Coast- Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; Resolute Bay, N.W.T.; Inuvik, N.W.T.; Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T.; Hay River, N.W.T.; Norman Wells, N.W.T.; (d) Elsewhere in Canada-Churchill, Manitoba; Selkirk, Manitoba; Prescott, Ont; Burlington, Ont.; Amherstburg, Ont.; Sarnia, Ont.; Parry Sound, Ont.; and Thunder Bay, Ont.
2.	Equipment at these sites includes such items as barges fitted with slick-lickers, oil containment booms, skimmer pumps and hoses, communications equipment, steam cleaners, absorbents and various other miscellaneous items used in oil pollution clean-up.
3.	Contingency arrangements for personnel are contained in the various Pollution Contingency Plans which have been developed at the international, national and local levels.


EXPENDITURES IN OIL SPILL CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS
Mr. Harding: 1.	(a) How many oil spills were there in each year 1970 to 1972 inclusive in which the government took part in clean-up operations (b) what was the estimated amount of each spill (c) in what location did each spill take place?
2.	What was the total cost (a) of each clean-up operation (b) to the government of each clean-up operation?


Jean Marchand: 1 and 2. No
listing has ever been made for all the oil spills occurring in Canada nor is there a comprehensive record of Federal Government involvements and costs incurred.


PUBLIC WORKS-LONDON BLOCK, SASKATOON
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	For how long has the London Block in Saskatoon housed the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Was it renovated within the past four years and, if so, what was the cost thereof?
March 21, 1973

3.	For what reason has it become necessary now to move the Department offices from the London Block to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building?
4.	What use is to be made of the vacated premises in the London Block?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1.
Eighteen years.
2.	Yes: 1969-70, $2,176.00 (minor works); 1970-71, $3,-
373.00	(minor works); 1970-71, $54,765.00 (tenant alterations); 1972-73, $5,792.00 (minor works).
3.	In order to extend further the life of this 60 year old structure, costly renovations would have to be undertaken. This additional expenditure would prove to be economically unfeasible.
4.	A decision has not yet been made concerning future use of the property. The Department of Public Works is preparing a study of the options available.


COST OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE FAIR IN PEKING
Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total direct and indirect cost to the government of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Trade Fair held in Peking in August 1972?
2.	(a) How many Canadians visited the fair (b) how many Canadians exhibited at the Fair (c) is it planned to hold any further such functions in the People's Republic of China?


Herb Breau: 1. Direct costs of the Canadian Trade Exposition in Peking to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are, as of February 26, 1973, $1,217,759.41. Indirect costs which would include staff time in Canada, at the Embassy in Peking, and the office of the Canadian Commissioner in Hong Kong, in the preparatory phase, during the Exposition and in the follow-up activities cannot be accurately calculated.
2. (a) Visits by 559 Canadians to the Canadian Trade Exposition in Peking were recorded. It is estimated that an additional 25 Canadians either residents of Peking or visitors to China of whose presence there was no official record also attended the Fair, (b) 206 Canadian companies; (c) The only facilities available in China to house a fair of the magnitude of the Canadian Trade Exposition held between August 21 and September 5, 1972 is the Peking Exhibition Centre. These facilities are already reserved for the next four years by other countries conducting trade expositions. A trade exposition of multiple product lines is not planned for China, but it is proposed to hold smaller exhibitions on industry sector lines. In 1973/74 the staging of an exhibition of Canadian Electronic and Scientific Equipment in Shanghai has been proposed and is under consideration by the Government of the People's Republic of China. A series of missions, outgoing and incoming involving Chinese officials and representatives of the Canadian business community interested in oil and gas equipment, power generation and transmission equipment, metals and minerals, apparel and textiles, forest products and related equipment, agriculture and transportation are being negotiated.
Order Paper Questions
CONCESSIONS TO H&R BLOCK (CANADA) LIMITED


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Has H&R Block (Canada) Limited obtained a concession from the Department of National Defence to open up offices at Armed Forces Bases across Canada and, if so, on what basis was such concession awarded to H&R Block (Canada) Limited?
2.	Is the government aware that H&R Block is wholly American owned, and was this taken into account when awarding the concession?
3.	Is it the policy of the government to award contracts and concessions to American-owned or controlled companies and corporations when other Canadian facilities are available?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No, H&R Block (Canada) has not been granted a concession by the Department of National Defence to open offices at Canadian Forces' Bases across Canada.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


CBC-TELEVISION SERVICE VIA ANIK SATELLITE
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What communities are immediately to receive telephone and television communications in Northern Canada as a result of the setting into orbit of Anik I?
2.	Which communities are destined to receive this service in the next two years?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The following communities in Northern Canada, which had been receiving only a recorded CBC television service on a delayed basis for four hours per day, began receiving the full CBC live network service via the ANIK satellite during February, 1973: Whitehorse, Watson Lake, Faro, Dawson and Clinton Creek in the Yukon Territory; Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife, Pine Point and Frobisher Bay in the Northwest Territories; Fort Nelson and Cassiar, British Columbia; and Uranium City, Saskatchewan. Stations at Churchill, Manitoba and Goose Bay, Labrador also began receiving service by satellite in February.
2. Poste-de-la-Baleine, Fort Chimo and Fort George in Quebec; Keno Hill (feeding Elsa and Mayo) in the Yukon Territory; Norman Wells, Fort Simpson and Rankin Inlet in the Northwest Territories; Port au Port, Newfoundland. In addition, during 1974 the CBC expects to file applications with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for a number of stations to be satellite fed which, if approved, could be operational in 1974-75. These communities are Povungnituk, Inoucdjouac, in Quebec; Eskimo Point. Baker Lake, Cambridge Bay, Cape Dorset, Igloolik, Coppermine and Pangnirtung in the Northwest Territories; and Nain, Newfoundland.


NORTHERN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE STUDY
Mr. Rowland: Has the government conducted a study to determine the effects upon Canada's economy of the demand for 5 billion dollars for the construction of the Northern natural gas pipeline and, if so, by whom was the study conducted and with what results?

March 21. 1973
Order Paper Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. However, a study is in progress. It is being carried out by an interdepartmental committee.


AIRCRAFT-REPLACEMENT OF CF 101 AND CF 104
Mr. Rowland: Is the government currently engaged in evaluating possible replacement aircraft for the CF 101 and the CF 104 and, if so (a) has it yet been determined whether the purchase of one aircraft type or two would be involved in the replacement (b) what aircraft are currently being considered as possible replacements (c) on what date is it anticipated that a replacement will be required for the (i) CF 104 (ii) CF 101 aircraft currently in use?


James Armstrong Richardson: Evaluating the capability of current and possible new equipment to meet national objectives is a continuous process in the Department but no specific evaluation study of possible replacement aircraft for the CF 101 and CF 104 is currently underway, (a) and (b) not applicable; (c) if retention of a fixed wing tactical fighter defence capability is required it is currently estimated that the replacement of the CF 101 and CF 104 would have to be made about 1980.


PACIFIC REGIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. McKinnon: Is it the intention of the government to locate the Pacific Region Laboratory, formerly called the Pacific Conservation Centre, in Vancouver, B.C. and, if so what are the reasons for overruling the Pacific Region Advisory Committee of the Canadian Conservation Institute, which recommended unanimously in November 1972 that the laboratory be located in Victoria?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: No definite decision has been taken as to the ultimate location of the Pacific Regional Laboratory of the Canadian Conservation Institute, a branch of the National Museums of Canada. Acceptance of the offer of modest interim office space in a federally-owned building in Vancouver is for the purpose of accommodating a planning staff which will undertake feasibility surveys, and involves no permanent commitment to Vancouver. While, in November 1972, the Pacific Regional Advisory Committee recommended location of the Pacific Regional Laboratory in Victoria, at the more recent meeting of February 9, 1973, the Committee agreed unanimously to defer final recommendation on location until the necessary feasibility studies had been completed.


MAN AND RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	(a) What were the names of those who attended the "Man and Resources" program in the North and where was each individual from (b) did any Native people attend the program and, if so, from where?
2.	What communities were visited, for what purpose and at what cost to the federal government?
3.	For the 1973 program, what are the names of the individuals, groups, organizations, associations involved and what are the 12 resource issues?
4.	Will elected Members be invited to take part in the 1973 program and, if so, from where?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a)	(b)
Mr. John Amagualik	Inuit
Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.
Miss Pat Carney,
Yellowknife, N.W.T.
Miss Susan Huskey,	Indian
Inuvik, N.W.T.
Mr. Edward Lennie,	Inuit
Inuvik, N.W.T.
Mr. William Lyall,	Inuit
Cambridge Bay, N.W.T.
Miss Gina Pryde,	Indian
Yellowknife, N.W.T.
Mr. Ronald C. Watson, Haines Junction, Y.T.
Mr. Paul White, Whitehorse, Y.T.
2.	It is difficult to estimate the total costs to finance visits to northern communities. The purpose of the visits was to secure input to the "Man and Resources" program in terms of local resource use problems, issues and conflicts. However, the entire northern program was run on a $30,000 budget and in the course of the investigations 15 communities were visited: Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Faro, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Fort Norman, Fort Simpson, Pelly Bay, Cambridge Bay, Frobisher Bay, Igloolik, Hall Beach and Pangnirtung.
3.	The 1973 program is not yet underway in the North. However, it is expected that the eight northern delegates will continue to take an active part as well as any other interested groups or interested groups or individuals. The twelve resource issues are: citizen participation; population; growth ethic and social values; qualitative and quan-tative information for decision-making, a dynamic inventory of man and resources; education; long term planning in resource development; integral planning and co-ordination; foreign ownership; ownership; and, energy.
4.	Yes, members of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers will take part. However, the program was designed specifically as a forum for expression of views by the general public.

March 21, 1973


COST OF MAINTAINING UNITED NATIONS PEACE KEEPING FORCES IN CYPRUS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What has been the total cost to Canada, exclusive of pay and allowances, year by year since it began operations, of the United Nations Peace Keeping Forces in Cyprus?
2.	What other nations in the said United Nations Forces pay the total costs of maintaining their respective forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part I is that from the commencement of operations in 1964 until March 15, 1973, the total cost to Canada of maintaining our contingent in the United Nations Force in Cyprus, not including pay and allowances, amounted to $21,684,000.
The answer to part 2 is that Canada does not have access to the information requested because the arrangements with other participants in the United Nations Force in Cyprus are the subject of confidential agreements between the nations concerned and the United Nations.
The annual breakdown of amounts, in further answer to part 1, are included in the answer I have prepared. However, rather than take the time of the House by reading all the individual figures, I would ask for agreement to table these annual figures and to have them printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The figures above referred to are as follows]: 1964, $3,486,000; 1965, $3,516,000; 1966, $2,948,000; 1967, $2,907,000; 1968, $1,836,000; 1969, $1,476,000; 1970, $1,768,000; 1971, $1,899,000; 1972, $1,575,000; to March, 15 1973, $273,000; Total $21,684,000.


COMPLIANCE BY STARLAW INVESTMENTS WITH CRTC DIVESTITURE ORDER
Mr. Reilly: Has Starlaw Investments complied with the divestiture order contained in CRTC Decision 70-284 dated November 3, 1970 and, if not, have CRTC and Starlaw Investments reached agreement on an appropriate time table to complete divestiture transactions?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is concerned the answer is the following: As of this date, Starlaw Investments has not concluded any agreement of sale that would allow them to comply with the divestiture order contained in CRTC decision 70-284. The commission has had discussions with Starlaw Investments and the licensees involved, and expects that an application for divestiture will be filed by mid-year. During the February 1973 public hearing, Mr. Ferguson indicated the more recent measures undertaken by Star-law Investments to give up all its interests in cablevision operations outside the Montreal area. He explained it thus, and I quote: "In the commission's decision of 1970 involving ownership of Cable Television Limited, a company was specifically required to divest its interest in three subsidiary cable operations outside the Montreal area. We are in the process of complying with that decision. We are in discussion now with several parties and we 26087-91
Orders for Returns
expect an agreement in the near future. By mid-year, we should have an application filed which we hope will meet the approval of the commission".


CONSTRUCTION OF NEW LIGHT FRIGATES FOR CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Rowland: Has a decision been made to proceed with the construction of a new class of "light frigates" for the Canadian Armed Forces and (a) if so, how many such vessels are contemplated and what is the projected per unit cost (b) if not, is the possibility of embarking upon a new naval construction program currently being examined and, if so (i) what types of vessels are being considered (ii) would such vessels be entirely designated in Canada, a design purchased from abroad and constructed in Canada, or would the vessels in question be purchased from foreign shipyards (iii) on what date may an announcement with respect to the letting of a contract be expected?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question 1495 is that no decision has been made to proceed with the construction of a new class of light frigate for the Canadian armed forces. Part (a) is, therefore, not applicable. The answer to part (b) is that no new naval construction program is currently being examined. However, long-range planning for new equipment requirements is continuing to take place. The answer to (b)(i) is that types of vessels being examined are destroyers, frigates, a general purpose surveillance and control ship capable of operating without icebreaker assistance, and submarines; In reply to (b)(ii) it is our intention to have as much as possible of any future design work and construction work carried out in Canada. The answer to (b)(iii) is that no contracts are currently being negotiated for ships of the type described in part (i) and, therefore, no date has been set for any announcement.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	Are any Ministers who are members of the present Cabinet directors of any companies, corporations, etc. and, if so, which Ministers, of what companies or corporations are they directors and at what date were any directorships presently held by such Cabinet Ministers assumed?
2.	Did any Ministers who are members of the present Cabinet resign any directorships on being sworn of the Privy Council and, if so, which Ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?
Return tabled.


GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW INDUSTRIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. What is the amount, since July 1971, by province, that has been expended by all departments of government, in grants or other assistance, to Corporations, Partnerships, etc. to provide for the establishment of new industries or the expansion of already existing industries?

March 21, 1973
Orders for Returns
2.	Have any recipients, since receiving aid or other assistance, gone into bankruptcy?
3.	What are (a) the names and locations of such recipients (b) the amounts paid or granted to each of them, and the dates thereof (c) the respective dates of the Bankruptcy Orders of each of such recipients?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of National Defence on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


REPORTS BY DR. E. ZEIGLER ON IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many reports, preliminary, interim of otherwise have been received by the government from Dr. E. Zeigler, pursuant to a paper entitled "Background Objectives and methodology of the Longitudinal Study of the Economic and Social Adaptation of Immigrants" and (a) if received, how many and will they be made public (b) if not received, for what reason?
2.	Have any studies been made since 1966 about the impact of immigration both on the supply and demand side of the economy and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates were they completed (c) what were their titles (d) who prepared them (e) will they be made public?
3.	Since 1966 have any studies been made by the government regarding the economic and social adjustment of immigrants and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates were they completed (c) what were their titles (d) who prepared them (e) will they be made public?
4.	Is information collected twice yearly (February and November) as an appendum to the Monthly Labour Force Survey pertaining to immigrants and, if so, is this information available to the public?

5.	What is the statistical breakdown of sponsored versus non-sponsored immigrants by occupation for Canada for the years 1966-71 inclusive?
Return tabled.


LIP GRANTS TO CONSTITUENTS OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY
Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received Local Initiatives Program grants in 1972, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS IN COMPTON CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	In the constituency of Compton, how many LIP projects were (a) submitted (b) accepted by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	What were the names of projects (a) submitted (b) accepted?
Return tabled.


EAST AND WEST COAST FLOTILLAS-CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (SEA ELEMENT)
Mr. Rowland: 1.	(a) For the East and West Coast flotillas of the Canadian Armed Forces (Sea Element), what are the names of the ships in commission, their class and type (b) what are the names, class and type of ships undergoing refit?
2.	What is the projected hull life for each of the vessels in question?
3.	Which of the ships now have (a) full war time complement of personnel (b) full peace time complement (c) a complement adequate for taking the vessel to sea (d) a complement inadequate for taking the vessel to sea?
4.	Is there existing a pool of officers and men capable of manning the DDH280 class of destroyers which are not now in commission or will manning the DDH280's involve withdrawing crew form other vessels in commission?
Return tabled.
[Editor's Note: During the announcement of order paper questions to be answered.]


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have had a number of questions standing on the order paper since the beginning of this session on January
4.	Included in that group are questions Nos. 22, 24, 29, 30, 45 and 47. On Monday of this week I had the good fortune to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare produce for me answers to questions that were placed on the order paper a very short time ago. I congratulate the minister and the members of his department for their efficiency in producing answers to these questions.
I say to the President of the Privy Council that there is no reason that this House should not be made aware of the information I am seeking, especially since the information is factual. It may be embarrassing to the government, but the information is factual. In view of the fact that the government is a minority government, I submit that we have every right to know, for instance, how many
March 21, 1973

Grits have been put on the federal government's payroll since the date of the last election. They have no right to receive income from a government that should not even be in office today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: We are waiting for the information. We want it. I will be on my feet every day until answers to those questions are provided.


Mr. Hees:: The government will not be there very long and we want the information quickly.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a question of privilege based upon an order of the House made one month ago in connection with the production of papers involving the status of a third national park in Nova Scotia. As yet, the papers are not available to me from the table. I wonder if we might have some reaction from the minister's departmental people on this matter.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that question, but I remind the hon. gentleman that production of papers of this kind requires the co-operation of another government and we must get their permission before we can lay them on the table.
[Editor's Note: Following order paper questions.]


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order similar to the one I raised a few days ago with the parliamentary secretary on the same question, No. 819, which has been on the order paper for 43 days. The question concerns the hideous new tax form foisted on the Canadian people by the government. I do not understand why the government cannot answer this simple question with reference to the amount to be spent on advertising to explain this form to the Canadian people through the news media. In other words, how many thousands of dollars of the taxpayer's money are being spent in this manner? I think the people of Canada have a right to know how much this folly is costing. The last part of my question asks how much was paid to Fred Davis, that great tax expert, by the government to explain the impossible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3, 189 and 195 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 3, 189 and 195 be deemed to have been adopted?
Motions for Papers


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO 1973 AUTOMOBILE PRICES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the automobile manufacturing companies in relation to prices in the 1973 model year.
Motion agreed to.
CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. JEAN-PAUL L'ALLIER FROM HON. GtRARD PELLETIER
Motion No. 189-Mr. Nowlan:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the telegram of February 6, 1973 and the letters of February 9, 1973, May 31, 1972, March 15, 1972 and December 3, 1972 from the Honourable Gerard Pelletier to Mr. Jean-Paul L'Allier.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 195-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Canada's first reply to the United Nations Second Inquiry on Population Growth and Development.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 45 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 45 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Leggatt:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, analyses, reports, made by, or under contract with, any agency, branch or department of government relating to the development of deep-sea harbour facilities on the Pacific coast.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 190, 191 and 192 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning confidential documents and authorization of the government authorities concerned.

March 21, 1973
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 190, 191 and 192 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF COMPLETE MINUTES RELATING TO WINNIPEG RAIL STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 190-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the complete minutes of the Executive Committee of the (Manitoba) Transportation Co-ordinating Committee relating to the Winnipeg rail study.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between Canadian Pacific Railway and the Chairman of the (Manitoba) Transportation Co-ordinating Committee.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 192-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Chairman of the (Manitoba) Transportation Co-ordinating Committee and the prime consultants to the Committee.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 122, 123, 158 and 196.


COPY OF EVALUATION REPORT OF 1972 LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Leggatt:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation report of the 1972 Local Initiatives Program.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this evaluation report is of a confidential nature and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a vote.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
[Mr. Reid.)


EVALUATION REPORT OF 1972 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation report of the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this evaluation report is of a confidential nature and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, since I have had a copy of this document for about a month I will not insist on calling for a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Mark Willson Rose: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CLOSING OF UIC OFFICE, MONTMAGNY, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 158-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, studies, memoranda and orders, etc., concerning the closing of the Unemployment Insurance Office in Montmagny, Quebec.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is to be noted that the Montmagny office was closed in 1968 and therefore the latest correspondence would occur at that time. The documents available are internal departmental memoranda and cannot be tabled. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like this question transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

TASK FORCE REPORT TO POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT Motion No. 196-Mr. McKenzie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the task force report submitted in June, 1969 to the Post Office Department by Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead Inc.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the transportation study requested in this motion is an internal working document and is therefore considered confidential. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, with leave of the House, that I have a copy of the document and I would be only too pleased to present it to the minister for study and report.


Some hon. Members:: Table it.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.
March 21, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to the whole question of the production of papers through which we have just gone. In view of the fact it became evident that two of the documents requested have already been available to members in spite of the government's assurance that they are confidential and not available, I wonder whether we can have some assurance from the government House leader, having in mind the discussion we had last week with respect to taking a hard look at guidelines respecting the production of papers, that this matter will be considered by the parliamentary committee so that this continued farce will not be allowed to go on indefinitely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's language is somewhat intemperate this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but I would like to advise him that I am giving some consideration to having the guidelines referred for examination to a committee of the House. In fact, I have already had a brief conversation with the distinguished chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, with a view to having this particular set of criteria come under his objective gaze.


Mr. Howard:: Mr.Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 123, relating to an evaluation report on the 1972 opportunities for youth program, which the parliamentary secretary said was confidential. The point of order I raise is that if that is the case, why was it distributed through the mails to all hon. members?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege as well. It may be a question which should be taken into consideration by the House. It is based on another slick attempt by the government to withhold information. I hold in my hand a list of reports and returns to be made to the House of Commons by public officers and private corporations under Standing Order 82(1). On page 24 of that publication, where one would normally find Polymer Corporation listed as being one of those corporations required to make a return, we find that it has been completely omitted. The Polymer Corporation is still, by virtue of the provisions of Standing Order 82 (1), required to report to parliament.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), who does not appear to be listening at the moment but who should be, is the minister through whom the Polymer Corporation reports to parliament. The annual return and the financial statements of that corporation should be on the table now. In the absence of an explanation by the Minister of Supply and Services of why that report, that financial information, is being withheld, one can only come to two conclusions: First, the government is deliberately concealing this information from members of the House and, second, that they have deliberately omitted including in a report which is published by the govern-
Oral Questions
ment a Crown corporation that is required by law to report to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada and his warning about possible aggregate demand expanding too rapidly, too strongly, and thereby spurring inflation. I would like to ask the minister whether it was because of this sort of advice from the Bank of Canada that his budget was actually less expansionary, on a national accounts basis, than it was in 1972?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I based my budget on all the reasonable advice I could get throughout the country, and of course I took into account the views of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I might say to the hon. gentleman that if I were to take the advice of his two financial critics, or of whichever is the legitimate one for the moment, that deficit would have been doubled this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is one more than the government has.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the minister was not listening to my question. I was seeking some explanation of why his budget was not more expansionary than it was, and both the financial gentleman to whom the minister referred recommended a more expansionary budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister does not seem to be capable of understanding things these days.


George Harris Hees: That's no change from any other days.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the minister whether the government accepts the view expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada in this report that expansion in demand constitutes a substantial threat of inflation, and that growth in aggregate demand is likely to be the principal cause of inflation during the ensuing year?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear on budget night that the deficit I recommended to the country and to parliament, involving a cash requirement of $2 billion, was about right, that it went to the

March 21, 1973
Oral Questions
limits of what I believed was a responsible position, and that if I were to choose between unemployment and the risk of inflation I was willing at that time-I wish the hon. gentleman would refer to my words-to take the risk of inflation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the $2 billion in cash requirements that the minister referred to for the next fiscal year is the $2 billion that he was going to give me information about, once he figured out how to do it, on orders of the day two or three days ago, or the $2 billion that he refused to break down in the public interest yesterday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley.


INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN GROWTH
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the theme running through the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada that there is a concern about excessive demand creating too much inflation in the economy, is the minister confident that the governor and the bank are going to increase the money supply sufficiently to sustain growth in the economy this coming year?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.


James McPhail Gillies: Under those conditions I would like to ask the minister why it is that during the last three months the rate of increase in the money supply has declined?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the money supply will vary from month to month in accordance with the demand for loans. For instance, at this time last year the money supply was increasing at an annual rate of 24 per cent, and by the end of the year it was at an annual rate of 14 per cent. It varies from month to month, and the hon. gentleman ought to know that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Is the Minister of Finance aware that at the present time the liquidity position of the banks is at an almost all-time low?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that the chartered banks tell me they have no difficulty in meeting the demand for loans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will return to this important matter after completing the first round of questions. There are a number of distinguished frontbench members who want to ask supplementaries, and they will be given that opportunity in a moment.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the Canada Development Corporation. In view of the fact the minister stated in the House yesterday that he would look into any negotiations between the corporation and the government respecting the sale of the 45 per cent equity the government has in Panarctic Oils Limited, is the minister now ready to tell us whether any negotiations in this area are being proceeded with and what their purpose is?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Canada Development Corporation has, of course, expressed public interest in acquiring shares of Panarctic, and I was talking to the chairman and president of the CDC this morning. The government has yet to give a response to that interest.


William George Knight: In view of the minister's statement, can he inform the House if the government is considering increasing its share in Panarctic from 45 per cent to 51 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the
response to that question would more properly come from my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, if, as and when that should happen.


POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION OF SALE OF POLYMER TO CORPORATION
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of that answer may I ask a related question concerning the Canada Development Corporation. In light of the decision in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee involving Polymer Corporation, would the minister advise the House whether or not it is the intention to cancel the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation is legal under Section 39(1) of the Canada Development Corporation Act, and that the sale cannot be rescinded. What action the government will take in response to that vote in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee is something I would like to discuss with my colleague, the President of the Privy Council.


SALE OF POLYMER TO CORPORATION-PROVISION OF AUDITED STATEMENT FOR POLYMER
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Has he yet received an audited statement of Polymer Corporation from the office of the Auditor General? If he has received that report, why has it not been tabled?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed received the Auditor
March 21, 1973

General's report, and I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to indicate what course I should follow if the sale does take place.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They never do.


Erik Nielsen: -so I will direct it to the Minister of Finance in the hope we may get a direct answer from him.


George Harris Hees: There's not much hope of that.


Erik Nielsen: Has the Canada Development Corporation received a copy of the audited statement of Polymer Corporation from the Auditor General and, if so, why has it not been tabled?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows it is very difficult to get indirectly what he was not able to get directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of all hon. members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Under Standing Order 82(1) the government is required to table reports of Crown corporations. Polymer is still a Crown corporation, obliged by law to report to the Minister of Supply and Services. That report should be on the table. It is a flagrant breach of the privileges of the members of this House for the government to continue to fly deliberately in the teeth of the law. Surely the minister can at least answer whether he has received the statement and, if he has, tell us why it has not been tabled.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, concerning the question of privilege, I trust that the legal opinion that the Minister of Justice will be giving me soon will be in line with what the hon. member has just said. If it is not, I think he will have shown that he is a very poor lawyer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by on a point of order.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order will be put with as much delicacy as I can summon for the occasion. I am concerned about recognition of some members in this question period. In the past few days, indeed the past few weeks, the party on my right has led off the question period and then Mr. Speaker in his wisdom decided to recognize several supplementaries on their
Oral Questions
lead-off question. The New Democratic Party has then proceeded with its lead-off question with no supplementaries being recognized from this party and a shifting back to the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to that today.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair fully intended to return to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The hon. member will recognize that on the first question a number of members to my left in the official opposition wanted to ask supplementaries. I thought I would try again this afternoon to reach members in the fourth, fifth and sixth rows where the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby sits. I fully intend to return to him when we get to supplementaries in a moment after we have completed the first round of questions. That is why the Chair thought that at this point we should give an opportunity to the hon. member for Compton to ask his question.

I apologize to the hon. member for Compton, but the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition wishes to speak about the point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I sympathize with your difficulty because it must be difficult to make up your mind whether the New Democratic Party is an opposition party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lewis:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I noted this morning that when it came to corporate tax concessions the Leader of the Opposition was in the Minister of Finance's bed with such alacrity that one could hardly see him jump.


Mr. Fairweather:: Were you there, David?


An hon. Member:: Did he push you out?


An hon. Member:: A bedtime "Tory".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House might allow the hon. member for York South to come to the point of order. I really think we should then make an effort to continue with the question period because time is running out.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comment but you will forgive me if I suggest that it was applicable to others as well. I do not intend to sit here and listen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -to the Leader of the Opposition make his cracks. He said it was hard for you to make some decisions. The difference between you and the Leader of the Opposition is that you do make them.
2454

March 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the unprecedented rise in food prices and the great difficulty some families are having in obtaining food products, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government will introduce legislation to lower prices to the consumer by using compensated discounts oh food, especially on meat and milk, which are essential to survival for Canadian families and the prices of which are rising steadily?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question pertains to general policy and cannot be answered during the oral question period. I do, however, undertake to look into it with the ministers concerned.


Henry P. Latulippe: I wish to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he intends to take any other steps likely to help reduce prices and benefit consumers in any way at all?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no policy to announce today in this field.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Monday the minister advised the House that he would give very serious consideration to my suggestion that he contact the presidents of the chartered banks and point out to them the urgency of not raising interest rates at this time. Has the minister been in contact with these gentlemen in the last two days since he said that and, if so, what has been the result of those contacts?


Mr. Drury:: That was worth waiting for.
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
I have been in contact with the governor of the Bank of Canada.


George Harris Hees: As the minister in his answer makes it very clear that he is perfectly willing to stand by and do nothing while interest rates rise and the economy suffers,

would he please take his portfolio seriously and do something on behalf of the economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for North-umberland-Durham has a supplementary to the first question.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary relating to the report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday is directed to the Prime Minister, especially in view of his reply a few moments ago to the hon. member for Compton. In view of the very clear warning of the governor of the Bank of Canada in relation to the sharp rise in food prices when he said that "this development poses a serious threat to wage and price behaviour generally", would the Prime Minister reconsider the answer he gave a few moments ago and indicate whether the government has in mind any other specific measures to alleviate the very great concern of those on lower incomes, especially in relation to food prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the two questions asked of me previously referred to the application of the Social Credit theory, but I do take note that the hon. member is asking me to consider them seriously.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is again directed to the right hon. gentleman. I am asking him to take the warning of the governor of the Bank of Canada on this matter seriously. Has he any further suggestions to make to the House today and to the public generally about the prices situation in this country which is really causing concern?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my first answer is I do and my second is no.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has a supplementary to the second question asked this afternoon.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister and arises out of the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Assiniboia concerning the decision reached in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee yesterday which was a clear indication that the majority of members of this House oppose the sale of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation. In view of this clear expression of opposition to this course of action

!
i
r

March 21, 1973

on the part of the government, will the government reconsider its decision to sell Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Minister of Finance dealt with that in quite a satisfactory way. The Canada Development Corporation Act, which was adopted by parliament by a strong majority, authorized this sale and it took place under that authority.


John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is combined policy and law. Notwithstanding the past decision of this parliament vis-a-vis the Canada Development Corporation and Polymer, is the Prime Minister saying that, if parliament decides that it has now changed its mind, action by the government cannot reflect the current view of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister can reply to the hon. member's question, but it appears to me to be seeking a legal opinion. However, I appreciate that hon. members have an interest in this matter. The Prime Minister may reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Within the structure that you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, my opinion, and I believe it is pretty obvious, is that the vote yesterday did not and was not meant to invalidate the sale which legally took place between two entities in Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in view of the remarks of the Prime Minister with respect to the Canada Development Corporation legislation which he stated authorized the sale. The CDC legislation authorizes purchase. How can they sell Polymer when they did not have it in the first place? It is purchase.


BASIS OF SALE OF POLYMER TO CORPORATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If the government, through the Polymer Corporation, has not received an audited statement, on what basis will the sale be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the essence of the sale is that two parties agreed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to follow a certain line of conduct and they adhered to that. Certain conditions were imposed by both parties. We were in the process last night of trying to carry out one of those conditions. The Minister of Finance has indicated that he will discuss with the House leader whether further steps will be considered in carrying out that condition.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DETAILS OF APPRAISAL OF POLYMER FOR SALE TO CORPORATION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the government owns all the shares of the Canada Development Corporation and all the shares of Polymer, in view of the fact the sale was at $42 million less than book value, and as this has just come to the attention of the House, will the Prime Minister table the details of the appraisal indicating that the sale was at fair market value?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into this matter to reply in any detail, but I am informed there was an independent assessment and that was the basis of the sale price.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the seriousness of rising food prices, the warning expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the now apparent failure of the special food prices committee to get to the bottom of the problem, will the minister now undertake, because of the seriousness of the situation, to meet with the provincial finance ministers with a view to implementing the government's contingency plan?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the provincial finance ministers in mid-April. The subject of prices might well be one of the subjects to come up. As to whether I would reveal any contingency plan, I rather doubt it.


James Aloysius McGrath: In order to expedite and make meaningful the work of the special committee on food prices, is the minister prepared to meet in camera with the committee to outline exactly the government's contingency plan?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that question was already dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: However, I want to tell the hon. member that any plans are merely contingency plans and would not be revealed by the government unless and until they were brought into effect.
2456

March 21, 1973
Oral Questions MANPOWER


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-INQUIRY RESPECTING GRANT TO &quot;CENTER EPIC&quot;, MONTREAL
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I believe it is one of importance regarding government policy. Can the minister indicate whether a LIP grant of $128,000 has been awarded to a group of Montreal businessmen to build a health centre called "Center Epic" to fight the unhealthy habits of over-eating, over-drinking, over-smoking and under-exercising? If that is the case, would the minister consider rescinding the grant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of this nature should normally be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this is an urgent question since some fat-cat businessmen in Montreal have been given a large grant under LIP. I think the minister owes it to the House to explain whether that grant has actually been made.


Mr. Speaker:: That explanation can be given at ten o'clock. The hon. member for Trinity. Is the hon. member rising on a further point of order?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I can ask the minister a slightly different question relating to the same topic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member immediately after the hon. member for Trinity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister provide the House with a list of LIP applications from the Montreal area that were turned down which were received from low-income or underprivileged people asking for such things as food distribution centres, job information centres and day-care centers? Were they turned down because these members of society have the unhealthy habit of undereating?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister agree to refer the report of the Bank of Canada to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in order that the new governor may give the committee and discuss with the committee his views on the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policies in protecting jobs and employment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Bank of Canada was tabled in the House yesterday. I understand the governor has been asked by the committee to appear before it and will be appearing before that committee.


An hon. Member:: When?


John Napier Turner: On Thursday morning.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the importance to Canada of the 50 per cent of all oil and gas that reverts to the Crown under the present Canada oil and gas regulations, is the minister able to inform the House when the new section 58 will be ready?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are currently working on this problem, in collaboration with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and we hope soon to be in a position to announce a new policy or new legislation in this field.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the minister consider in this review that has been going on since 1970 the proposal made by Mr. Charles Dunkley of the Independent Petroleum Association that gas be held by the federal government in kind rather than through royalty payments, and will these new regulations be submitted to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works before promulgation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Dunkley suggests, we are considering the possibility of preserving resources this way and when the legislation or the new regulations are drafted, we shall be obviously prepared to submit them to the committee for consideration.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Considering the fact that numerous people are living in poverty, and since the Senate special committee which had been instructed to inquire into poverty in Canada
March 21, 1973

tabled its report several months ago, can the minister tell this House whether he will draw from this report in order to introduce in this House a legislation aimed at establishing a guaranteed annual income scheme and if so, when shall this measure be introduced?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, of course I shall take the Senate report into consideration as well as all the other reports on social security that have been prepared either by parliamentary committees or by voluntary organizations in recent years. The Senate report will be only one of the documents that will be considered.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I presume my questions should be directed to the President of the Privy Council. What is the present position of the government concerning the introduction of a redistribution measure this session? Can he give the House a picture of the present position of affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. gentleman I might mention to him that I have conducted some informal discussions with members of the opposition parties with respect to various approaches that might be commonly agreed upon in dealing with the question of redistribution. I must say that until now there has not been a sufficient consensus upon which to make a solid move. However, the matter is still under consideration by the government and if there is a possibility of reaching some common ground we would consider making a move.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the hon. gentleman say whether or not, regardless of any consensus with members of the opposition parties, the government intends to proceed with a redistribution measure this session, and whether it also intends to assure a floor on membership for those provinces that are losing their share of membership of this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of the informal ideas considered was that an approach might be taken which would increase the membership of the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: To what extent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose would be to protect the present representation of provinces within the House of Commons so that no province, including Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Newfoundland, would drop below its present representation. If this were the target, simultaneous adjustment would be required to ensure that the more rapidly growing provinces would be given commensurate representation. According to the original or tentative formula I was looking at, this would mean an
Oral Questions
increase in the membership of the House of Commons to 299.
I might make one further comment. At one time a member of the House of Commons represented, on the average, about 40,000 persons. Today, if no changes are made, the number of persons represented per member is in excess of 80,000. If the membership of the House were increased to 299, each member would still be representing, on the average, about 72,000 Canadians. Placed in this context, and in view of the rather rapid growth in Canada's population and the slow change in the membership of the House, it is not outlandish to consider some increase in the membership of the House of Commons. It is on this ground that I have conducted the discussions. The government is still receptive to that idea or to variations of it.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-CONTINUATION OF WORK OF PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONS
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the apparent uncertainty about arriving at an agreement for the moment, and while there does not seem to be immediate danger of an election, as David and Goliath seem to have gotten together-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time by his gesture the Prime Minister has proven he has a black belt. I would ask the minister in all seriousness whether or not the provincial commissions are to continue their meetings. Or has the government, because of the uncertainty of arriving at an arrangement along the lines the hon. gentleman outlined by which the House would have 299 members-I suggested 285-decided that these various commissions will not sit, because it will be love's labour lost if they continue to sit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly, but we have only a few minutes before the end of the question period.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will attempt to reply as briefly as possible. I think there is another part of the same question which the House might consider, and that would be to permit the present commissions to conclude their work but to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in such a way as to provide that the next election might occur on the basis of the present boundaries. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that if I went any further I would have to trespass further upon the time available.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP FLOOR FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO AND NORTHERN QUEBEC
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In giving consideration to the proposal that he outlined, would the minister also give consideration to establishing a floor for northern Ontario and northern Quebec as separate identities?

March 21, 1973
Oral Questions HARBOURS


LADNER B.C.-DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF DREDGING
Mr. lohn Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It relates to Ladner harbour. In his answer to me a couple of weeks ago he said the harbour would be dredged in April. Now the people in my riding are being told that dredging will not start until July. Will the minister please tell the House when this urgent dredging will take place?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: have said many times that the dredging will be carried out on April 15, and it will be carried out on April 15.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs arising from the minister's statement that he would write to the Ontario Housing Corporation asking the corporation to freeze rents on senior citizens housing units under its jurisdiction. Can the minister inform the House whether or not OHC has indicated it will not increase these rents?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: have so written but I have not yet received a reply. Whether or not CMHC has received a reply at the official level, I will determine.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the government's readiness, expressed in a policy statement in 1969, to seek membership in the Inter-American Indian Institute, and in view of the many delegations that have represented Canada as observers at meetings of that institute, when can the native people of Canada expect to be able to participate in an exchange of ideas of common interest with other native people of America?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is a serious question, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to take it as notice.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the application made by the CBC for permission to bring television to the Indians and Eskimo of northern Quebec, and since no programs will be in Eskimo or Cree, can the minister tell the House why the CBC did not consult the Indians and the Innuit of northern Quebec who had offered advice on programming, and will he assure the House that consultation will take place in the future?


James Hugh Faulkner: My
impression is that consultation is going on at the present time. However, I should like to check so as to be absolutely sure.


PUBLIC SERVICE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. For some months now there have been undue delays in getting pension cheques out to civilian employees of the Department of National Defence. Would the minister undertake to look seriously at the problem of delays, extending up to five or six months, before commencement of legitimate pension payments to retiring employees? I would point out to the minister that many of these people have to resort to welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into this question.


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


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have the minister or any of his officials yet made any contact, formal or informal, with the director of Statistics Canada with a view to modifying the basis of procedures used to calculate the consumer price index, the industry selling price index and the general wholesale price index?

March 21, 1973


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have had no discussion with the chief statistician on that question.
* *


AUDITOR GENERAL
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. If my memory serves me right, today marks the date of retirement of the Auditor General, a respected officer responsible to this House. Could the Prime Minister advise what steps are being taken to see that there is no break in continuity in that office, and that the Auditor General is responsible to parliament and not to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we intend to see that this post is filled by a very honourable and capable person very soon.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He will recall that a few days ago he indicated that the subject of reported abuses under the Unemployment Insurance Act would be studied by the unemployment insurance advisory committee. May I ask the minister whether he has yet received the report of that committee. If so, will he now table it? If not, when he does receive it will he table it in the House forthwith?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report. I have been in verbal communication with the chairman and I understand that their deliberations are proceeding. It is certainly my intention to reveal the details of their recommendations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that yesterday I received no answer to my question regarding an immediate change in the Bail Reform Act I will try to simplify my question, which concerns the safety and well-being of all Canadians. I hope the minister will not feel insulted and will answer. Could the minister tell the House whether, in view of further recent murders of innocent Canadians, he and his department are planning any improvements to the Bail Reform Act in order to
Oral Questions
assure the Canadian public of improved safety and wellbeing? If no improvements are being considered at this time, why is this so?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to try to give an answer to the hon. gentleman now that he has asked a question that is really in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I made it clear before to the House that the government stands ready to make such changes as may be required by the operation of the bail law, which is recognized by the Attorneys General across this land in all provinces as being a distinct improvement over the previous law. We may be bringing forward some small and very technical changes to the law. My problem with the hon. member's question is that there is no relationship between the question of people being at large under the current law as against their being at large under the previous law so far as danger to the public is concerned. The current law very adequately allows for the protection of the public, if that is seen to be necessary. The only alternative which the hon. gentleman might suggest is the detention in prison of everyone suspected of an offence, and I will not go along with any such suggestion.


CONSULTATIONS ON BAIL LAW WITH CROWN ATTORNEYS AND POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. In light of the fact his statement reveals that he thinks the present law serves Canadians better, and there have been statements by the law commission to that effect, would he discuss the matter with the Attorneys General of the various provinces so that proper instructions would go out to the various Crown counsel and police officers to ensure that the discretion that is necessary under the act is properly exercised. This might solve the problem and prevent murders such as occurred over the weekend in Ottawa.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I informed hon. members about, I think, two months ago that I had written to all Attorneys General drawing their attention to the need for appropriate instructions to be given police officers and prosecutors, not with the suggestion that anything was badly handled but simply to reinforce the very valuable portions of the law. I think I have now had replies from all Attorneys General basically thanking me for the suggestion and indicating to me the steps that they are taking to see that the rules are indeed being properly handled.
I think there was only one suggestion regarding a very small technical change, but the consensus was that, with experience, situations can in fact be properly handled. The point that hon. members seem sometimes to miss is that under any law, except one that keeps almost every suspect in prison, people will be on bail, and indeed the hardened criminals would be most likely released under a cash bail system, such as the old bail system. So it is not the changes in the law that have caused the problem, and

March 21, 1973
Oral Questions
any suggestion that it is, is really doing a disservice to the continued development of the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking to ask supplementaries on the subject and we have gone beyond the question period. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Malpeque who has been waiting to ask a question, after which I will call orders of the day.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the target of my question is not here today, so I will hold it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe rising on a point of order?


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to delay the proceedings, but in view of the emergency situation in my province where draggers of French, Portuguese and Spanish origin are violating Canadian fishing regulations and fishing off the west coast of Newfoundland, I wonder whether the minister would advise the House what action his department is taking to correct this situation, which is resulting in our fishermen losing their livelihoods?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the matter is urgent, as the hon. member suggests, but I think I have been lenient in allowing, to the extent I can, additional questions. However, if there is agreement certainly the Chair would have no objection to the minister being allowed to reply to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the area in which these incidents are alleged to have taken place is relatively small. We have two large patrol vessels there and three Canadian trawlers have in fact been taken in for violating our limits. There are no foreign vessels in that area at the present time, and there is no evidence whatsoever that any foreign vessel has abridged any of our regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 19, 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:: I believe that the hon. member for Calgary North seeks the floor on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was approached a moment ago by the whip of the NDP with reference to speakers. It is true that the hon. member for Northwest Territories was called just at the adjournment and only had a few minutes. In light of this-and we are agreed to this-I was wondering whether you would call the hon. member for Scarborough West.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has, of course, no objection to calling the hon. member for Scarborough West, who seems to be prepared to speak at this point.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for his generosity in allowing me to speak today.

There have been, over the past few weeks, questions addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) relating to the effects of rent increases in various public and subsidized housing projects. This question has arisen, apparently, as a result of the announced increase in the old age pension, and I should like to pursue this matter briefly this afternoon, particularly since these increases in rents are justified under some of the provisions of the National Housing Act. I have been looking through the act trying to find these provisions. I know they are there, although I have not been able to find them all. I know that section 15 provides for CMHC to approve increases in rents in cases where the cost of maintaining buildings built directly by CMHC or with CMHC approved money have risen.
We, in this corner of the House, have addressed a number of questions to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs relating to this matter, and we have received a number of answers. This afternoon I should like to go into that subject again briefly, to see if we can obtain anything like a complete picture as to what is happening in that sector. Obviously, a considerable number of our senior citizens are being sorely affected by these increases in rents, and others are feeling insecure indeed, because they feel their turn may come at any time. It is important to raise this point, because a good number of people are beginning to question the generosity and, indeed, the
March 21, 1973

integrity of the state, inasmuch as the federal government offers an increase in pensions on the one hand, and provincial or municipal governments take much of these pension increases away in rent increases on the other hand.
As I suggested a moment ago, we have asked the government some questions on this, and have received a fair number of answers. I do not say that those answers are in contradiction to one another; at the same time, they do not give us a complete picture. One answer is to this effect: that the minister has ordered that there be no rent increases in CMHC owned buildings as a result of the increase in the old age pension; in other words, that the rents in CMHC owned buildings will be frozen for a period of time. This is all very good, Mr. Speaker, but we have experienced difficulty in finding out how many buildings are directly owned or controlled by CMHC. Central Mortgage and Housing itself is not directly a landlord in many projects housing senior citizens in this country. So far as I can tell, CMHC is the landlord in those cases where it has received into its hands properties and houses whose owners have fallen into default on mortgage payments. As it has those houses in receivership it is, in effect, the landlord. I do not think many senior citizens inhabit those houses. I also understand that CMHC is either the landlord or in direct control of a number of buildings in the far north, in the Northwest Territories. I also understand that the only project CMHC controls directly as owner is Habitat in Montreal. How many senior citizens live in Habitat? So, it does not appear as if the minister's statement to the effect that rents in CMHC owned or controlled buildings will be frozen amounts to very much.
There is another category of project about which we have asked questions, and so far we have received, truly speaking, no direct and satisfactory answer. I am speaking of what are called limited dividend projects. In several cities of Canada, certainly in the metropolis of Toronto from where I come these days, there are a number of limited dividend projects. The residents of those limited dividend projects have received notices saying that, because their incomes have gone up, the leases which they signed in good faith will be effectively and, I am sorry to say, legally broken by the landlord because CMHC has approved increases in rents. I think we should look at these particular cases, not simply because this is a matter of concern right now in relation to increases in the old age pension, but also because the approach taken to tenants who sign leases in limited dividend projects effectively makes second class citizens of them.
When individuals in this country sign a lease with a landlord for the rental of a piece of property for a period of time, they undertake to pay a certain amount of rent and the landlord undertakes to permit them to use that property for the stated rent. It is, indeed, a rare lease in the private sector which contains a clause saying that at any given time the landlord, if his costs have gone up, may reopen that lease and stipulate another rent. This, effectively, is what is happening in many limited dividend projects in the country. Standard forms of lease are used which contain a clause which says very simply that if CMHC approval is given, the rent stipulated in the previ-
National Housing Act
ous clause will not apply and rents in the project in question can be raised.
In certain provinces of the country, certain standard forms of lease apply to people who lease in the private sector. Why should we not let the standard form of lease apply to people who live in houses that are financed by the public sector. I appeal to the minister to review those sections of the act under which such practices have been allowed, because I consider them an abuse, if not of the letter, of the spirit of the act. Surely, when we house people in limited dividend projects, and, by the way, we are not doing them any enormous favour since we are not subsidizing their rents massively, we should give them their full rights as citizens of this country. If they sign leases they should be able to live in the premises during the periods of those leases without being harassed by landlords and living under the threat that rents may go up.
I realize many members of this House know the value of a contract and the value of a lease. It is because they appreciate the value of a lease and of a contract that I wish to bring forward my next example of a matter that concerns me. In the city of Toronto, indeed, I am sure this applies to every city in this country, there are projects which are run by municipal authorities. In Toronto there is, in particular, The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited. Recently, that company has been sending out notices to its tenants advising them that, because of the increase in old age pensions, their rents will be reviewed. I should like to put on record a sample letter. Many similar copies have been sent. The one in my hand, signed by the Director of Housing, is sent from City Hall, Toronto and dated March, 1973. It reads:
Owing to announced increases in Old Age Security Pensions effective April 1, 1973, it would appear that your income may require an increase in rent, in accordance with the terms of your lease and in accordance with our agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
So, at least in the view of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company, in accordance with the agreement it has with CMHC, it can cause a review and arrive at a decision.
For your convenience we have arranged for staff to be available in your building to take an up-to-date financial declaration on Monday, March 26th.
The staff will visit you in your apartment and I would appreciate you arranging to remain home on the above date to complete the statutory declaration.
You know, Mr. Speaker, if these people were living in standard, private housing, in no way would the landlord be able to send them a letter of this kind saying that they should stay home all day on Monday until he comes around to interview them. But, this is customary in what is, in eifect, subsidized housing. They are in effect commanded to stay around all day until the interviewers come around. I have a letter from a person who was asked to stay at home for one of these interviews. She states;
These constant interviews are terribly worrying to the people in these buildings.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these instances we are speaking of involve senior citizens.

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
If we could have say a hard and fast two year lease, it would allow people to settle down with a feeling of more stability. After all, we are not going to live for another 100 years.
That is an extremely important point for anyone, but particularly for senior citizens who feel that because of the nature of the accommodation in which they find themselves they are most insecure. They are simply asking, not for a gift, but for some assurance that the contracts they enter into will be binding for a year or, as she suggests here and which I support, for a period of two years at least.
I am reminded now of another consideration of the same kind. I refer to how we approach people who live in these projects which are geared to income. I have only taken up one type of project so far. There are others which operate more directly under the provincial housing corporations. I, of course, am more familiar with what is going on in respect of the Ontario Housing Corporation. A while ago the minister said that he has not had an official reply from the minister in the province of Ontario to the letter he sent the other day asking for a freeze on rent scales. Mind you, we know there has been an unofficial answer and that Mr. Grossman said last week the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was simply playing politics with housing. It may be that Mr. Grossman knows whereof he speaks, but at any rate he gave an answer which indicates that the OHC had not raised rents and did not even do so the last time there was an increase in old age pensions. It is an interesting shell game we have going on here.
There is in Sault Ste. Marie, for example, an authority called the Sault Ste. Marie Housing Authority which has been sending out notices of rent increases to old age pensioners because their pensions have been increased. We could say this is a project of a limited dividend nature and they are therefore operating under section 15 of the National Housing Act. However, if we look a little further we find that the people in this project who complain about rent increases receive letters from the Ontario Housing Corporation to this effect:
I aknowledge and thank you for your letter of February 3, 1973 concerning the increase in your monthly rent. I have investigated this matter with the Sault Ste. Marie Housing Authority and I find that they have acted in accordance with the procedures set in the provincial rent scale and your rent was computed directly as stated. However, if you are still in doubt I suggest that you contact the manager of the Sault Ste. Marie Housing Authority who will I am sure explain in detail how he arrives at the increase.
This letter is signed by the area manager of the Northern Branch of the Ontario Housing Corporation. So, what exactly is happening here? It is all very well for the minister to say, as if he were reporting a fiat, that we at the federal level have commanded that there shall be no rent increases in CMHC controlled or owned buildings, but in effect this amounts to nothing. It is all very well for the minister to say that he has written to all provincial ministers asking them to freeze all rent scales, but even when the rent scales are frozen people are still being forced to go up within the scales. We have announcements from the various provincial ministers to the effect that the minister at the federal level does not know what he is talking about because their authorities have not increased rents and yet, on the other hand, we have evidence that

various aspects of these housing authorities have increased rents.
I understand that some of the municipal housing authorities are, in effect, providing housing subsidies, which bring up another problem. If they do not increase rents their costs go up and, in effect, they will be handing out more subsidies to their tenants because rents will remain at the same level. I have more correspondence from another municipal authority. This is from the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. It is a letter to one of the Toronto aldermen explaining why there must be an increase in rents. The letter reads:
What is essential to remember, however, is that the geared-to-income basis is part of a formal agreement with CMHC which requires us to make these adjustments.
Note the words, "which requires us to make these adjustments".
We would, therefore, be reporting to the Board of Directors on the consequences of the action which we will take and I would assume the information provided to the Board of Directors would also come to the Social Services and Housing Committee.
The important part of this communication is that this authority, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, feels required under the agreements they have with CMHC to make these upward adjustments. It would be appreciated if, first of all, in his response to the very important points made in this House in respect of these amendments to the National Housing Act the minsiter would make a full and complete statement concerning the impact and significance of his interventions on behalf of the senior citizens of this country, interventions which we were led to believe were made about some kind of control and freeze on rents. Secondly, I wonder whether the minister would be willing to countenance further amendments to the act which would clear up the intent of the act, this preventing this kind of abuse because there is no question that there are abuses.
I cite again for his consideration the example of the limited dividend projects which are very faintly subsidized by the public. Hon. members know that the rents in limited dividend projects are not much less than the rents in the private market place. Because of the fact the government has a few dollars involved in this, we insist that these tenants not be treated as second-class citizens. They should have a lease which would give them security for a year or for two years. Surely we can review this aspect of the act and write into it language which will prevent this kind of abuse and distortion.
Third, if the minister is serious about having a rent freeze in respect of projects for which there already exist formal binding agreements between CMHC and the various housing authorities at the municipal level in this country, then he must also be prepared to help in respect of the kind of burden that is involved in the added subsidy. I am sure it will be possible for the minister, under section 44 of the Act, to make funds available under the NHA to compensate the various housing authorities for the increased subsidy these authorities will have to pay if they are to comply with the request of the minister not to increase rents. In my case, I would like to see the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority compensated.
March 21, 1973

I would like to conclude my remarks by simply reiterating my appeal, first of all, for a full and complete statement of what the effects of the various requests made of the minister with regard to freezing rents would be so that we can get a complete picture of exactly what this involves. When we are told that CMHC has fixed the rents of Habitat in Montreal, in effect, we are being told that virtually nothing has been done for the senior citizens in this country. Second, I will repeat my appeal to look at those aspects of the act under which certain abuses, particularly to senior citizens, have been caused in this country.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-133 which puts forward the government's panacea to Canada's housing problems. In fairness, I suppose, I should really call this bill a partial panacea because the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has said that this bill is just part of some sort of vast, comprehensive plan which, he implies, will end Canada's housing problems once and for all. I for one, and I am sure all Canadians, would like to see this plan and would like to have the minister present this blueprint for urban bliss, or even some tangible evidence that such a blueprint exists because, on the evidence so far available, I think there is good reason to be highly sceptical that such a blueprint or such a plan exists.
Certainly, this bill before us gives me no confidence that its sponsors are aware of the root problems which are causing millions of Canadians to continue to live in less than adequate housing, and certainly there is no evidence that this bill's sponsors have developed a surefire plan, a strategy, let alone some legislation which, when implemented, will ensure that every Canadian, if he desires, will be able, at some time in his life, to purchase a home with a landscape and with room to live, not just to exist or just to sleep and eat. One does not have to be a trained social scientist nor even particularly observant, to see the effects upon an individual or a family of being forced to live in housing which provides just shelter and nothing else.
In my constituency of Calgary Centre, which consists of the central core of a large and rapidly growing urban centre, there are unfortunately thousands of examples of the tragic situation which I am convinced results from improper housing, among other things. It is obvious to me that every social problem conceivable, from alcoholism to child beating and from family breakdown to juvenile delinquency, is exacerbated by improper housing. Here, I include all the factors such as living space, open land, noise, traffic, dirt and population density. That is why my party and I consider the area of housing and urban affairs to be of paramount importance, and that is why we are so dissappointed in this bill.
My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has accurately described this bill as a "band-aid bill". It will provide some comfort in some areas, and therefore we will support it, but it will not cure the problem any more than a bandaid will cure internal injury or disease. What we have in this bill is a continuation of the
National Housing Act
practice of this government over far too many years of proposing ad hoc solutions to treat problems affecting a complex system, but perceived by the government as isolated, independent problems.
In September of 1971 the Science Council of Canada published its fourteenth report entitled "Cities for Tomorrow" in which they make several, I believe nine in all, recommendations for ways in which the federal government can make our cities more liveable for people. But the fundamental point made by this report, which the government does not seem to appreciate, is that the city is a system or, in simpler terms, everything relates to everything else. It is on this basis that my colleagues and I form our main criticism of this bill, and indeed of this government.
The problems of housing and of urban affairs must be considered simultaneously, in concert with each other, for they are all part of a system and require a system's approach or, as my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated, a massive approach on all sectors of the problems. The ad hoc or bandaid approach in this bill, though completely consistent with the ad hoc approaches of this government to all of our important national problems, will unfortunately not cure Canada's housing problems and, in fact, will not even significantly alter the continuing trend under this Trudeau government of deteriorating housing situations in Canada, let alone alter the deteriorating urban problems in general. With each passing day more and more Canadians are removed from the ranks of those who can afford a house of their own. This bill will not alter that trend significantly. That is the tragedy of this bill and, indeed, of this government. The young people in my riding and throughout Canada will continue to be disappointed and will have to wait that much longer before the Stanfield government takes office and cures this deplorable situation. They have, amongst others, the NDP to thank for that delay.
The main problem in housing today is that costs have risen to such a degree that very few people can afford to buy their own houses. On a national average, less than 10 per cent of Canadian families can afford to buy an NHA home. That compares to nearly 50 per rent 12 years ago. That is the fundamental problem, and this bill will not help.


An hon. Member:: Neither will the Tories.


Harvie Andre: In fact, the only portion of this bill that really directs itself toward this fundamental problem is that pertaining to land banking. However, I am afraid this scheme, which is intended to reduce the cost of land, will not have that effect and indeed, in the short term, will probably have the opposite effect. After all, you do not have to be an expert to realize that the introduction of a large scale buyer into an already restricted or short-supply market is bound to increase prices, not decrease them. Perhaps in 10 years municipal governments will be in a position to reduce speculative land increase by releasing publicly held lands for residential dwellings, but in the meantime land prices will continue to skyrocket.
What is needed is great increases in the supply of serviced land, which really means massive increases in servicing. This bill does not provide the municipalities with

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
the inducement or means to construct the large scale transportation and service corridors that are necessary. Raw land is expensive because serviced land is expensive, and serviced land is expensive because developers must build all the roads, services, etc. for their development, plus provide the capacity to handle developments that will take place farther out. Developers must pay for these services because municipalities lack the resources or tax base to put them in themselves. That indicates what the thrust should be to truly reduce land costs now, not some time in the future.
We should supply the funds or help the municipalities through low interest loans to service large tracts of raw land. That will reduce the price of residential lots and of raw land. That will help Canadians buy a house of their own. It will reduce the cost of housing in general now, not some ten years in the future. But the rising cost of land is not the only factor which is causing house prices to rise at the rate they are. In fact, I am not sure it is the main factor. Based on my observations and my discussions with home builders and home buyers, the most expensive aspect of buying a home today is the cost of mortgage money. Since the Trudeau government took office, the cost of mortgage money has risen from less than 7 per cent to more than 9 per cent. As my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out, since 1961 the cost of the average house has almost doubled, but when you add financing charges, the cost has almost tripled.
This problem, which is clearly the most important item or cause of increased housing costs, is not even alluded to in this bill. You would think the minister might at least have provided a bandaid for this sore if he lacks the wherewithal to devise a cure. Perhaps it is time that long-term mortgage capital was removed from the general money market manipulations so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Bank of Canada can no longer use these interest rates in their inane attempts to cure inflation, recession, or whatever. Most countries of the world do a far better job than Canada in arranging for a ready supply of reasonably priced mortgages for the housing markets.
We, in Canada, not only do nothing to ensure a stable supply of low cost mortgage funds, but in fact use this money supply, and the housing and construction sector in general, as the main tool in accelerating and decelerating the economy. This has led to a very fragmented and inefficient housing industry. Many of the home builders in Calgary are just now recovering from the Trudeau government's tight money policy, that is, those who survived at all. And those who did survive are very apprehensive and concerned about what other inane moves the government might make, and thus are protecting themselves in a way that is itself causing increased housing costs. Who can blame them? With this government in charge no one can be faulted for not being willing to invest heavily in developing extensive land holdings. A large inventory of serviced lots is not an asset in a tight money situation.
That, Sir, is the essence of the measures the government should be introducing to reduce housing costs. It should be working to reduce the interest on mortgage loans, and to remove mortgage financing from the "boom or bust"

manipulations of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada.
Another factor which is a major contributor to the high cost of urban housing, is municipal taxes and municipal financing. There is nothing in this bill, nor in any announced government program, that addresses itself to this problem. Most people, when considering the purchase of a new home are, from a financial point of view, interested in two things, the down payment and the monthly payments, consisting of principal, interest and taxes. The payment on the principal is usually trivial in comparison with the other two. With 80 per cent of our population soon to be dwelling in a few urban centres, it is clear that the responsibilities and financial obligations of the cities will not be decreasing. They require, and will continue to require large amounts of money. If their main source is to remain the revenue that comes from property tax, then these taxes will remain high, and will remain a significant obstacle to home ownership for millions of Canadians.
Notwithstanding constitutional considerations, there are lots of things the federal government could have considered doing to help in this area as well. Here again, we might have expected the government at least to offer a bandaid, or some small relief, if not a cure.
There is of course another very significant factor in the cost of housing which neither the bill nor the government has considered. I refer to the increased cost in building the house itself. Granted that these increased costs may be tied in an integral way to the whole inflationary spiral, with which this inept tragedy of a government has been struggling unsuccessfully for too long, but there are things which could have been done to reduce housing costs. If the Minister of Urban Affairs is truly concerned about the cost of housing, why did he not prevail on his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to adopt even more of the Progressive Conservative platform and remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?
If the government was genuinely committed to a policy of good and proper housing for all Canadians, it would have removed this 11 per cent sales tax. A Stanfield government will remove this tax, because a Stanfield government will be committed to a policy of providing Canadians with the opportunity to own their own homes, with a yard, with some room to live, and a neighbourhood that is liveable. We are committed to providing housing at reasonable cost for all Canadians.
I do not think the government holds these types of objectives in very high esteem, and certainly not this minister. On March 6, 1973, I asked the minister whether his department was aware of and was investigating the tremendous increases that are occurring in the cost of lumber, in some cases by as much as 100 per cent in the last year. He referred me to the Minister of Finance. I would think that a minister responsible for housing at least would be aware of the factors or elements contributing to the tremendous increase in housing costs.
There is nothing in this bill, nor in any government policies or actions that could lead one to believe that they will reduce the cost of housing, or even abate the present trends. As I have indicated, the main factors in the increased housing costs are interest rates, shortage of serviced land, municipal taxes, federal taxes and fiscal
March 21, 1973

policies, and building construction and material costs. This bill only addresses itself to one of these factors, and in a way that will have marginal, if any, beneficial effect, and none in the short term.
In the time I have left, I want to mention briefly some other aspects of the bill. By and large these are good measures, although I repeat they are no panacea for the problems they purport to cure. I am especially pleased that the government has decided to support the restoration rather than destruction of old neighbourhoods. Many of the neighbourhoods in my constituency could use this type of assistance. Certainly, the people living there would welcome the relief of no longer having to fear the bulldozer. Too often in the past people living in older neighbourhoods, many of whom have raised their families there, and who wanted to spend the remainder of their lives there, were disregarded, or forcibly moved, or had to witness the destruction of their familiar surroundings under the guise of progress or urban renewal. I hope that these items in the bill reflect a sincere change of heart on the part of the government, and that we can now consider the restoration of neighbourhoods and of houses as the most desirable form of renewal.
On Monday night my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), directed most of his speech toward this aspect of Bill C-133, and I will not repeat the reasoned arguments he presented, except to re-emphasize the dangers of excessive centralization in the administration of this bill. I hope the minister will consider this point most carefully, since it may well determine the degree to which items like this in the bill have or do not have the desired beneficial consequences.
I would like also to state that the increased protection for home buyers is a welcome item, although it should be extended to more than just NHA secured mortgages. It is my understanding that since private mortgage insuring companies have entered this market, the percentage of NHA insured mortgages has decreased significantly, so much so that CMHC is now considerably over-staffed. Perhaps that is another reason we have not been able to get the CMHC annual report! However, the main point, as it relates to this legislation, is that the majority of new homes will not be covered.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the question of research and development, this item was one of the recommendations in the Science Council's report to which I referred earlier. I am glad to see that this recommendation at least was adopted. Certainly, when considering the technological advances in almost every facet of our society, it can be seen that housing has lagged far behind.
I would like to make one suggestion as to how this item might be further improved. One of the main reasons technological innovation as it pertains to housing has lagged behind other fields is a reflection of the fragmented nature of the housing and construction industries. This fragmentation is due in large part to government policies. However, be that as it may, true technological innovation is enhanced by encouraging experimentation over a broad front, by many people in many areas, and small, or even moderate sized builders lack the base to do much research. They simply cannot afford to take the risk. However, they do generate new ideas, come in contact
National Housing Act
with new materials and new techniques. There would be far greater utilization of this new technology if the risks could be shared. That is why I would suggest the government might consider an insurance scheme to insure innovative or novel new techniques, and/or materials, and thereby reduce the risk factor. This would greatly broaden the experimental base and lead ultimately to greater progress in developing newer, better and cheaper housing.
In conclusion, may I say that I will support this bill even though it is no panacea for our housing problems. It will not reduce housing costs. It will not cure Canada's housing problems. However, hopefully it will do more good than harm. My main fear is that it may cause the government to be content, thinking it has addressed itself to the real housing problems of Canada, and thus delay the true changes that are necessary. However, this concern is quickly ameliorated when I realize that what we are dealing with is a temporary government which will soon be replaced by a Stanfield government-


Mr. Gilbert:: Lord help us!


Mr. Alexander:: You won't be here, John.


Harvie Andre: -a Stanfield government that will address itself to the real problems of housing and urban affairs, and the sooner that day comes the sooner Canadians can expect a better future.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, aside from the whole question of unemployment, rising prices and the other domestic and international economic matters that face us, this government, and the government from our party that will follow it, face their greatest challenge in this country in the field of urban affairs. The shortage and inadequacy of urban housing, traffic and transportation problems, air and water pollution, the conflicting jungle of land use and decaying neighbourhoods, urban poverty, social disturbance and the frustrations of municipal administrators are familiar problems to the average Canadian city dweller today. In that litany of urban tragedy, Mr. Speaker, lies the challenge facing all the governments of Canada. There is a general consensus that the problems of urban society have multiplied and intensified so greatly that they endanger, and indeed threaten, the long term vitality of the cities as we know them.
The present methods of dealing with these problems have been judged inadequate by even impartial advisers and comprehensive new approaches have been advocated. I say to this House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has not listened. That is not to say that Bill C-133 is not an improvement on the situation because obviously it is, but in terms of a comprehensive, national urban policy it is not; it falls far short of that category.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, has not been the lack of research, but an apparent unwillingness to make comprehensive decisions and to finance national goals for urban Canada. It is true that for the majority of people the large metropolitan areas are becoming less desirable each year. That includes the area that abuts my own constituency,

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
this city, which is becoming less desirable because of transportation problems. The failure of this government to meet the financial requirements of the regional transit commission quickly, and to develop rapid surface transit within this city, has caused a type of urban decay which is becoming more discernible each day and each month because the action that is required and that members of this House have called for has not been taken.
I do not think it falls upon us in this country to compare ourselves with other places in North America. We have heard the classic comparisons with New York, San Francisco and Chicago and the conclusion that we are not as bad as they are, thank God. With continued neglect and continuing inability to meet real needs, with continued frustration in the whole governmental process, with the wrangling over legislative responsibility, whether it is provincial, municipal or federal, we run the risk in some of our cities, and I believe this is one, of passing the point where anything can be accomplished quickly to improve the quality of life.
The statistical hallmarks of the problems that face us, face this government and will face succeeding governments if action is not taken, are rather frightening. In 1921, less than half our population was urban; by 1966, the proportion was 73 per cent; by 1981, it is expected to reach 85 per cent and in the year 2000 it is projected to rise to 94 per cent. By the year 2000, Mr. Speaker, nine out of every ten Canadians in Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes, Alberta and British Columbia are expected to be living in the cities and towns. Within 30 years it is expected that more than 50 per cent of Canada's population, some 16 million people, will reside in 21 centres stretching along the St. Lawrence lowlands from Windsor to Quebec City. Mr. Speaker, in light of those statistical hallmarks of the urban problem, we in Canada have no cause for any self-righteous smugness. It is a fact that for many reasons people are leaving rural Canada and are crowding into our cities. This input of people is complicating the problem of urban renewal every day and is making the decision in large cities on urban renewal, low rental housing, senior citizens' housing, and many other fields, the decision that is born out of desperation and pressure rather than reasoned consideration.
Is it not obvious that the availability of serviced land is an important and indeed fundamental need in all our cities? It is so obvious that it hardly bears repeating. It is also obvious that there has been a failure, wherever the blame lies in this country, to provide an adequate supply of serviced land. That, too, hardly bears repeating. The story is contained in the excellent speeches of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) who spoke before me.
I think it is a wrong concept in every part of our lives, Mr. Speaker, that it has become fashionable to be bigger, as if bigness had some sort of grace attached to it-to have more and to do it all for less. I realize that this ministry or this government cannot stop the clock and it is foolish to say that of any government, but in this country we have the opportunity now to change the pattern of our cities and, I suggest to change the direction of our growth.

However, I do not in any way minimize the size of the task that faces any government which wishes to face up to it. We have an opportunity to do something in Canada before it is too late. This will require the co-ordinated recognition of the problem by all levels of government; it will require the leadership of the federal government, not just in money but in ideas and in courage. This bill does not contain these kinds of ideas or the courage that is required.
We have to fight what I call the inevitability syndrome in Canada. People say it is inevitable that Toronto will have a population of six million people by the year 2000; it is inevitable that cities will be filled only with high rise buildings and there will be no room for houses and families. They say it is inevitable that we will have urban sprawl. Mr. Speaker, I suggest these things are not inevitable, and whether they happen depends upon the actions of government backed by an awakening people in these communities that are fighting this pinch in the manner I have suggested.
Our big fight against this inevitability syndrome in urban affairs is the concept of new communities mentioned in this bill and the extension of older communities. Those are older communities divorced from the areas of difficulty that I have described. Perhaps it may prove the most significant part of this bill in terms of its long range impact on the future development of our country.
The new provisions in Bill C-133 are contained in clauses 45.1, 45.2 and 45.3. If these clauses are administered and funded with the leadership and courage that we would expect of a government, but which we have not seen since January 4, 1973, and if there is proper consultation with the provincial governments, particularly those where there is a real urban problem, we can start to acquire or provide for the acquisition of land for new communities. The bill provides for this and it provides for the acquisition of land for transportation corridors, for open space and for essential public facilities. I think the cost-sharing arrangements in the bill are generous; they indicate that Central Mortgage and Housing will share 75 per cent of the cost as well as 75 per cent of the profits or losses.
My suggestion to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that the new communities program should not be restricted solely to areas removed from existing cities and towns. As I read the clause, it could provide for the incorporation of the development of new communities within urban areas, as well as the development around the cities of extensions to existing communities. In this way, I believe it would be possible in new communities to have not merely dormitories, but mixed urban areas in which the commercial and industrial amenities which are necessary to life, work and function, as well as the assessment based for municipalities, would be present and where there would be at the time of the development around these towns the existing social structure to support them. This social structure would be augmented by these new communities.
If there is an ultimate feeling, it is that a beneficial housing policy cannot be developed in isolation from other programs. Perhaps this is the failing in this bill. The
March 21, 1973

government still has no strategy for urban growth. There is no strategy with regard to rapid transit or the provision in municipalities of other transportation facilities. There is an ad hoc approach to the whole problem of servicing. The bill does not present any specific outline for such a policy with respect to the very excellent program it sets forth for the development of new communities. It shirks the issue by speaking vaguely of transportation corridors.
I have one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the whole question of senior citizens' housing. I am going to relate this matter to the whole problem which affects the province of Ontario, particularly eastern Ontario. In eastern Ontario, the populations of many small towns and villages were growing up until 10 years ago. In that area of Ontario, we are now feeling this urban movement of population. As a result, in many small villages and towns in eastern Ontario there is an aging of the population. As this aging process occurs, there is a greater and greater requirement for continuing provision of adequate senior citizens' housing. That is a need.
I have two matters in my constituency in mind. There has never, and will not be in the foresseable future, municipal services of sewer and water to supply not only senior citizens' accommodation but single family accommodation, commercial and other development that takes place. I think a wrong policy has developed at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which reports to this parliament through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It seems the policy of that corporation is that there shall be none of these multiple unit projects such as senior citizens' developments until there is a system of municipal sewer and water services. This is very important because we are not going to be able to fulfil a need for these aging populations. I have a case in point.
I wrote to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with regard to a senior citizens' project for the townships of Marlborough and North Gower in my constituency. I also have in mind one in the village of Spencerville which is a police village, a small hamlet. I have not heard from CMHC with regard to the one matter, but I have heard with regard to the proposal in the township of North Gower. In my letter, I asked what was the general policy and whether it was required to have sewer and water when considering multiple units for senior citizens. I received a reply from CMHC dated March 2, 1973, and I quote:
The absence of municipal sewer and water services could present a real problem inasmuch as it has been Corporation policy for some years now that financing would not be made available for the construction of "multiple-unit" projects in locations not served by piped sewers. This policy reflects our concern with the growing problem of soil and water pollution created in part by the use of septic tanks.
I cannot quarrel with the minister's concern about pollution control. It is a concern of us all. I concede that there is always the possibility of improperly installed or operating septic tanks causing difficulty. However, this lack should not become the basis for automatic rejection of projects. With all the research facilities available in this country, this ministry should be the leader in establishing research projects to develop sewage disposal systems that are not dependent upon the septic system, but can operate in isolation from municipal sewer and water systems.
National Housing Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: They are.


Walter David Baker: If that is the case, I would like some details on this type of development. If there are such systems, I would like to see this particular project approved. From my own personal knowledge, I can say that this is one area of eastern Ontario where it is needed. There are many others, but I mention only two. There is a need to be fulfilled in areas of aging population. This is true in all parts of Canada, especially in the rural areas.
I would like to see this policy changed so that municipalities in Ontario, in partnership with the Ontario Housing Corporation and, from the financing point of view, CMHC, can have the avenues opened so that they can provide proper accommodation to senior citizens. As the science of geriatrics improves, we are going to have to deal with this problem more and more. When people age, they still have the desire to be independent. I know that from my own family. We ought to provide them with a choice in housing.
The waiting list for low rent housing for senior citizens is inexcusable in a modern society. I think the waiting lists are monuments to the failure of policies. I am not suggesting that the government has not turned itself in that direction. Of course it has, but not soon enough. There are waiting lists in every city. I receive letters from old people who want this kind of accommodation, but it is not available. I suggest to the minister that perhaps there can be some changes in attitude in this area, backed up by proper research. I dare say that if the proper research is made available on a package sewage system, there will be some with administrative courage who will find them suitable and acceptable.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my member of parliament will allow me to ask him a question?


Walter David Baker: I wonder if I might finish, Mr. Speaker, and then answer. Many of my colleagues have spoken about the cost of land. The cost of serviced land is the catalyst in pushing prices down. This will apply in the case of the new communities, as well, so a spirit of adventure would have to be shown with respect to the development of trunk services, and so on, in these new communities. In the absence of a strong thrust to provide serviced land at reasonable cost the whole policy with respect to new communities, as set forth in this bill, will fail.
There is a fundamental problem in this regard. It involves the whole relationship between the federal government and the provinces. It has long been the case that the provincial governments possess much of the legislative power but that the taxing power, the power of the purse, is lodged with the federal government. It is on the basis of this conundrum facing Canada that a call for block fund financing was made by the provincial ministers. I am sorry to say that the federal government refused to permit the provinces to assume tax revenues from which to pay for housing programs. If we are to go beyond the bandaid approach to housing, to use a phrase from the speech of the hon. member who preceded me, a wholly new approach will have to be taken vis-a-vis provincial governments. The provinces want to take part in

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
this work as well. There has to be a spirit of co-operation such as is now beginning in the partnership between the senior citizens and CMHC. This has to be extended to all forms of housing and servicing of land.
It is all very well to blame the land developer for making a dollar. We should remember that it is the policies of the government with respect to its housing program which have enabled the land developer to make his profits. The shortage of housing is the result of the failure of the federal government to show initiative. To this day, the government has failed to present a national urban development policy. And because the government has failed to contain inflation, much less diminish it, hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches are again forced to consider this crisis in terms of interim relief; they have no long term plan with respect to housing. The decision in favour of stop-gap measures may be justifiable from a pragmatic point of view. The Liberals have no intention of losing the next federal election.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I suppose that is as good a justification for the bill before us as one could imagine. But little is done for those who cannot find adequate shelter or for those who cannot afford to buy a home.
Before I sit down, I want to refer to a brief presented to the Executive and Planning Committee of the Council of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton by the Home Builders' Association of Metropolitan Ottawa which is, as hon. members know, an affiliate of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. These figures were given to the senior municipal government in this area and they relate specifically to the Ottawa area. They, too, are monuments to the failure of the government's urban policies. I say this with great regret, because I would much prefer to stand up and approve government policy rather than criticize it.
According to table one of this report, the price of the average, single family dwelling lot rose from $5,000 to $12,000 between 1965 and 1972. The average house and lot price as moved from $25,100 to $39,000 in this area between 1965 and 1972. Starts on single and semidetached housing increased from 1,567 units in 1965 to only 1,803 in 1972. This is an indication that if a person expects to own his own home in the Ottawa area the statistics are stacked against him. The whole economy is stacked against him. With respect to row-housing, on the other hand, starts in 1972 were 1,339 units, compared with 684 in 1965. So, row-housing starts have doubled. In the case of apartment units, starts in 1965 were 2,246 and in 1972 the number had more than tripled to 7,600.
These statistics indicate that there are people in this country who, against their will and because of the inflation that the government has failed to check, are sentenced to live in places other than single family homes. There are some in our community who do not want to live in single family homes. But I suggest there are many who, if the situation with respect to building costs and land costs were stabilized, would choose to accept the single family home with all its amenities. The statistics I have given for the area I have the honour to represent, and which find their counterpart in every province in this

country, are monuments to failure whereas they ought to be milestones on the road to the development of a national urban policy, something which this government has shown itself incapable of producing.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not raise it earlier because I did not wish to interrupt my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton. My point of order arises from the remark of the Minister of State a few minutes ago when he said he wished to ask a question of "his Member of Parliament". I had fondly entertained the idea that I was the minister's Member of Parliament. Could he tell us whether he has changed his residence or whether he was resident in Vancouver-Quad-ra on election day?


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order, I am delighted to see two Tories fighting over my body.


Mr. Bell:: It is worth 39 cents, chemically.


Stanley Ronald Basford: But, as we know, a Member of Parliament usually has two addresses.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order, I should like to say that if my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra wants the minister I would be delighted to ship him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It does not seem to me to be a great point of order.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think the real reason we were quarrelling over the location of the minister's residence was a natural inquiry by the members of my party as to how many times he and his colleagues have voted.
I want to open my remarks today with some reference to the remarks of the minister when he began this debate, particularly the piety that he exhibited at that time and before when he stated that "good housing at reasonable cost is the social right of every citizen of this country". When good housing at reasonable cost is not available, the minister has been quite adept at finding excuses, usually blaming some other level of government. However, it is my privilege to represent in this House three of the town-sites in national parks and in those townsites the housing crisis is a scandal, as it has been for years. They are areas completely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. This is a crisis which is completely the fault of the federal government. When I asked the minister in this House the other day whether that pious principle of his applied to areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, he ducked the question, passing it on to a minister who was not here.
What is important is that the housing crisis which exists in areas within federal jurisdiction does not apply just to national parks and townsites there. It is the shocking fact that the people in Canada whose needs in housing are most acute and least recognized are those who dwell within the exclusive domain of the federal government. I refer to the people trapped in the colonial tentacles of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, native people, northern people and residents of
March 21, 1973

national parks. If the minister is serious in his assertion about a social right to good housing at reasonable cost for every citizen, he presumably regards these Canadians as second class citizens.
These areas are directly within federal jurisdiction and, at least in so far as the parks are concerned, the minister should either reform the practices of his colleagues or refrain from pious declarations of empty principle. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development once told residents of Jasper that if they did not like it there they could leave. He is now making that necessary; they have no houses in which to live. Newspapers in that town are now running advertisements for apartments in adjoining communities because you cannot get any place to live in communities that are administered exclusively by the federal government. The problem will be much more critical this summer with the influx of students and tourists, and despite the repeated assurances of the minister as to the social right of Canadians, the federal government is proposing to do nothing about the situation.
The second reference that I want to make to the minister's statement is drawn from his reference on page 2258 of Hansard to this bill being only part of the total picture. It is quite significant that the minister finds he has to start his contribution to this debate with an apology. As my colleagues have already said in this debate, the major fault with this legislation and with the entire approach to policy of this minister, is that it is an ad hoc approach. Even now we have had no sign of a genuine national policy. I suggest it is misleading to suggest that this is part of a picture, because no picture exists. We have a piecemeal approach. Some of the pieces are good. But we cannot delay much longer the development of an over-all policy. We have to recognize that what we are dealing with here is not just housing policy; we are dealing with social, cultural and economic policy. We are dealing with the people of the country as a whole.
All these matters are inter-related. That was supposed to have been recognized when the Department of Urban Affairs was established, but that mandate has been abandoned. There is now an obvious and continuing conflict between CMHC and the minister's own cadre of advisers. There is no agreement between them as to jurisdiction or as to goals. The minister himself is either unable or unwilling to resolve this conflict and to give any kind of leadership.
We need in Canada an over-all strategy which recognizes the relationship between various aspects of national policy, which treats housing as being not in isolation from the rest of the problems of the country; which treats the CMHC as being not in isolation from the goals or other aspects of the Department of Urban Affairs. What we will be doing in this area will affect the face and the future of the country forever.
We will have to have much more co-ordination than has been the case to date because what we are doing now is stumbling in the dark without goals, without agreement on how to reach goals, with a minister who claims that a major piece of legislation is really only part of a picture, but who admits by his every action and inaction that it is a picture he cannot see, let alone achieve.
National Housing Act
I have some sympathy for the minister. He is up against the established practice of treating housing and other policies as though they were in some vacuum. He symbolizes indeed the plight of a party which is listening to advisers and following procedures which are decades out of date. Perhaps the most critical issue in this country is the fact that one party and one group of advisers have been running Canada for most of the last 40 years. The senior advisers did their best during the Diefenbaker administration to frustrate reforms intended and initiated there. They are running the country now in a way that, however appropriate to the 30's or the 40's or the 50's, is dangerously wrong in contemporary Canada.
I want to focus on one feature of this bill. It is a feature referred to by my colleague from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) as the new communities provision. I am concerned, as he is, that there is not adequate provision in that proposal for application to existing communities. I think that the new communities proposal is a symbol of a policy that, while it might be good on its own, should not stand on its own, and indeed which holds the promise of doing harm precisely because it does stand alone and is not part of an integrated policy towards communities in Canada.
The purposes of that section are self-evident and good. They are going to relieve congestion. They are going to allow experimentation and might even help open resource areas. But by my reading the provision applies only to wholly new communities and things created where nothing was before-the product exclusively of social engineering. There is no provision for expansion around communities that already exist, which have already proven that they are places where people want to live. Perhaps my reading is wrong; perhaps the bill does not preclude that possibility, although to the degree the new communities concept relies upon the instrument of land assembly the concept would seem to preclude additions to towns and small communities that already exist. But even if that possibility does exist, it will obviously be as an afterthought, as an adjunct to the prior purpose of creating wholly new, experimental, engineered communities.
There are a lot of things that are not in this bill. To my mind, coming from where I do, the most serious absence is the absence of any policy at all to develop or to maintain the thousands of towns and small communities which, if they survive, hold the promise of giving modern Canada a style and quality of life without parallel in any other country in the world. I want to suggest that in housing and in other policies, this government has sentenced to death several of the smaller and older communities in Canada which have a lot of natural life left in them if they are given an even break through national policy.
Throughout his long address the other day, the minister devoted fully two sentences to what he called "the deeply satisfying aspects of life in the country and in country towns and villages". He talked about their contribution to what his speechwriters called "the abiding values that have made Canada and her people great". Those words reek of eulogy. The minister and his aides clearly regard these smaller communities as a part of the past-albeit the abiding past-and he pauses in his blind rush towards a future he admits he cannot see only long enough to wish

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
these country towns and villages a decent burial. The minister might deny that. He might claim that he has plans, that this is all part of that elusive, larger picture. But the damage is done by his demonstrated indifference.
My grandfather ran a newspaper in southwestern Alberta in a day and a district where you could not always phone to check your facts. In one issue he reported the death of a merchant in the little town of Longview, a man called Long Tom. The obituary was properly full of praise and respect. The day after the paper appeared so did Long Tom, who said the reports of his death were premature, and while he appreciated all the nice things that had been said, they were certainly hurting business. That is precisely the situation of the smaller communities of Canada. They can appreciate the lofty language of the minister but know that, in the cadence of his words and the thrust of his policy is the sound of a death knell that is not only premature but destructive of the values and the future of this country. The minister can say what he will, but his policies are hurting the business and hurting the life of the smaller communities of Canada.
May I give one small example? The federal funding that will go into these new communities will give them an unfair competitive advantage over neighbourhood communities that already exist and have to get along with the infusion of federal funds and expertise. Indeed, under this bill the only help, potentially, that will be given to existing communities, as I see it, is provided for in the hinterland housing proposal, and that is far too limited.
The problem, Sir, is not so much in what the bill does as in what it fails to do. In fact, in Canada there has been for a long time discrimination against small communities. It is not deliberate. I suggest that they are simply the so-called accidental victims of policies established for other purposes. They are too small and too unorganized to defend themselves against the cumulative, contrary resources of big governments, big cities, big labour and big industry. They are the communities that are overlooked. We see it in housing policy.
The minister talks about housing surveys. Actually, CMHC has made virtually no surveys outside major metropolitan areas. He talks of regional surveys. Regional programs might be planned, but they have not happened. The focus has been on one, two or three of our major cities. As well, most towns in Canada suffer from the so-called red circle policy of CMHC which limits and virtually eliminates CMHC lending in areas which are not considered economically viable and which are slung into that category without any effective power of appeal. This might not be official policy, but it is effective policy. It is discrimination against smaller places which, to a certain mentality, are not viable because they are not big.
Most serious, Sir, is the fact that the department is simply and blindly going along with trends, responding to projections which might very well be wrong and working without targets, without goals, which might recognize and value the strength of smaller places. Instead of targets being aimed at, there is a simple an unquestioning capitulation to figures which show people are moving to metropolitan areas; and there is not any attempt to determine
(Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain).)
whether they need to or want to move in such numbers. There is a danger, Sir, when making the kind of case I am trying to make today, of being accused of retreating to nostalgia and attempting to maintain artificially communities which time has passed by. That is too easy a response. I appreciate, as all members of the House do, the tremendous importance of urban growth in this country. I appreciate particularly the capacity of our larger cities to provide innovation and excitement in our national fabric. We value such cities. We welcome them. We want them to be as good and as strong as possible. Obviously, there are places in Canada that were thriving once and are empty now. Of course, the place to remember our legitimate rural past is Upper Canada Village, or Heritage Park, or the local museum, or in personal memories that one finds across the country. But, Sir, to say that some small communities will die is not at all the same as saying that all small communities must die. There is too much evidence that the latter assumption guides this government and its advisers, the assumption that the small community, in all its forms, is doomed and that our future lies exclusively in bigger and bigger cities.
I ask you, Sir, to consider what has been happening in Canada. We have a national policy whose purpose is, according to the government, to rationalize small farms; that is a fancy word which means putting them out of business. We have a national policy which acquiesces in rail-line abandonment and thus cuts the cord which might give smaller places the same chance to live that larger places have. It is interesting to note, parenthetically, that when a major change is planned in the transportation patterns serving larger centres, there is immediately something called an impact study. But when a railway proposes to tear up service to a town and do damage far greater in proportion than an airport at Pickering would, we accept the system of Canadian Transport Commission hearings, where corporate experts consistently prevail over the innocent or unsophisticated arguments of small town mayors or reeves.
We have a national industrial policy which continues to concentrate secondary industrial development in a handful of crowded places, even though technology and economics would allow much greater decentralization. We had a national budget brought down last month which will have the effect of drying up even more the moneys available to provinces, which means that when the provinces split their smaller pies the towns and villages which have none of the expertise which cities can hire will suffer disproportionately. Even the National Youth Orchestra, Mr. Speaker, draws disproportionately from larger centres and leaves too many of the children of the towns and villages with their talents untested.
Any one of us privileged to serve an area of towns and smaller places can cite a hundred other instances of unintended discrimination, a hundred other instances of the assumption that the small community is doomed. None of us alleges a conspiracy. No one is out to get the town or village. They are simply being overlooked, and when they raise their voice in protest or proposal, they are too easily dismissed by commentators and public servants to whom the towns went out with Stephen Leacock and whose only picture of the country now is of some cracker-barrel caricature mopping up after Charlotte Gobeil.
March 21, 1973

Two things are happening. First, we have artificially defined the future, and done so by accident without any real inquiry or research. We do not know that we want massive cities; we simply assume we will have them and shape our policy to achieve our prophecy. The second thing that is happening is simply that national policy is being devised to meet other needs which have more urgent advocates. Too often smaller places suffer as a side effect. Some people assume that the only way to maintain viable smaller communities is by some artificial act, some interference with the natural processes of growth, whatever they are. In fact, the threat to towns and small communities is precisely that the acts of interference or artifice which governments create or condone have been biased against the smaller community. For example, the interference implicit in the new communities provisions of this bill will mean that existing small communities will now face new federally funded competitors for industry and population. The towns do not rely on artifice; they are its victims. The interfering has already been done against the interests of the smaller places and what is needed now is not a special concession but an even break.
I want to return to the question of forecasting, to the prophecies of extravagant urban growth and the actions and assumptions which can make those prophecies selffulfilling. When Professor Lithwick submitted his report on urban Canada in December 1970, he included a projection that some 73 per cent of Canada's population will live in 12 major cities by the year 2001. There were similar projections painting a similar future and implying the withering away of smaller places. Professor Lithwick is no longer with the government. It is my impression that one of the reasons is that, while he submitted those projections as a warning of what could happen, the government took them as a goal for what should happen. Public servants and private planners took note of the statistics, chewed them over coffee, agreed that indeed cities did seem to be growing and so a sort of unconscious consensus was formed; and every bureaucrat, every businessman and every student planning a career shapes his or her plans in the context of that vision of the future. The question we should be asking as the parliament of all of Canada, as the custodian of the nation's history and quality of life, is whether that is the vision we want to achieve, whether we want a Canada with only 12 major centres or whether we want a country with more balance and variety.
The tragedy of this bill, Sir, and of this government is that those questions are not even being asked. Perhaps there is come cubbyhole in CMHC or in the minister's own private zoo where people are paid to wonder about the future. But it does not show in the bill, it does not show in policy on transportation, as my colleague the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said yesterday, and it does not show in policy on finance or on industrial development. All that shows, instead, is a more or less mindless acceptance of an untested trend.
I am not going to go on at length to celebrate the virtues of small communities. As the minister said in his little eulogy, they are abiding virtues. In fact, we have in the literature and lore of Canada a rural tradition of uncommon strength and influence. Even now, our poets, writers
National Housing Act
and singers invoke the language of the land when they want to speak to Canadians. But apart from that tradition, apart from our unusual history of settlement and growth in a network of smaller places, apart even from the desire of so many Canadians to go back to smaller places for a weekend or a vacation or, if they can afford it, for a "home in the country", this parliament should consider that the very virtues we seek to achieve by legislation have grown by habit in most of the towns and villages of our countryside.
We try to contrive in cities a sense of neighbourhood; yet that exists in towns. We try to inspire a respect for environment; yet, no one raised, for example, in a prairie town could escape a sense of the wonder and the frailty of nature. We are worried about rootlessness and anomie, yet there are abundant communities in Canada that are still places where people feel at home, where democracy is genuinely participatory, where neighbours are known. Of course, these places have limitations of their own and should be assessed as critically as cities are. The point is that Canada in the 1970's has the chance to draw the best from both the town tradition and the urban fact. Perhaps no other country in the world shares that opportunity. Others have squandered their rural resources, or are necessarily preoccupied with establishing the elements of an urban society. We still have time to strike a balance and, perhaps in so doing we can help define the elusive Canadian identity and develop communities which meet modern human needs. But it will not happen by accident. It will not happen as a result of bills like this, which simply ignore the rich resource we have in the towns and small communities of Canada. And it will not happen unless this government or its replacement, turns around the present attitude toward smaller communities.
The question of small communities is only part of the problem or, as the minister would say, only part of the picture we face in this debate when we deal with this problem. Before we begin to be satisfied that we have a national urban policy or, as I would prefer to call it, a national community policy, we must recognize the danger of a piecemeal approach. Not only does this measure fail to do things we need to have done, but can, as in the case of towns, cause positive harm. We require an integrated policy which recognizes that the goals of different sectors of our society must be set together and sought together, and which recognizes that what we do in transportation and industrial development affects our housing policy. We must remember that what we do to build up cities can cause smaller communities to die.
My own preoccupation today is with towns, and similar smaller communities. That is for two reasons. First, they possess a unique set of values which, if encouraged, can enrich the nation. Second, their plight today, the danger they face, is due to the neglect of national policies, more than to any other factor. Unlike other groups they have few people to present their case.
This bill fails even to recognize the importance of towns. The minister, or his apologists, might say that the provisions concerning consultation allow provinces to establish priorities for towns, if they want them. That is an evasion, a cop-out. The principle is well established in areas where

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
jurisdiction is shared or unclear, that the federal government indicates clearly certain kinds of programs it wants to have proceed. That, indeed, has been done in this bill. One might argue about the adequacy of the reference or the provisions, but there is specific provision for co-operative housing, specific provision for public housing, specific provision for native housing and specific provision for new communities. If the federal government wants to recognize or establish a priority, it can. But it has clearly ignored the towns and small communities of Canada.
If we are to encourage smaller communities-as I believe a balanced nation must-we will need some major changes. We will need changes first in the attitudes of the bureaucrats whose influence on housing and related policy today far exceeds that of anyone in this Chamber. Whether by conscious act or inadvertence, they have contributed directly already to the decline of smaller communities, and either their attitudes must change or they must be changed. Second, we must re-examine the basis and validity of the projections which we are following now. Once we have some clear view of the future options open to us, we must decide whether we will simply become apostles of the trend and go wherever present trends might lead us, or whether instead we will decide what kind of country we want, what balance we want between large cities and small places, and then shape events instead of letting them command us.
If we do decide that we want to retain the unique values that viable smaller communities can offer modern Canada, we will need, in effect, a co-ordinated national policy on towns and small communities. It is not enough simply to change policies of CMHC, or to amend in some insignificant way the new communities provisions. There will need to be a re-orientation of policy in several fields. The key perhaps will be industrial policy and we will have to consciously decentralize, to smaller places, those light and mobile modern industries which can operate as well in a town of 5,000 as they can on the fringes of a megalopolis. There is already evidence, in the United States and elsewhere, that much modern industry which felt itself confined to city sites can, when necessary, relocate successfully in smaller places.
In my own constituency, a cable plant was set up in a mountain pass community instead of in a city, and the people who work there vastly prefer that environment where they are minutes from skiing and fishing and the out-of-doors. The plants can come and the people can come if national and provincial policy direct them toward the towns instead of in the conventional opposite direction. The DREE policy must reflect a confidence in smaller communities. Government departments should establish special programs to ensure that the assistance they offer gets through to communities too small to hire squads of experts whose specialty is getting government grants.
We need to review our processes of public hearings to end the farce that presently characterizes hearings of the Canadian Transport Commission, to name one, when it pits professional corporate experts against the local laiety and calls the process, democratic. I, personally, would like to see some provision that recognizes how few of our influential public servants have any contemporary con-

nection now with the smaller places their decisions affect. Perhaps a special system of sabbaticals could be arranged which would require them to spend two weeks each year in a different small community where they would be available to the people whose lives they affect.
Without becoming lost in specifics, the point is that any effective policy to make the most of our small communities must involve changes on several fronts. It cannot be piecemeal. It must itself be part of a general community program which aims to achieve the best of our city and town potential. The present bill is an era away from that concept. It is a piece of patchwork, brought forward by a government without goals of its own. It provides no direction for Canada. It is just another vessel to drift in, a little more serviceable than what we had, but almost useless in light of what we need. Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that the government considers this to be reform. There could be no better proof of its incompetence to govern contemporary Canada.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House welcome the amendments in respect of the National Housing Act which are before us in this debate. I would certainly like to congratulate the minister for his part in this legislation and also for the very fine address he gave in opening the debate, as well as for the principles he enunciated which I am sure all members of this House will support. We can welcome these measures as an attempt to achieve what must be a fundamental social objective of this parliament and of this government; that is, to put a home of their own within the reach of every family willing to make the effort to buy one. We ought to see this as a basic right of every family in this country. When we think of rights we usually think in terms of political and civil rights, but as well, we must think of those human and social rights that are equally fundamental to a truly human existence.
We should recall the opening words of the Canadian Bill of Rights, one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the Canadian parliament, and a great testimony to the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was Prime Minister of this country. The preamble to the Canadian Bill of Rights reads that:
The Parliament of Canada affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.
I submit that the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions must include the right to obtain a house in which that family can find its own identity and fulfil its own aspirations. The preamble to the Bill of Rights also states that the parliament of Canada acknowledges the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property. We certainly must recognize the fact that there are all too few families and individuals in Canada being given the opportunity to enjoy that last right, the right to the possession of property. For most Canadian families, the right to which this great, classical, historical Bill of Rights bears testimony is being denied them. This right is being put, by economic and social forces, beyond their grasp,
March 21, 1973

and we must face the fact that part of the duty laid upon this parliament and upon this government is taking those measures that will bring that right back within their grasp.
For most Canadian families, the kind of right to which the Bill of Rights bears testimony includes having a house of their own. This is not because living in high rise apartments is, in itself, bad in any way. Such accommodation satisfies many Canadian people who find that it meets all their needs and fulfils all their desires. But it does not satisfy the needs and the desires of the majority of families. They want a house of their own. They want some grass around it. They want a garden in which they can grow things. They want a yard where their children can play in freedom and safety. They want a neighbourhood where they can sink down some personal roots and feel that they belong somewhere instead of being just bits of cosmic dust blowing here and there. They want to recognize people by their names and believe themselves members of the community that has identifiable persons within it, instead of being part of that faceless mass that so often populates the great urban centres of the land. Therefore, these families look upon a house as something more than shelter. It is not just so much real estate; it is something that is intrinsic to fulfilling their full life as a family.
We can, therefore, appreciate the great frustration that so many families suffer, the great despair that they have to endure as they measure the gap between their objective and their possibilities, between an objective which they have every right as Canadians to hold and which so very seldom can the average Canadian family fulfill, for the hard economic facts of Canadian life today tell us that the average family cannot satisfy this desire of its heart. Any member of the House who has done as I have, and I am sure the majority of Members of Parliament have, namely, canvassed door to door through many of our high rise apartments where large numbers of families with children are living, knows that so many of these people feel as if they were prisoners serving a life sentence. They are in and they are locked in for life by the hard realities of economic life as it exists in Canada today. They have no chance to obtain the freedom or the kind of life which they as families would like to enjoy. They cannot liberate themselves from the confinement in which they are being constricted by the kind of economy that this government has tolerated, indeed has so often encouraged.
I recognize that part of the problem lies in the fact that so very few apartment buildings have been built with families in mind. Indeed, were more designed to serve the needs of families, very frequently apartment buildings would be more than adequate, but in fact they simply have not been designed for children or for neighbourhood living. So, we must address ourselves quite realistically to the legitimate hopes of those parents and children who are seeking the traditional right which Canadian families have enjoyed through the years and which all too small a proportion of families are now able to obtain. We must as parliament ask ourselves: can we be taken seriously if we believe, and we ask the people of this country to believe, that this country no longer has the resources to make possible the fulfilment of this fundamental human right?
National Housing Act
I cannot take that seriously and I do not think that the ordinary people of Canada take it seriously when they estimate the resources that are available to Canada, when they look at the extraordinary expenditures of this government, and when they look at some of the lavish spending on projects that have very limited social value. They cannot believe that there are no resources available which may open to the working people of this country a new life. We have to recognize much more seriously that the policies of the present government simply do not open the door of opportunity to the average family seeking this kind of fulfilment today.
We realize the truth of that statement if, for example, we examine the cost of housing in just one urban area in Canada, namely, metro Toronto. In 1971, the average cost of a house was $30,426. In 1972, it had risen to $32,513. By January, 1973, just a few months ago, it had risen to $33,445, and last month, February 1973, it had risen still further to $34,782. The increase in a period of two years has thus been $4,356 or approximately 14 per cent. That is the average cost of housing. It includes the sale of older and sometimes lower priced housing.
The average cost of new housing is higher still, so that a family seeking a house of its own is frequently priced out of the market unless the father or the father and mother between them, have an income adequate to meet the need, and very few families can provide that kind of income. For most of our families, the rise in income that they have enjoyed over the last few years simply has not kept pace with the rise in the cost of housing. The average family is finding that a house of its own is no longer the right that it has been in the past and that it should be now, but rather it is a dream they can never realize.
We see this more clearly still if we extend into the future the kind of price rise that I have described as taking place over these last two years. If the growth in the cost of housing continues at the rate of the past few years, it will mean that the average house in metro Toronto in 1975 could cost $39,000; in 1977, it could cost $44,500; in 1979, it could cost $51,000, and in 1981, it could cost $58,000. Thus, we would have a growth from 1971 to 1981 from $30,500 to $58,000, a growth of over 90 per cent. We can see, therefore, that unless something is done to bring an end to this spiralling, soaring cost of housing in Canada, we are simply going to put the fulfilment of the fundamental family and human right beyond all hope; instead of offering hope, we are sentencing the ordinary people of this country to despair. This is a disaster, not only for the persons involved, not simply for the families who so often say to their members and to others: we would like to have a house, a home of our own. I think equally we must see as parliament that this is a disaster for the country as a whole. It is, for example, a disaster for the economy of Canada.
A massive expansion of housebuilding could mean more in terms of stimulating the economy and creating jobs than almost anything else that the government could undertake. It certainly would contribute much more to the enrichment of the Canadian economy than the handouts and the schemes with which this government has become identified. This "alphabet soup" approach of the govern-

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
ment will not make the difference to employment and economic opportunity that could be obtained if we had a sizeable housing program equal to the needs of our people I suggest there is probably more spin-off from housebuilding in terms of stimulating related industries than from any other sector of the economy. A dollar spent on housing might have more effect in creating job opportunities and stimulating related businesses than a dollar spent on almost any other sector of the economy. So, to continue the kind of limited effort that this legislation, good as it is, represents is simply to spell the continuation of the economic disaster with which this government has been identified.
More importantly, this would mean a disaster socially. There can be no question that home ownership enriches a family's sense of community involvement and sense of personal stability. If in our big cities we want to avoid the tragedies that have overtaken the great cities of the United States, we must preserve our residential neighbourhoods and expand single family home ownership. The best way to preserve our neighbourhoods and with them responsible citizenry is surely by enabling families to have homes of their own. Consequently, we welcome what is contained in this legislation. We can see the merit of the various proposals that are embraced within these amendments, but they are not going to carry us very far along the road that we should be following. Certainly, they are not going to carry us sufficiently close to the objective that should be before parliament.
We must, therefore, deplore the way that these amendments represent such a puny effort, in contrast to what is a great need. Indeed, they represent such a small effort it is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. What Canada needs is a giant housing program. Instead, in many ways the government has offered the people a tiny mouse of a program. As is so often the case, this legislation is another example of the way in which the government gives us the impression that it values very highly what must be an enormous supply of scotch tape. It seems to me that the government is using a good supply of scotch tape to patch up this program and that project, to meet this need and to solve that problem, always in an ad hoc way instead of recognizing and measuring accurately needs and governing their objectives accordingly.
The result of all this, the result of too little, too late, is that the average family in this country is being given not hope but despair, despair that might eventually become bitterness. If this is all that the government can do, if this is all that parliament can do, then it is like saying to the average family in Canada "You are locked in and you will have to stay there". At the present time, only a miniscule number of Canadian families can afford to realize what they want so much-a home of their own. We therefore challenge the government's right to let this situation continue. When we speak of rights, we ask what right has the government to continue this kind of policy? We are prepared to recognize that what the government is doing may not be enough, but we have to ask the government whether it can seriously believe that this is good enough. The government has had enough time in office to introduce a program that would bring much more hope to the ordinary people of this country, and if it cannot do better than that, let the government make room for those who can.

I should like to suggest some proposals that I believe could make a contribution to an adequate housing program for Canada. This program must begin by recognizing that the housing problem will not be solved until we can do something adequate about the cost of serviced land, the cost of materials, and as well-ironically-the cost of money itself. As is so often pointed out by people in this country, there is no shortage of land in Canada. When the point is made that there is a shortage of land for housing, it seems almost an absurdity to people who see stretched before them great unpopulated regions in Canada. But, of course, the shortage to which reference is made is the shortage of serviced land, the shortage of land that is suitable for housing communities.
If we are serious about doing something to alleviate this shortage of serviced land, we must do something about aiding and encouraging municipalities to develop any serviced land that is available for housing and to embrace new housing as a social opportunity rather than, as is so often the case with expanding municipalities, imposing an economic liability upon them. One of the things we must recognize is that a municipality that is expanding its supply of serviced land and inviting developers to build houses is creating for itself a major economic problem with which it is so often unable to cope. When houses are built there are added to the municipality concerned certain enormous social responsibilities with regard to school construction, park development, recreational facilities and the like. So, we must face the fact that although serviced land may be an asset to the family that wants a home of its own, quite frequently it is almost a liability to the municipality.
We must recognize that what may be to some a solution is to others a problem. Therefore, we will not deal adequately with the challenge of housing unless we deal adequately with the challenge faced by a municipality that wants to develop land for housing purposes and provide services. Therefore, I submit to the House that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, must take steps to assist municipalities and encourage them to expand serviced land that is available and promote the growth of house building opportunities. While land banks in themselves have much to offer the people of Canada, land banks on their own are not enough. Land banks that are just assemblies of land which will not be adequately serviced for community life are really no answer to the needs of people who want housing here and now.
For example, in the early 1950's the federal government, in co-operation with the province of Ontario, purchased the land for the Malvern development, which is located chiefly in the riding of Scarborough East. There was a land bank acquired 20 years ago, before the term was much in use. That land sat for almost 20 years with nothing happening to it, because the land had to wait for municipal services. I cite that example simply to provide some basis for the claim that we will not offer much hope to the Canadian people if we as a parliament say we are prepared to finance provinces and municipalities in the development of land banks that will become available for housing, but do not establish a time frame to construct houses within the reasonably near future. What we need is some solution now, and simply acquiring land is not
March 21, 1973

enough unless we take the next step of making sure that the municipal services will be provided and that the municipality has an adequate supply of the services required by people. We need the roads, sewers and all the other facilities of urban life, but as well we need the parks, libraries, schools and all the institutions and facilities that contribute something to a truly human existence. All this adds enormously to the expense of municipalities involved.
In the borough of Scarborough in metro Toronto where I live, we are finding that the cost of municipal services has spiralled so that taxation on real estate is almost becoming equal to the cost of carrying the real estate itself. It has become a threat to home ownership. In my own case, ten years ago, taxation on my home represented less than 33 per cent of the amount of mortgage principal and interest, but today taxation is almost 75 per cent of that. In a few years, it can be expected to equal that and then go beyond it. This is not because of waste or extravagance by the municipal council or school board; it is simply due to the impact of inflation on these services.
As an example, the Scarborough Parks and Recreation Department budget has increased by 25 per cent over the past four years. This 15 year program for park acquisition called for a further expenditure of $38 million to which interest will have to be added. The same situation can be reported for schools, libraries, health services, fire, police and so on. This means that municipalities and their leaders are often not sure that they are able to afford an expansion of the housing within their borders, much as they may want to open up undeveloped land and make the areas available for families who want to live there. They are just not sure that they can carry the cost. If we go to neighbouring municipalities that do not have adequate planning, we often find that they are put in serious financial jeopardy because they have more families living within their borders than their assessment can support.
I, therefore, suggest that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, take a serious look at the cost of the burden of housing that has to be borne by the municipalities and the residential taxpayers supporting the municipalities. I ask that the federal government consider establishing a fund that would make a grant to a municipality for such family dwelling structures within its boundaries as are in excess of the number erected the year before. The purpose would be to help defray the cost of community services that the municipality must undertake to provide for families moving into it.
I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this fund would meet the need over the long run; I suggested it only as an immediate measure to help meet that need within the short run. The real need of our municipalities in terms of the problem I have outlined, and in terms of other problems that municipalities must solve, is for a major review and reform of the way public revenue is distributed amongst the three levels of government.
We still think of Canada as just a country of ten provinces, two territories and the federal government holding everything together. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is an entirely outmoded 19th century concept. It may have been
National Housing Act
up to date when the British North America Act was written but it is not any longer. Canada is not simply a confederation of ten provinces and two territories; it is to a large extent a league of city states. As far as the largest number of Canadians are concerned, it is becoming that kind of country and will become more so as we approach the end of the century. Therefore, if we today tackle long term planning we must have not only a romantic and understandable desire to preserve our smaller communities and enjoy them to the full, but we must recognize that the largest number of Canadians will live in these massive urban regions which have enormous municipal and social costs laid upon their shoulders.
These municipalities will need a much more sensible share of the public revenue than is available to governments. At the present time, 30 per cent of the expenditures of all three levels of government are by municipal governments. These governments, in turn, can raise only half that amount by their own taxation. We must, therefore, take seriously the need of our municipalities, especially in our massive urban regions, for a greater and more just share of the public revenue that is so often monopolized by the federal government. I would, therefore, ask that consideration be given to this kind of fund which I think would offer immediate and short-term assistance to municipalities and would encourage them to take their full part in the development of housing. In addition such a policy would aid the long term fiscal needs of our municipal governments.
We must recognize that if we are to do something adequate to bring the cost of housing in Canada within the reach of the average family, we must do something about reducing the cost of materials. We could do that by eliminating the sales tax on building materials. This would reduce the cost of the average home, it is estimated, by approximately $1,000. In my judgment, the government has no right to put this kind of tax on materials used in a family home. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could take the sales tax off candy and pop; we have to ask why he cannot take if it off the family home. Is that a luxury? Is it the privilege of an elite alone? Surely, it must be the right of every Canadian family that will make the effort to obtain one. During the recent election we called for the elimination of the tax, but I did not hear other parties call for it. If they approve of this, I invite them to take their stand with us in trying to bring down the cost of materials used in the family home. If they are really interested in helping the ordinary people, let them join with us in this effort we have been making for years.


Thomas Miller Bell: They can join with us on Monday.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We can hardly wait. As well, Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect much progress in home development while interest rates remain so high. We cannot expect progress in family home construction until interest rates are brought with'n the reach of the average family. Not only must the cost of the house be within the reach of the family, but the cost of the money must be within its reach. The money that must be borrowed and repaid over a long period of time is one of the most important elements in the cost of the family home. We must, therefore, initiate fiscal, policies that will bring homes within the grasp of families, not only in terms of the actual selling

National Housing Act
price, but also in terms of the monthly payments for which the family is responsible. It is often this payment that is the primary concern of the family. The first thing that many people want to know is not how much the house costs, but how much will the family have to pay each month. We must look to fiscal policies so that by a reduction in interest rates, and I think by an extension of the life of the mortgage allowable to families, monthly payments can be reduced.
The difference to monthly payments that an extension of the amortization period can make is shown in this example based on a $25,000 mortgage at an interest rate of 9i per cent. For principal and interest, the monthly payment for a 25 year mortgage would be $215.26. For a 35-year mortgage, it would be $201.96. If we extended that to 40 years, of course, the payment would be down proportionately. If we extended it in some instances to 50 years, it would come down still further.
To the objection that a longer amortization means the people pay a larger total, we must reply that most families do not stay in a particular dwelling for the full term of the mortgage. Their aim is not to have a home free and clear as much as it is to move into a home with payments they can carry. Their aim is really to have a home in which they can live. There should be more consideration given to making available mortgages that the average family can carry. There should be more consideration given to the fundamental realities of family life.
In conclusion, I reiterate the commitment of the Progressive Conservative party to the principle of a home of their own within the reach of every Canadian family willing to make the effort to obtain one. We often hear the famous lines quoted that it takes a heap of living to make a house a home, but we have to recognize that the family cannot do it without a house in which to start. We call upon the government to take seriously the implications of the Canadian Bill of Rights, the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions and the declaration that one of the fundamental rights of the Canadian people is the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property. Let parliament take action that will restore that right to all families of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-133 gives hon. members the opportunity to deal with a question which is always extremely important not only to them but also to all Canadians in general.
When we are speaking about the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its importance it seems that all hon. members and especially those from urban ridings have complaints and remarks to make in the House. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has become a gigantic organization and we can judge its value when we analyze the problems which it has not yet settled.
When visiting foreign countries we can see what kind of housing policy they have. If they have only one-family units we can see that the government policy or the policy

March 21, 1973
of the organization in control of housing is family-oriented.
However, when we find that in certain countries housing is more and more oriented towards the construction of high-rise apartment buildings 25, 30 or 40 stories high, we can say that the housing agency of this country is oriented towards the building of non-family units.
This is why I have to conclude, after over 10 years in the House, that as time progresses the further the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation gets away from a family housing policy in favour of a community policy under which families will be piled up one above the other whereas, in my opinion, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been created first to promote construction of single dwelling houses, not 40- or 50-storey buildings, as is being done in all Canadian capital cities.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should also set for itself the primary goal of ensuring good quality housing. When considering what has happened in that field over the last five years for instance, we unfortunately have to recognize that far from improving the quality of housing is deteriorating from day to day.
In my opinion, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was established with a view to protecting the consumer. Now, with so many complaints being heard from everywhere, we have to admit that the consumer is enjoying less and less protection. This is the reason why I believe that before long the government will have to review entirely the objectives of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whose purpose should be to promote the development of housing in Canada.
But today, instead, we can readily see that this organization, far from promoting housing in Canada, has become a housing control tool. The president of DOMTAR, Mr. Jack Cochran, in his Construction Manual, an excerpt of which was published in the Canada Month magazine, said that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has become-

-(the most controlled and regulated business in the country).
"With relaxation of control as a very real prospect, there is no need for pie-in-the-sky dreaming of futuristic plastic cocoons which will emerge from the scientists' laboratories to somehow solve the 'housing crisis'. Instead, and industry of traditional entrepreneurs will be free to seek out a way to beat out the competition in the market place.
"That to me is a much more efficient way to get more and better housing than for a paternalistic government to step in an take over the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, to recapitulate the way of thinking of the Domtar chairman, he does not believe in the efficiency of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is using paternalistic methods in the housing field. He would rather have assistance granted to builders to implement a healthy housing policy. Nowadays, the Canadian house building industry is deteriorating instead of improving and owning a house has become an impossible dream for nearly 90 per cent of the Canadian people.
People no longer believe in it because of the policy of this government and previous governments which have not been cautious enough to eliminate the economic
March 21, 1973

causes which have placed us in a situation where the average individual believes that owning a family home has become irrealistic, a dream they no longer think about.
I have here the statement made by the hon. Secretary of State for Urbain Affairs (Mr. Basford) in Ottawa on January 22 or 23 at the federal-provincial conference on housing:
Right to housing-
He was making pious wishes-
-I stated recently in Parliament that every Canadian has a fundamental right to proper housing at a reasonable cost. I said and I repeat here that housing is not merely an economic commodity to be bought and sold according to the whim of the market, but a social right.
The minister himself said that last January. I continue:
I believe that every Canadian can reasonably expect it and that Canadians rely on their national government to be treated with justice and to have an equal chance to enjoy part of the wealth of the nation wherever they live.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) who spoke before me said that the average house in Canada now costs $31,000 and that according to the forecasts of Canadian builders the same house would be worth over $59,000 in 1981. In other words, at the pace things are going, property in Canada will have nearly doubled over eight years and that is without taking into consideration the rates of interest which are part of the cost of a house but are not included in the original price.
Is this what the minister means by good housing at a reasonable price?
It is all very well to voice pious wishes in this House, but no part of Bill C-133 deals with interest rates and, in my view, this is where the minister is misled and where he will never be able to achieve what he referred to in his speech in January, when he talked of a reasonable price for housing.
Mr. Speaker, interest rates have begun to change; I cannot give the history of interest rates for the past 50 years, but on January 21, 1957, the late hon. Robert Winters said that interest rates for housing had risen from 51 to 6 per cent, according to the official announcement which he made in the House of Commons, as recorded on page 451 of Hansard.
So, interest rates were raised from 51 to 6 per cent. Today, Mr. Speaker, these rates are no longer at 6 per cent. This government has allowed interest rates to rise to incredible heights. Here is the gist of Telemedia's editorial of January 8, 1969:
It is not by raising the interest rate on loans from 8i to 9 per cent, as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did on January 1, that the government will encourage Canadians to build. Nor is it by keeping the 12 per cent tax on building materials that the government will encourage contractors to undertake the construction of building complexes.
And on January 4, 1969, the President of the Association des constructeurs d'habitations du district de Montreal, Mr. Albert Gagnon, listed the government's mistakes in the field of housing. As President of the Montreal house-buiders' association, he must know what he is talking about.
National Housing Act
Not one of the recommendations he made in January 1969, more than four years ago, is to be found in the bill before us.
For instance, Mr. Gagnon stated, concerning mistakes made by the government, and I quote:
increase in the current rates of all loans agencies. Conventional loans could readily reach 11 per cent and over;
slow-down in the production of new homes, leading to a shortage;
spiraling of unemployment, a situation in contradiction with a policy geared to a "just society"
rise in rents, which will bring about an increase in the cost of living;
increasingly pressing union claims for salary increases, which will contribute to aggravating inflationary trends;
citizens will be denied the legitime right to live in a decent home, or to own their own homes.
Mr. Albert Gagnon, a former president of the Home Builders Association, formulated recommendations, which were ignored.
The editorial of Montreal-Matin for May 3, 1969 repeats about the same thing about interest rates.
I could quote several other articles, some of which are signed by economists who dealt with interest rates on mortgages.
I have here a table showing that a loan on a $30,000 house, at 9 per cent interest, over a period of 25 years, requires monthly payments of $248.40. I doubt that most Canadians can afford to pay $248.40 a month.
It was all very well for the minister to express pious wishes in January at the federal-provincial conference on housing, but when a man has to borrow $25,000 or $30,000 to build a house or get it built, and to pay $248.40 a month to back the principal and interest, it must be recognized that 90 per cent of Canadian taxpayers cannot afford to do so.
If a $30,000 loan is financed at a rate of 9 per cent, the owner will have to pay $74,524 in capital and interest, which means that he will have paid $44,524 in addition to $30,000. In view of the current interest rate and the booklet on insured loans published by the minister and in which no figure is provided, it can be assumed that the same principle would apply to the construction of an appartment building.
I am afraid that the Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation would have something better to do than let financiers take advantage of small tenants or owners. Indeed, if a tenant lives in a house whose owner must pay a 10 per cent rate of interest, automatically the tenant will discharge most of the payment.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a social role to play and such a role would be much more effective than the part it now plays.
That is why the minister has not concerned himself with the interest rate in his bill. That is why housing in Canada is still only a dream for all citizens because the federal government a few years ago eliminated the ceiling on interest rates, which has been the direct cause of the
2478

March 21, 1973
National Housing Act
increase of housing costs to which has contributed the sales tax on building materials.
There is another point the minister does not mention in his bill nor in any of his speeches in the House or elsewhere, that is the opportunity to recommend to the provinces in need of housing and faced with that problem to deduct from taxable income school taxes, municipal taxes and interest paid on mortgages. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) has never been urged to do so either.
Not only is the Canadian being exploited when he spends a large part of his income to pay usurious interests, but the interest paid to housing financiers is not deductible for tax purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest these are not only wishes but recommendations that have already been made by members of the Social Credit party, contractors' associations and other agencies involved in housing. Unhappily, the bill which is now before us does not even mention any of these recommendations. It refers to only loans granted to cooperative associations.
The whole bill is not to be rejected outright, but it proposes only temporary solutions which will not settle our housing problem. I would not like to offend the minister but, unhappily Bill C-133 is not the answer to the housing problem because it does not strike at the root of the problem and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is only trying to stop the advancement of family housing instead of boosting it.
It Seems to me that the minister should take another look at the first purpose of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to find to what extent the corporation is getting away from it. I suggest that the minister might render a great service to the people by reviewing the objectives of this agency and putting it back into its original context.
Mr. Speaker, at least Bill C-133-and this is the main thrust of my remarks-could provide for rolling back interest rates to the 1957-58 level. It would be possible for the federal government to do so, as it has the use of the Bank of Canada and CMHC. There is no need to create new agencies, as we have the necessary machinery in the House of Commons. We only have to use it, to put the Bank of Canada at the service of CMHC so that we can get loans at lower interest rates for the benefit of Canadian families.
Indeed, imposing 10 or 11 per cent interest rates on 30-year loans is not doing a service to the Canadian people, and neither is the 12 per cent sales tax on building materials. The government talks about unemployment and at the same time it says that we must put the economy back on the track. However, everything it does, through interest rates and taxes, tends to stifle the economic system, paralyze the housing industry, squeeze the taxpayer and dispossess the tenant and the owner.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there is little proof, judging from recent statements by the minister responsible for housing, or from housing

legislation recently introduced in the Commons, that the government understands the current housing situation in Canada. Because the government does not understand the current situation, no concrete steps have been taken to alleviate the housing mess in this country.
For example, the Throne Speech promised amendments to the National Housing Act which would enable a person earning $100 a week to buy a house for $90 a month, and that grants would be made to homeowners to fix up buildings. This plan to subsidize monthly payments for low-income home buyers looks as though it will enable many people, who could not otherwise purchase a home, to do so. But is this really so? After all, when the federal government subsidizes monthly principal, interest and mortgage payments to bring them down to $90 a month for low-income families, that will not enable a person to purchase a $40,000 house, and that is the average price of a new house in metropolitan Toronto today. What type of housing, then, are these persons eligible for? Land is so expensive in Toronto that in 1970 it made up 35 per cent of the cost of a new NHA bungalow.
I would like to suggest that the federal government should proceed with further projects such as were undertaken in Winnipeg. The Housebuilders' Association of Winnipeg and the University of Winnipeg's Institute of Urban Studies have together begun a program to build three houses in areas where only one stood previously. These houses are located in the lower income core of the city. In this area, 20 per cent of the land is vacant, and 23 per cent of the houses are too run down to renovate. The new buildings to which I refer are single family detached houses, with their own entrances and their own small yards, providing the basic shelter that most people desire. The first of these houses was recently offered for sale at $13,000, with a down payment of $600, and monthly payments on a 40-year mortgage of around $84, not including taxes. A similar project is being planned for parts of Toronto by the Ontario Housing Corporation. It appears obvious to me that the federal government should consider the feasibility of encouraging projects such as these in all the large urban centres in Canada.
In dealing with the housing crisis in Canada, the government would be wise to listen more attentively to the demands of the municipal and provincial governments. The minister would also do well to listen to the advice being offered by the people who are building the houses. Many developers feel that single family housing could be provided in many urban areas at half the present price, if only they were given the co-operation of the various governments in place of the many current restrictions they encounter. The project in Winnipeg to which I have just alluded is not subject to a great many other restrictions that are in effect in most Canadian cities. Because of this, it is possible to sell a house for $13,000.
Developers maintain that if the provincial governments financed water and sewer services for privately held land that is ready for development, this would flood the market with serviced land and would drive down the prices on serviced lots. Developers also say that if governments relaxed their long list of restrictions on new subdivisions, such as minimum lot sizes, stipulations as to the type of building materials, and the requirement of elaborate local
March 21, 1973

servicing, prices would go still lower. The federal tax on building materials is also a factor in the high cost of housing. The 11 per cent tax is particularly hard on the small contractors and building companies for it prevents them from competing with the larger developers. In	National Housing Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but it being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Toronto, contractors say that an over-supply of serviced lots would be created by the implementation of the above-mentioned measures.	At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
26087-112	

Thursday. March 22. 1973