1973-03-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President oi the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am tabling copies in both official languages of an outline of the government's position with regard to notices of motions for the production of papers.



MANPOWER


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, further to my statements yesterday and Tuesday I wish to tell the House the outcome of my review of the departmental directive on placement priorities, issued on March 9.
As pointed out on Tuesday, suitability for work is the overriding criterion for referral to jobs, and any directive issued must be read in the context of the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations which govern the operation of the employment service of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Yesterday I indicated my understanding that the reason for issuing the directive had been related to the very specific policy announced some time ago for the local initiatives and training-on-the-job programs. In those cases unemployment insurance and welfare recipients were to be given priority in placement.
Further to the undertaking I gave to the House yesterday I have reviewed the March 9 directive with my senior officials of the department. Because its wording could be and has been misunderstood-


Mr. Stanfield:: Let us have it.


Robert Knight Andras: -my officials have recommended to me that it be withdrawn and replaced by a new directive, dispatched today by the deputy minister to all directors general of the department, and which more accurately expresses my intent and that of the government.


Mr. Baldwin:: Let us see the first one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us see the Friday one.


Robert Knight Andras: I believe that the new directive is clear and straightforward, and I would like to quote it in full.


Mr. Hees:: Just like the one last Friday.


Robert Knight Andras: It reads:
This cancels and replaces my telex of March 9th.
The purpose of that telex was to emphasize the importance of aggressive, affirmative action by CMCs to utilize emerging employment opportunities, especially those created by the local initiative and training-on-the job programs for those people who are definitely unemployed and in need.
As you are aware, priority in referral to jobs is governed by Regulation 27 to the Unemployment Insurance Regulations. Consistent with Regulation 27, all job orders will be checked as soon as they are received against existing live files of registrations to ensure that preference in referral is given to qualified registrants as required by the regulation. The telex of March 9th was not intended to change this basic procedure.
In the case of the LIP and training-on-the-job programs it has been publicly announced as government policy that priority in placement would be given to those who are unemployed. Within that priority emphasis must be given to those on unemployment insurance, welfare or otherwise unemployed and actively seeking work.
A special effort must be made to complete recruitment for LIP and training-on-the-job, particularly the latter, as quickly as possible and in accordance with the foregoing policy.
Mr. Speaker, looking at Regulation 27 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations which was written many years ago, I am advised that it could be construed so narrowly as to prohibit special action on behalf of almost any category of disadvantaged groups including youth, native workers, the handicapped, women returning to the labour force and those who have been chronically bypassed in the labour market. We are trying to do a better job for all Canadian workers, but in particular to ensure that the procedures do not inadvertently penalize certain groups. I am going to review Regulation 27 and, if necessary recommend updating it, in order to guarantee that we are permitted to help those who need help most.
In summary, while I regret the misunderstanding caused by the unfortunate wording of the earlier departmental directive, I want to indicate my strong support of the administrative objective, which was to generate a more positive and dynamic effort to put unemployed people in jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Now tell us about the Friday directive, Bob. Let us go back to square one.

March 15, 1973
Manpower Placement Priorities


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the minister's statement. But let me tell him, through you, Sir, that there is something that stinks around here. I can only put it that bluntly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, what I think has happened is that the minister, in error, brought about a directive that was totally unacceptable and, having found out what had occurred, he is now trying to weasel out of that directive. The unfortunate part is that, although he mentioned the directive of last Friday by way of date, March 9, he at no time referred to it in his statement in total nor has he indicated that that directive would be laid on the table. I think this is an irresponsible attitude for him to take.
There is something else that bothers me with respect to the minister's statement. I quote from the third paragraph which begins with the words: "Yesterday I indicated my understanding". This leads us on this side of the House to think that the minister is not running his department. It appears to me, after having read certain quotes in last night's paper, that he is apologizing on behalf of the deputy minister. It is the minister himself, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for the mess in which he has placed himself. I cannot understand how the minister can take that attitude when this matter was published in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 13. That gave him ample time to understand what the problem was going to be in terms of questions in the House. He now says that he did not even see the directive. If he did not see it, I do not know why he answered the questions that were posed to him from this side of the House at such length.
I just want to refer to this matter, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday I asked the minister the following question:
Has the minister instructed his department to give absolute priority in referrals for all jobs, including on-the-job-training, to unemployment insurance claimants in the first instance, welfare recipients in the second instance, and other unemployed persons in the third instance? If so, does this mean that the policy of the department is now one of high selectivity, seemingly ignoring suitability of skills and the needs of employers as well as of other Canadians?
From that question on, Mr. Speaker, the minister led the House to believe that he knew what we were talking about, and I respectfully suggest that he did. He knew just what was happening but when he ran into flak then came the problem.


An hon. Member:: He ran for cover.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not understand the minister either when in this new telex he refers to the telex of last Friday in the following words:
The purpose of that telex was to emphasize the importance of aggressive, affirmative action by CMCs to utilize emerging employment opportunities, especially those created by the local initiative and training-on-the-job programs-
Do you remember that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the minister was emphatic in stating that this directive applied to the local initiatives program? He was emphatic in the House, and outside the House on radio, television and in the press he was emphatic again. But I notice he has now

included the training-on-the-job program. I question the minister's credibility in this regard. I also question it because the telex states "especially". When you use the word "especially" it means that it was not referred to at all before, nor was it in the minister's mind to devote this directive to LIP. I am not even happy with the telex that he has now sent out because he questions whether he is doing it in the right way because regulation 27 leads him to believe that he cannot do what he is doing right now. The minister says in his statement:
I am going to review Regulation 27 and, if necessary, recommend updating it, in order to guarantee that we are permitted to help those who need help most.
I recall that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) asked yesterday whether the minister had the approval of the Governor General in Council with respect to this directive, but he has not indicated to date whether he had that approval. He probably did not sign it. He has also indicated, Mr. Speaker, that what he is doing is wrong because he is saying, by implication, that he does not know if he can do it when he has to review Regulation 27.
I still question the directive because it is my understanding that manpower services are for the need and use of all Canadians. I think that what the minister is doing is being done because of the embarrassment of high unemployment and the high unemployment insurance costs. It is being done for the benefit of the Liberal party to the exclusion and disadvantage of the people of Canada. Manpower services are to be used without selectivity to any great extent, if at all, nor are they to be discriminatory. This same directive excludes people undergoing on-the-job training, those who for some reason or other will not go on welfare or collect unemployment insurance benefits because of their pride, workers who are anxious to work and believe they can find jobs without the involvement of the commission, our young people who are being ignored, and housewives and veterans. What about the landed immigrant? In what position has he now been placed?
I have indicated by sufficient background material that I take great exception to what the minister is attempting to do. He is trying to weasle out, as it were. I hear the minister is a nice guy. We are all nice guys, but when you make a boo-boo, you must be chastised. There is no way that our feelings of friendship can affect the attitude that we on this side of the House must take.
I hope, after I sit down and other statements have been made, that the minister will say, all right, here is the directive that was issued on March 9, so that hon. members can look at it and see what it is all about.
I suggest that what the minister and the department were trying to do was wrong. They were attempting to make a very significant change in policy contrary to the UIC legislation and contrary to manpower policies. When they found that this was not acceptable the minister and the deputy minister had a tete-a-tete, and this unacceptable statement that the minister has made is the result.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that it would have been better if he had not made the statement he made today. Yesterday he seemed
March 15, 1973

simply foolish. Today he appears devious. I am not sure that the combination is a wise one to show the House.
His statement was not an exercise in clarification; it was an exercise in obfuscation. It was an exercise in total failure on his part to have the necessary guts and humility to say to the House that he and the deputy minister had made a serious error. His failure to put on the table the directive of March 9 leaves the House in exactly the same position as before. I suggest, Mr. Speaker-the matter is in your hands-that as the minister referred to the statement of March 9 and then said that the new telex replaces the earlier telex it is obligatory for him, under the rules, to place the telex of March 9 on the table for all hon. members to see.
He talked in his statement today about the earlier telex having been misunderstood. If the report in the newspaper was correct, and I have not heard the minister question it, there was no misunderstanding. It was perfectly clear that the deputy minister, presumably with the minister's authority, had issued a statement that he had no right to issue, that was contrary to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, contrary to the regulations of the Manpower Department and contrary to justice and decency to the unemployed people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I suppose I have been guilty of the same thing at times in my political life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I note from the applause of many hon. members that they are never guilty of that.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member supports the government, and must share some of the guilt.


David Lewis: I know from experience that that is a misunderstanding of the same kind as the minister was guilty of. The minister is obviously ashamed of the March 9 telex. So he ought to be, but he ought to have the courage to place it in our hands. We in the New Democratic Party are disturbed by the whole exercise of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the minister and the department at the present time. This is merely one little part of that exercise.
I agree fully that it is important for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to weed out those claimants in receipt of benefits who are abusing the unemployment insurance program. I am entirely in agreement with that. Indeed, I have said many times in the past number of months that if the Unemployment Insurance Commission were not governed by confusion, mismanagement and arbitrariness it would have taken steps long ago, and the habit of abusing the unemployment insurance program would not have developed to the point it has developed. My colleagues and I agree fully that it is necessary for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to weed out the chiselers on unemployment insurance, but I condemn without qualification the way in which it is being done, hurting thousands of innocent Canadians.
Manpower Placement Priorities


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: For example, the other day the minister seemed to indicate that after the computer print-outs were available people were interviewed before they were disqualified. I want to make this categorical statement in the presence of the minister and, if I am wrong, I invite him to contradict it. There is no interview of these poor, unemployed people. They merely shove information into the computer-this is based on information that I am sure is accurate-and when they find that they are people in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits in certain categories of work and there are vacancies for those categories, the required number are sent a letter stating that they are disqualified without any personal interview. The personal interview only takes place after the person who has been declared disqualified indicates an appeal to the board of referees. I can think of nothing more unfair and more dehumanizing than this kind of treatment of thousands of people across Canada.
I say to the minister that he is doing the program a very great disservice by listing the number of people who are disqualified and giving the impression that 65 per cent of claimants are getting benefits without right when it is 65 per cent of about 10 per cent, which is only about 6 per cent. That 6 per cent will not remain 6 per cent because there may well be results after the appeals which will show that a large proportion of them are indeed entitled under the law to the benefits which they have received. The kind of zeal now being exercised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the minister, much too belatedly, is being exercised at the expense of thousands of Canadians who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and who are unemployed because of the past policies of this government. They should not be treated in the way the are now being treated.
I say to the minister that he has a duty to place the telex of March 9 on the table. He should have the courage to say to this House of Commons that he and his department made an error and that from now on they will behave in accordance with the law and in accordance with the dictates of humane treatment of unemployed people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, according to the directive of March 9, which the minister, for reasons which we would like to know, is apparently refusing to table in this House, there would be in Canada some unemployed, young and old, educated and uneducated, males and females, who receive benefits and others who do not and finally some welfare recipients. A few unknown officials of the department decided on March 9, seemingly in collusion with the minister, to send a directive to Manpower centres asking to classify the unemployed in the order in which a job would be offered to them.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada are vehemently protesting against the way the government is classifying the Canadian people as we say that all Canadians are entitled to work and the government has no right to classify them, granting to some the right to live and to others the right to die.
March 15, 1973

Manpower Placement Priorities
Mr. Speaker, today, the minister, in his statement-his telex-does not clear up the confusion which exists in the Unemployment Insurance Commission, or concerning Section 27 or the Canada Manpower Centres.
It can be seen today even more clearly that the government is embarrassed, that he does not know anymore what to do with the unemployed. And while it is playing at classifying them, interviewing them and numbering them, these people are not getting their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the prime responsibility of the minister is not to classify the unemployed by order of priority, but rather to find work for Canadians so that each can live in freedom and security in his own country.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 27, officials may classify the unemployed according to age and distinguish between people who are entitled to a job and those who are not. The minister says that he is going to consider this section and see whether it should be amended.
First, we want him to table the directive that he issued on March, 9 and to undertake forthwith to change this Section 27.
Likewise we ask that he change Section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations prohibiting a recipient from receiving benefits on the ground that he has failed to give proof that he was seeking work. One might think, Mr. Speaker, that each Canadian should submit papers, loads of them, in order to prove that he was fit to work. He says so. This is quite ridiculous and is but a pretext to refuse payment of unemployment insurance benefits.
As for us, we consider that this act should be revised by Parliament so that Canadians should not only have the right to work but that those who are unfortunate enough to become unemployed may at least benefit from a true unemployment insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed at the minister's explanation today, which explains nothing since he ignored the problem caused by the improvised tax slips that do not tally with Ottawa's figures, so that the unemployed are being asked to pay tax on unemployment insurance benefits that they have not had. It seems to me that this is a most important problem, and a statement this week by the minister to clarify the situation would be most welcome.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment is still a crucial matter. The workings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are still obscure and inefficient, while the government, instead of coming to grips with the problem, continues issuing vague orders and making life difficult for working people.
We have heard talk of a just society for Canada, for the purpose of the elections, Mr. Speaker; to our way of thinking, a just society is one in which every Canadian, regardless of race, religion or age, and whether or not he is on welfare, has the right to live in his own country, the right to fulfill himself freely in his country, and to be treated as a human being and not as a number devised by some obscure civil servant.
That is how we see the just society, and as long as the government continues to classify Canadians it will be contributing to disagreement and discontent.

Mr. Speaker, the government will have to act sooner or later.
I should like to conclude by saying that equal opportunity for all Canadians means that, instead of continuing to create confusion with his directives the minister stand up and state that henceforth there will be no priority lists of any kind in connection with the treatment of the unemployed and those on welfare, and that all Canadians, whatever their situation in life, will get the same treatment as far as the Local Initiatives Program, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower Centres are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order which is based on citation 159(2) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I shall read from Beauchesne, but it is word for word as it appears on page 421 of May's 18th edition:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
I realize that on many an occasion members have asked for documents to be laid on the table because reference has been made to them. Your Honour, relying on the authorities, has replied that this requirement applies only when a document has been cited in the legal sense, or as would be the case in court.
I suggest that today the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has cited the telex of March 9 in two or three ways. I might say, as one minor point, that we are supposed to believe that the new telex differs from the telex of March 9, but how can we tell unless we see the text of the telex of March 9? The minister also makes it clear in his statement that the reason for the new directive is that the original directive could be, and has been, misunderstood. Some of that misunderstanding has, of course, been here in the House itself.
Now that we have been told that there was something wrong with the original telex, with the result that it had to be replaced, I submit that we have every right to insist that the original directive be tabled so that we can make the necessary comparisons and ascertain whether this matter has been cleared up. After all, that was the purpose of the minister in making the statement he did today-to clear up the confusion that has arisen in the last couple of days. But we will not know whether the confusion has been cleared up unless we see both documents.
I submit that the requirement for the tabling of this document is based not just on the premise that the minister has referred to it or quoted from it-as a matter of fact, he did not quote-but that he has cited it in the sense of providing it as the basis for the action he has taken
March 15, 1973

today. As I say, this is clearly covered by the words in citation 159(2):
This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence.
The minister has cited the telex of March 9 as the whole basis for what he has done today, and I suggest that his having cited the document means that the Chair should rule that he is called upon to table it in the House.
I made a brief reference to the fact that the citation in Beauchesne is taken from page 421 of May's 18th edition. In that citation May has a few extra words, some of which are to the effect that the tabling must take place provided it can be done "without injury to the public interest". I certainly cannot see any injury to the public interest or injury to the state as a result of tabling the former document. Therefore, on the basis of this citation I suggest that Your Honour should advise the minister that he should now table the document known as the telex of March 9.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate rising on the same point of order?


Robert Knight Andras: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is also rising on the same point of order. Perhaps it might be more orderly if the Chair were to hear the minister first.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I always tremble a bit when I take exception to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says on a point of order or on a point dealing with the rules, but I disagree with his views about the requirement under the rules to table the document of March 9 by virtue of my having referred to it in my statement today. Nevertheless, although not from the point of establishing a precedent, I am quite willing and really welcome the opportunity to table the telex that is going out today, to table the telex of last Friday, March 9, to table an interdepartmental memo of October 2 and the telex that accompanied that memo to the field, and also the press release of December 6 referring to these programs. I think that is the documentation I now have. I regret that at this stage I do not have sufficient copies, but I will ensure that all members get copies tomorrow, if they will give me that opportunity.


Mr. Fairweather:: We want to make some comment on them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Hamilton West rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I question the entire motives of the minister at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Manpower Placement Priorities


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It appears to me that the minister Has used some very devious methods here, not only in order to confuse and frustrate the members of the House of Commons but also the people of Canada. The minister had every opportunity to refer to these matters in their entirety in the comments he made but he chose not to do so. Then, after we on this side of the House had prodded and harassed him, he suddenly realized the error of his ways and he now says: "Here is the telex". I question the minister's motives. I think he is using some very devious tactics to frustrate the members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in a difficult position. There was a suggestion that certain documents would be tabled. I was prepared to make a ruling, or to give some thought to making a ruling, one way or the other. Now the hon. member says he questions the motives of the minister. Certainly members are not entitled to question the motives of other members of the House. So far as the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is concerned, I do not think the Chair would be required to make a ruling. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise at this time to suggest that the documents the minister says he is now prepared to table should be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For the documents above referred to, see
appendix "A".]


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the initiative shown yesterday by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate the minister has now tabled these documents. I want to say as strongly as I can that the statement made on motions by the minister and the responses can only be construed as a farce without there being some opportunity to include in those comments reference to the documents that have been tabled. I would urge upon the government House leader that the order, "Motions", be called again later today to permit hon. members to make comments dealing with the directive of last Friday. I suggest it is imperative, part of the res gestae and essential that this directive be before hon. members before they can make reasonable comments. If that is not done, what has been done here today is a complete farce so far as the proceedings of this House are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: "The land is strong".


George Harris Hees: And the Liberal government smells strong.


Mr. Lundrigan:: The minister in three statements made in the House has referred to two items. I am completely satisfied that the first one has been dealt with as far as tabling of documents is concerned. We do have the directives in question. The minister in his statements this week

March 15, 1973
Manpower Placement Priorities referred to the directives and also to the policing of the unemployment insurance regulations. Hon. members raised questions about the fact that what was originally intended to be a job placement wing of the manpower offices was converted into what now has become a witch hunt in the policing of the regulations to the extent that the regulations and the act are not being carried out. I have received evidence today from my province that would indicate that a goon squad-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate has risen on a point of order. We have been considering a number of points of order and, although it seems to me we have made some progress, perhaps we might have an indication as soon as possible as to what the hon. member's point is. Perhaps he might refer to the citations for the guidance of the Chair on which he bases his point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do that, but before doing so I wonder if I might draw Your Honour's attention to yesterday's record toward the end of the oral question period. We heard a statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which filled two full columns of Hansard, had a lead-in, and was a four or five minute speech. At that point Your Honour did not see any relevancy in my argument, and I accepted that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I just want to remind Your Honour, and I will get to my point as fast as I can, that I am being guided by the expertise of the hon. member to whom Your Honour pays so much attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member, but it seems from reading Hansard of yesterday that he received quite a bit of latitude.


John Howard Lundrigan: I thank you for that and appreciate it very much, realizing that experts on procedure need a fair amount of latitude. I have simply risen to say that I should like to know whether there were other memoranda sent to the unemployment insurance or manpower offices having to do with the policing of the unemployment insurance regulations, which has caused even more concern than the directive, and whether the minister would now co-operate with Your Honour and the House by tabling these memoranda so that hon. members on this side of the House will not be compelled to continue questioning on this matter at length in the weeks ahead, and it will continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I suggested a moment ago, that might not be a point of order but rather a question. Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized during the question period to ask this question of the minister. In that way he might ascertain if the minister proposes to table or refer in one way or another to the documents mentioned by the hon. member.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-TABLING OF AGREEMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. jack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a copy of the agreement dated November 24, 1972, between the federal government and the James Bay Development Corporation covering environmental studies in the James Bay area, as well as copies of the press release, in both official languages, which was issued on November 28, 1972.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs to meet personally with appropriate officials of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto and the government of the province of Ontario to ensure that proposed rent increases which will affect some 1,500 pensioners living in senior citizens' apartments in Toronto, and which are attributed solely and directly to the raise in the old age security pension, are not proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, the text of which has already been received by hon. members.
In view of the right each Canadian citizen has to communicate with various federal departments and to be informed, instructed and administered in the official language of his choice, and of the unfavourable status of francophone Canadians compared to their anglophone fellow citizens, a situation which can jeopardize the very future of the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
March 15, 1973

That this government bring forward here within 60 days a motion of its intention to introduce a bill ensuring administration in both languages through setting up of parallel francophone and anglophone administrative departments in all areas, in direct ratio to requirements and needs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Champlain under Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43, concerning a very urgent economic problem.
Since the federal assistance program for industry, which is expanding in the province of Quebec, is going to expire soon and since a new economic development program is to be established in Quebec, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That this House review the assistance program for businesses so that the development of large centres be not detrimental to smaller centres.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Compton under the terms of Standing Order 43. As this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House, is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up a couple of matters in respect of the statement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in which he referred to the directive of March 9. Was that directive released with the approval of the minister, or did his deputy issue it contrary to the instructions or directions of the minister?
25789-69)
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with the deputy minister on Thursday last based on discussions regarding finalization of approvals of local initiatives program. We wanted to ensure that instructions issued earlier with regard to hiring of employees for local initiatives programs and on-the-job training were in fact going to be adhered to. I left instructions with him that this reminder was to go out. That was the basis on which I thought the telex was going out in the next few days. It did go out on Friday without my seeing it. In fact, I saw it just before I came into the House on Tuesday, I believe.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one simple supplementary question for the minister. I take it the minister did see the directive and that the answers he gave me in respect of my questions on Tuesday meant in fact that he was aware that the directive did not refer to LIP or on-the-job training programs. Is that true?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I was in error on Tuesday in my assumption which was based on a rather superficial examination of papers I had in my possession before coming into the House for the question period. I have tried to clear that up to the best of my ability before the House. I really have nothing further to add to my statement yesterday and my statement today on this matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to inform the House, if he can, briefly, and if he cannot do it briefly to undertake to inform the House by way of a statement on motions, whether the inquiry or search regarding those who abuse the unemployment insurance program is being done in the manner I described earlier this afternoon, namely, that people are disqualified as a result of computer print-outs and only after disqualification has been sent to them by way of a letter are personal interviews undertaken?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check carefully into the precise sequence about which the hon. member is asking me before I reply, but I will inform myself of the sequence in absolute detail and give it to him at the earliest opportunity.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister say that he will look into it. May I ask the minister whether he would undertake that this method of disqualifying people before they have had a chance to be heard, thus making them guilty before they have had a chance to tell their side of the story, will be stopped if he finds that the information I have suggested to him is valid? I think the House is entitled to such a promise from the minister without any reservations.

March 15, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: The only reservation I would put on it, Mr. Speaker, would be that I would want to be assured that every reasonable opportunity had been given to the claimants dealt with to examine the evidence, or whatever you wish to call it, before discontinuation or disentitlement. If a claimant did not avail himself or herself of that opportunity, then I could not give an absolute commitment that disqualification would not follow, always allowing for the appeal system to take over from that point. I am saying that because some claimants are disqualified in absentia. There have been a couple of cases where they could not be found.


BENEFIT CONTROL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DIRECTIVES
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if the offices are acting on any directive or any over-all policy position of the government on this issue, and would he be prepared to table any documentation that relates thereto immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement on motions on Tuesday, I believe it was, with regard to the benefit control operation. I think it was as elaborate and as complete as I was capable of making it, and I think I have to rest on that at the moment. We will be before a committee before very long with the main estimates, and detailed questions can be answered at that time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I will not reword my question but I ask Your Honour to tolerate repetition of my question. I will put my question to the minister when he finishes his discussion with his leader.


George Harris Hees: No coaching now, Pierre.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is whether the minister has sent any specific directions to UIC offices, because there has been a complete change of heart and change in procedure right along the lines indicated by the hon. member for York South and these people are being judged guilty before an opportunity is given to them to tell their side of the story. If there has been a directive, would he table it?


Robert Knight Andras: I have asked all hon. members to give me specific examples of where there has been abuse by benefit control officers. I have also referred this matter to the advisory committee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which met Tuesday morning and is going to delve into the whole matter as an independent body and make a report. I will advise the hon. member of the details of that report when it is available.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting into difficulty. The hon. member for York South, I gather, has supple-mentaries to his previous question, and so has the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate for his supplementary, then return to the hon. member for York South for his
supplementary, and then go to the hon. member for Peace River.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, I am trying to co-operate with you and the House because this question is very important. He can clear it up and help the House considerably if he will agree that there was a directive, if there was, and table it? It is a simple question. Why can he not answer it?


George Harris Hees: If there was, will you?


Robert Knight Andras: The general rule, I believe, is that internal memoranda are not tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I made an exception to that today but very precisely. I said at the time that I was not intending to establish a precedent.


John Howard Lundrigan: This is not the last you will hear on that.


BENEFIT CONTROL-REQUEST THAT OFFICERS BE INSTRUCTED TO INTERVIEW RECIPIENTS BEFORE DISQUALIFICATION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister arises out of his answer to my earlier supplementary. If I understood him correctly, he said that he cannot give me the assurance I asked for without reservation because some people might not be available for interviews and therefore nobody can be blamed for having failed to interview them. Of course I accept that. I want to put this question to the minister so that there can be no misunderstanding: will the minister undertake to investigate this situation to make certain that the officers make an effort to interview applicants before they are disqualified as a result of the computer exercise, and if in the past no such effort has been made will he see to it that this practice is terminated forthwith?


Robert Knight Andras: I will be glad to give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration this question. In light of the fact he has now admitted that the document of March 9 was in fact a directive changing the priority with regard to referrals to jobs and as such clearly a regulation, was the approval of the Governor in Council obtained for this as required by the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Robert Knight Andras: I am informed that it is not a directive of a nature that would require such approval.

March 15, 1973


Gerald William Baldwin: If it was any other Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him if he would consider the legality of this action, but I will ask instead the chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee if he will consult with his co-chairman with a view to having this very serious situation considered by the committee so as to discover what was in these directives, the extent that they were in fact regulations, and whether they were regulations which interfered with the operations of the act, so that we can arrive at the truth and the facts in this whole situation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I will be delighted to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before pursuing the supplementary questions that a number of hon. members wish to ask, the Chair will call on the hon. member for Shefford.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether the resolution on bilingualism that he intends to table in the next few days will guarantee parallel administrations in French and English in the federal public service, so that justice will be done to every Canadian?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I did not understand the start of the question, but I shall attempt to reply, and the hon. member will ask a supplementary if I miss the point.
The legislation that we will put on the order paper two weeks from now, as I said yesterday, will concern the application of the Official Languages Act in the public service.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer to one part of my question.
Will this item include a commitment to a francophone and anglophone administration in the public service, so that service may be given to all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and all his colleagues know the basic principle of the Official Languages Act, which is that any citizen be able to communicate with the government in either one of the official languages, and also that any citizen may work in the public service in the official language of his choice. These instructions are aimed at applying this principle on official languages and the government's policy.
Oral Questions


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
supplementary.
Could the Prime Minister be more specific and say whether a parallel administration, French and English, will be set up in the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to set up two parallel administrations. I repeat that we just want to make sure that the citizen can be served by and communicate with the government in the official language of his choosing, and also that he can work in the federal public service in the official language of his choosing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix who wants to ask a supplementary question, after which we will go back to the first question put this afternoon to allow for supplementaries on that matter. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, this is my question.
Will the Prime Minister authorize a free vote after introducing this measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think the House intends to obtain my permission to have each member vote according to his conscience. The members of our party, I am sure, will unanimously want to support the government's policy. As to the opposition parties-



INCOME TAX


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the reported discrepancy in some 2,000 out of some 28,000 cases investigated in connection with the Delorimier unemployment insurance office in Montreal, in which TP4U slips issued by the unemployment insurance office in Ottawa showed higher payments during 1972 in some 2000 cases compared with the records of the Delorimier office. As I did yesterday, I ask the minister whether he can give the House any explanation of this discrepancy, and can he tell us why there are no records, no microfilm records in Ottawa either to prove or disprove the accuracy of the TP4U forms issued by Ottawa in these instances?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my understanding with respect to the particular forms that are being discussed is that there was an error discovered in early January when they were being posted manually, and there were some 28,000 cases investigated in the Quebec area, although only a few thousand of them in the end actually had errors. The Delorimier office was set up to work on this job and the errors were all corrected before they went out. There are records kept and there is microfilm data available. The regional computer centres hold the microfilm

March 15, 1973
Oral Questions
records at Moncton, Montreal, Belleville, Winnipeg and Vancouver. They would not be kept in Ottawa, but they are in the appropriate computer centres.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister give the House any explanation of the discrepancies in these 2,000 cases in connection with the Delorimier office, in some cases amounting to tens of dollars per person and in other cases running into hundreds of dollars per person? Can the minister give an explanation of these discrepancies, and has he any information as to how this can be verified one way or another?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission had to issue some 1,917,000, I believe-at least it was in excess of 1,900,000-T4 slips, in addition to which they had to process the special slips for the province of Quebec. The margin of error, based on the number of appeals made to the commission where claimants can go and verify every fact with respect to these TP4U slips, has been extraordinarily small. I think the 2,000 were caught before they went out. They were caused through some problem of transposing from a manual to some form of electronic record in Montreal. As I say, the sampling across the country uncovered these before any harm was done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister takes the position that no harm has been done, but is it not correct that some 2,000 workers in Montreal associated with this bureau, clients of this bureau, received forms from Ottawa showing that they had received amounts very substantially in excess of the amounts that the records in Montreal show? Is that not a fact, and can the minister gloss over such a fact simply by talking about the law of averages?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has no objection to the minister replying to this question, but I must say that the question as asked is not correct procedurally. It is obviously asked in terms whereby the question suggests its own answer, and is asked in the form of an argument. But again I say that the Chair has no objection to the minister replying to the hon. member's question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for several days watching this minister issue statements-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -issuing statements, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and giving different explanations. I want to ask him, Sir, whether he has caused any inquiry to be made into what appears to be a very substantial discrepancy between the records of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Ottawa, as to the amounts set out in forms sent to some 2,000 workers in the Montreal

area, and the records of that bureau. Is the minister simply going to ask the House to accept the assurance that this is something that is bound to happen according to the law of accidents, or is he going to cause any inquiry to be made? If he is just going to sit there, then I am going to tell him, through you, Sir-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report. I have had an inquiry caused to be undertaken. I received the report just before the question period. I sent a message to the hon. gentleman's office begging his indulgence in that I would not be able to give him massive detail, but I did get the preliminary information I have now given him in the House. If there is any change in that, which I do not think will take place, I will most certainly advise him. But as it stands now, this is the preliminary information I have, and further information availability will be subject to the time it will take to digest the full report.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that a number of hon. members have supplementaries, but first the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.



HOUSING


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I thank the minister for the communication he sent me just at two o'clock. Would he advise the House what steps he has taken to prevent the announced rent increases in senior citizens' housing in Toronto?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has referred to the fact that apparently because of our increase in the old age pension some pensioners will be moving up the rent to income scale, and some provincial housing agencies have consequently increased their rents. I refer particularly to the metropolitan Toronto agency which has sent its tenants a letter that I must say I find extremely bureaucratic-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and one that is guaranteed, it would seem to me, to disturb the old age pensioners who are the recipients of it. Consequently, I have written to all of the provincial ministers today asking that they freeze the rental rates applying to senior citizens in public housing developments, and I have indicated that officials of CMHC will be going to the provinces to consult with officials about a review of the senior citizens rent to income scale. I would be happy to table that letter as soon as I have sufficient copies, and also a list of the people to whom it has been sent.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now return to supplementaries to the first question.
March 15, 1973



MANPOWER


Mr. I. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the first question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that he has finally withdrawn the directive of March 9 and has agreed to table the document, can the minister assure the House, and most importantly, the unemployed of this country that the intent and the spirit of that directive in fact have been withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I can requote my statement made earlier on motions if the hon. member wishes, but I think I should leave it to him to read it in Hansard.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, since the current confusion in the administration of manpower and unemployment insurance offices is creating very definite hardship in rural and small town areas across the country, will the minister now speed up the program of re-opening local UIC offices that were closed in rural and small town areas over the past number of years, in order that this hardship can be rectified as quickly as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day that the whole question of decentralization of Unemployment Insurance Commission offices is under further examination and I hope to make a decision fairly soon.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the minister is concerned with the welfare of sill Canadians and since 150,000 needy mothers abandoned by their husbands receive less social assistance than older people, could the minister tell us what he plans to do in order to ensure an equitable relation between the various social assistance programs?
Oral Questions


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this whole question is under review by the department in conjunction with the provinces. Meetings are scheduled for the month of April-


An hon. Member:: What year?


Norman Augustine Cafik: -so that we can discuss this whole problem of social security, welfare and aid to people in need. When that is completed, of course, a complete report will be given to the House.



MANPOWER


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In response to a question on Tuesday by the hon. member for Hamilton West with respect to the Friday memorandum in which it was stated that absolute priority would be given in referral to all jobs, the minister said that this memorandum should be taken in context with other regulations and manuals of instruction. Can the minister indicate under what arrangement that information was conveyed to the various manpower offices?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I have tabled some of the documents which will throw light on that subject when the hon. member has had an opportunity to examine them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary but I would point out that to some extent we are still on the first question and I hope we can pass on to the second question eventually. The hon. member for Egmont can ask a supplementary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the minister's tabling of this document of March 9, which says that as of now all CMCs will give absolute priority in referred for all jobs only when these sources have been thoroughly reviewed or exhausted and that it will be implemented without fault and every effort will be made to fill vacancies forthwith as per above order, can the minister indicate in the context of that memorandum where such a provision was in fact indicated to CMC offices?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in the first place that memorandum of March 9 has now been withdrawn and the one I read today has been substituted. There are literally thousands of communications giving instructions to CMCs across the country. There is no dead silence between Ottawa and the field. There were instructions to recruit for LIP and to recruit for training-on-the-job through manpower offices. I have disclosed that and they were instructed to follow through. I may be missing what

March 15, 1973
Oral Questions
the hon. member is seeking, but I really do not see what the point is.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A point of privilege. I think that once again, perhaps inadvertently or in some other manner, the minister has misled the House in his answer Tuesday by suggesting that other regulations and manuals of instruction would be considered when, in fact, there is no reference in this document to such a provision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I will ask his parliamentary secretary to take note of it. It deals with the delay in payment of the $50 tax rebate to old age pensioners in Ontario who receive the guaranteed income supplement. In view of the fact the delay is caused by the failure of the department to provide the province of Ontario with a list of pensioners receiving GIS, would the minister inform the House whether he is taking steps to correct this situation?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw this matter to the attention of the department and a report will be given.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the minister has announced outside the House his ideas concerning an assistance program for Montreal, could he tell the House if he has received from the Quebec authorities what he has requested one month ago, that is a complete list of the economic priorities of Quebec, or if he has consulted with the Quebec authorities before announcing his views on the matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a journalist long enough myself not to fall back on the old argument that I was misquoted, but I can only say that the news story was to some degree incomplete-entirely inadvertently, I am sure, on the part of the reporter. The position with regard to the hon. member's question is that there has been considerable discussion at the official level with regard to an exchange of ideas and proposals which will in some cases be substitutions for those projects which will expire

in the province of Quebec in the present year. There have also been discussions with regard to over-all plans for the future. My reference to the end of March was that before that date or around that date we would begin discussions government to government, and I believe that is the understanding of the government of Quebec as well.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
supplementary.
Can the minister indicate to this House whether the program now made public takes into account the interdepartmental work done in Quebec and in Ottawa or if it is only based on a report prepared by economists from the University of Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it includes a great deal of information from a number of sources, including the studies from a Quebec university, but these were only one part of the series of consultations and studies that were under way. I would hope that within a matter of some weeks I would be able to make available in pretty comprehensive form to all members the results of this compilation of the various points of view and the various assessments that have been made. I think it is fair to say that we have tried to get as many inputs as possible, including most of the sources to which the hon. member has referred.



DESIGNATION OF SHERBROOKE AND EASTERN TOWNSHIPS AS SPECIAL AREA-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As the Eastern Townships have been neglected, as their industries have not benefited much from the department and as unemployment in this area reaches alarming proportions, is it the intention of the minister to make this a designated area, as he did with Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, one of the matters to which I referred in reply to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. We will be discussing with the government of Quebec just which areas of the province may be entitled to or may be by mutual agreement assigned special area status or in some way or other assisted by DREE programs. I have also had representations from the hon. member for Sherbrooke on this point and these have been taken into account.
March 15, 1973



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, to return for a moment to the question of unemployment insurance, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if procedures will be established to reinstate the benefits of unemployment insurance recipients who have been cut off by the computer process without an interview?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will examine that matter. I do not know the volume of such cases that may exist, but I will examine it.
 * *



HARBOURS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Has his department yet assumed responsibility for the provision and maintenance of harbour facilities in Canada? If so, in view of the high rate of unemployment in eastern Canada and the neglect of many of the public works facilities in eastern Canada, is it his intention to recommend that more money be put into that program to accommodate fishermen and others who need these facilities during the coming fishing season?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the present program is being managed co-operatively by the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works and the Department of the Environment. There is a move under way to shift the administration more to the fisheries service.


Walter C. Carter: As this program is being administered by the Department of Public Works, would the Minister of Public Works tell us if he plans to ask his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to supply funds to enable him to provide some of these badly needed facilities in the Atlantic area?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have been spending millions of dollars in the past few years on repairing wharves and constructing new wharves. I agree that much more could be done. We are continually trying to obtain more funds to repair more wharves and build more of these facilities. Of course, the resources of this country are not unlimited. We are trying to do the best we can with the resources available.


Walter C. Carter: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary. There are only seven minutes left before the end of the question period.
Oral Questions


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works referred to the lack of funds. I suggest that if he can afford to spend $26 million in the Ottawa area to provide cafeterias and air conditioning equipment, he should be able to provide money for the Atlantic area where these facilities are so badly needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the warning by the Economic Council of Canada about too much reliance being placed on make-work projects, and as unemployment in Canada would still be well above the 6 per cent level if it were not for the 93,000 jobs created by LIP at a cost of $165 million, will the minister state whether the government intends to institutionalize the LIP and OFY programs in order to keep the unemployment percentage as low as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if we decide to do so we will make a statement in the House in due course.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I would ask the minister if a similar reassessment of the DREE program is taking place in the Atlantic provinces? Is the minister having consultations with the governments of the four Atlantic provinces similar to the kind of reassessment currently taking place in the province of Quebec?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is happening not only with the Atlantic provinces but with each of the provinces of Canada, and there are also sub-studies in the sense that they concern various regions within the provinces. It is a very comprehensive analysis and covers the whole country.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-OBLIGATIONS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In light of the statement to the House by the Minis-
2248

March 15, 1973
Oral Questions
ter of Transport on March 9 to the effect that he was not clear about federal obligations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act concerning provincial construction in the James Bay area, did the Minister of the Environment sign the document tabled in the House today without knowing what obligations the federal government has under that act?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the agreement to which the hon. member refers relates to services normally provided by the Department of the Environment, involving fishery experts, oceanogra-nhers, mineralogists and so on. It is a service we are providing and it does not rest on the division of powers between the province and the federal government.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR TEXTILE, LEATHER AND SHOE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the House if it is government policy that Canadian businessmen should not be active in the textile, leather or shoe industries and that those fields should be left to the emerging nations, as has been suggested by an official of his department?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the proper way to put a question of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Why? Is it too embarrassing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is government policy to support all elements of Canadian industry regardless of what industry it is and where it may be in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister then indicate when he will do something for the tanning industry of this country to relieve it from the plight caused by the importation of foreign goods?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions in the House I have indicated, in answer to a similar question, that the tribunal is in the process of completing its report.
I have heard that it has completed its report. This problem was assigned to the tribunal.


An hon. Member:: When will you do something?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am hoping to receive that report shortly. As soon as I receive the report I will study it and make a statement to the House.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question and a supplementary question to the

Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister inform the House whether or not expenses for dinners held for the benefit of political parties are deductible for income tax purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order. The hon. member cannot ask for a legal opinion or a legal interpretation. Therefore he cannot have a supplementary to that question.



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for multicultur-alism. A short time ago the minister was asked whether Canadian broadcasting rules were being adjusted in order to allow more time to be devoted to multiculturalism on the broadcasting media. The minister replied that he was awaiting a report from the CBC on its multicultural programs. Has the minister now received such a report and is he doing anything or is anything being done to allow multicultural programming on the CBC?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to the hon. member that we are considering a program and a policy for multiculturalism and multilingualism in broadcasting. To date, I have not received a report from the chairman of the CRTC, who held a hearing in Montreal on February 19,1 believe.



POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO BROADCASTING ACT TO PERMIT CBC TO USE OTHER THAN OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Mr. Otto lelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I hope he will be able to answer it. In view of the fact that sections 3(e) and 3(g) iii of the Broadcasting Act specify the use of English and French only on the CBC, does the minister intend to introduce amendments to the Broadcasting Act in order to clear the way for use of other than official languages by the CBC? If not, why not?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have no amendments prepared at this point.



MULTICULTURALISM-CONFLICT BETWEEN OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT AND BROADCASTING ACT-POSSIBLE ACTION TO REMEDY

Mr. lake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of multiculturalism. In view of the fact that CRTC hearings regarding the CBC takeover of CKSB, St. Boniface, were held some weeks ago, can the minister tell the House what decisions have been made which would be in keeping with the intent of section 38 of the Officials Languages Act, which in this case is in conflict with the sections of the Broadcasting Act referred to by the hon. member for
March 15, 1973

High Park-Humber Valley? When this matter was referred to on February 22, the minister replied that it was a matter of government policy and would be announced in the House in the usual way. Is the minister now prepared to give his reply?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, before developing policy in this matter I should like to have the benefit of the report of the chairman of the CRTC.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has applied for increased passenger fares and is to bring in fares along lines used presently by Canadian National, that is, bargain, economy and standard fares, and since it is the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to have almost no bargain or economy fares during the summer months, will the minister make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission in order to disallow the increase proposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the increases which will be reviewed by the Canadian Transport Commission are related to several factors. They are meant in part to put the Canadian Pacific on the same footing as the Canadian National, that is there will be from now on three ticket series corresponding to the weekly traffic volume and similar to those now designated as red, blue and white rates by the Canadian National. Tickets issued by the Canadian Pacific will be gray, black and probably blue.
At any rate, the only significant increase, Mr. Speaker, would apply to sleeping cars and not to ordinary cars which are designated as third class transportation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since passengers, if there are any left in June, will be black and blue from this increase, and since standard fares are to be increased, as perhaps the minister may be aware, between 14 and 21 per cent, in view of the fact Canadian Pacific Railway Company has already printed and distributed the new tariffs will the minister ask the Canadian Transport Commission, in the light of this discourtesy if for no other reason, to disallow the proposed fare increases of CPR?


Jean Marchand: This is not new, Mr. Speaker. Since the new Transport Act was passed, it is well known that all the company has to do is to submit its request for a tariff increase to the Canadian Transport Commission,
Oral Questions
and then apply it. Companies are under absolutely no obligation to inform either the government or the public of increases, and thus invite representations. That is the law as passed by this House.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us what attitude the government intends to take on the statement by the Prime Minister of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who implied yesterday that he would be interested in giving evidence before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, provided that the committee have a sitting in Quebec City?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is clearly referring to committee procedure, and his question is therefore not in order.



OIL AND GAS-REQUEST THAT STUDY BY CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS ON NEW TECHNOLOGY BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received a copy of the 800 page study published by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists in which they suggested that, in light of new technological know-how, it is possible to increase the recovery potential by seven times of oil and gas left in wells as well as that recovered from new wells? Has the minister received this? When he does receive it, will he make it known to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the society was planning to deliver copies to all interested parties. I will have to check to see whether a copy has been delivered to my department. I, personally, have not received it. With regard to the second part of the question, I think that would be a useful addition to the committee's considerations. If individual members do not receive copies, I will make sure the committee does.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, I will recognize the hon. member for Pembina.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of National Revenue for replying to the
2250

March 15, 1973
Oral Questions
question I asked on February 28, 1973. My question today concerns that reply. In your letter of March 7, 1973, you mentioned that following the tax reform and the introduction of capital gains tax, it becomes administratively necessary to establish a real estate data bank. My question to you is, what is a real estate data bank and the purpose of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may reply to the question briefly. I take this opportunity very kindly to remind all hon. members that an effort should be made to address questions to the Chair rather than to ministers. This having been said, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply, if he can do so briefly, to the question asked by the hon. member for Pembina.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will understand that it will be useful, both to the taxpayers and the Department of National Revenue, to have some accumulation of information about properties which may in future be disposed of and be subject to capital gains tax. Therefore, any information which is gathered at this time will contribute to a fair settlement of the capital gains assessments in the future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the suggestion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that I was either ignorant of or ignoring a message sent to my office by him during the noon period with regard to a question on the subject of TP4U slips. I wish to say, Sir,that the message received by my office from a member of the minister's staff was that his statement would not include any comment on the Montreal TP4U's because the minister had just received his briefing material. The minister, therefore, asked for indulgence in this regard, that this would not be included in the statement. The representative also said that the minister would answer questions. He did not in any way suggest that the answers might be limited.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River rises on the traditional point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, now that we have escaped from the question period, I wish to ask the government House leader what will be the business for this week and next. Also, can he possibly give us a list of the legislative proposals which he has in mind for the next 10 days or two weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the debate on the Export Development Act. This will be followed by the housing legislation and that, in turn, will be followed by the foreign investment review legislation. On Tuesday and Friday of next week, we will have opposition days. The final opposition day will be Monday, March 26. I wish to advise the House that if it appears possible to deal with the Old Age Security bill and the

War Veterans Allowance bill quickly in the report stages tomorrow, I will be quite agreeable to having them called tomorrow. However, in the event that they would not pass relatively quickly, I would continue with the business I have outlined to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on that point, I can advise the government House leader that if this is of any concern, we in this party are prepared to indicate that we will see that these bills are facilitated. I notice there are some amendments which might have to be considered at the report stage, but apart from that, we are quite prepared to facilitate their passage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I simply indicate that we, too, are prepared to expedite the final passing of the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act and the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
(Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I also should like to state that our party is willing to co-operate in every way to speed up the passage of Bill C-147 on the old age security pension. We have proposed some most important amendments concerning the age of eligibility and the amount of the pension. We will propose them and defend them for the principle of the thing, but we will not oppose the passage of this legislation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-3 to amend the Export Development Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few points remaining in my series of remarks on this bill. One of them relates to a matter which I raised yesterday, namely, the question of the economic and administrative co-ordination which does or does not exist in the Export Development Corporation and the internal development corporation which we have in this country, that part of the ministry which we call the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Yesterday I said that it appears from the allocations of funds made by both these entities or agencies, if I may call them that, that they may be working at cross-purposes. I am glad to see from reports in the newspapers today that I am not the only one in this country who thinks that. I read in this morning's Gazette some remarks made by an official of the province of Quebec. He said and I quote:
March 15, 1973___________COMMONS DEBATES
"The only thing I can think of is that there is a rivalry between DREE and the industry, trade and commerce department in Ottawa about which one will have the key say in development plans for the country,"-
I simply repeat this point to underline what I think is an extremely important matter. It is this. We have a series of agencies in this country, whether they be ministerial, Crown corporations or what have you. that are not working together to obtain the greatest economic development of this country.
I wish to conclude my comments on this matter by referring to some remarks which were made on this topic generally by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). I may have, not wittingly I will say, caused him to infer yesterday that I associated him rather directly with other and former Liberal cabinet ministers who had been involved very closely with Brazilian Traction, now Brascan. As far as we can tell, the minister's connection with that company is nil. At any rate, in the past he expressed views and attitudes which had been stated candidly and which should be repeated in this House. If we repeat them for the edification of this House, we are in a better position to understand what kind of presuppositions, premises and controlling principles he brings to his thinking on the matter of export development and multinational corporations. Last year he was quoted in the Financial Post as having said, and I quote:
"Multinationals are important and they produce results," ... "Do you know that in the U.S. the multinational corporations produce more jobs and more foreign earnings than the purely domestic companies? They do, and we can do the same here."
So, the minister's basic philosophy had been put on the line. It is clear. We shall know exactly what we must take into account when we deal with this legislation more specifically.
I think the minister should be reminded that when he was in charge of another ministry, the Science Council of Canada caused a report to be prepared by Mr. Arthur Cordell. The report stated very simply that Canadian-based multinational corporations were no more inclined to act in the Canadian interests than were foreign-based multinationals. This is something we would do well to keep in mind.
In closing, I should like to refer to one of the companies about which I spoke yesterday-Brascan. Brascan is informative. It tells us exactly where its interests lie. The company has produced advertisements telling us, for example, that in Canada it had assets in 1971 valued at $135 million and that in Brazil its assets were valued at $103,000,000. So, the activity of this corporation seems to be centred in Brazil. The important thing is this. We should not kid ourselves we are helping a developing country when we advance generous loans to multinational corporations, even to our own multinationals, such as the loan of $26.5 million to Brascan.


Mr. Douglas:: Which they do not need.


John Paul Harney: We ought to remember that we are dealing, here, with a tight, closed circuit of corporate control. We could save ourselves an enormous amount of time and trouble in future if we were to send the cheques covering
Export Development Act
these loans not all the way to Brazil, as in the case of Brascan, but directly from Ottawa to 25 King Street West, Toronto.


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, .1 do not intend to take up much of the time of the House. Most of the points have been made, and well made, and there is no need for repetition.
It does strike, me, however, that what the government is attempting to do by way of this piece of legislation is an example of philosophy they tend to adopt throughout-to use another patch in the quilt. They do not bring out any forthright long-term policy suited to the development of this country either in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or, particularly, in the EDC. It bothers me that they should come here to present legislation before we have even seen any kind of financial statement. There is no audited statement of what they have done last year so that we can properly assess the progress being made by EDC. In other words, the government presents another hodge-podge of legislation. They show no clear evidence of developing any long-term programs, any policies. Surely, the trials and tribulations of the economy of this country are such that a new minister, particularly, should settle down and assess where we are going in this respect.
Looking at the supplementary estimates, it is obvious what goes on in this department. Throughout, there are one dollar items, indicating there has been a change of policy, modification and alternation of legislation. It is well known that what they are attempting to do is get in through the back door what they cannot get through the front door. In other words, they are trying to pass legislation by way of supplementary estimates rather than do it in the parliamentary way by bringing in bills which say what they want to do. Oh no, this is so much easier. There is that little automatic cut-off applied in the case of supplementary estimates, and debate is generally limited when considering items the department has in mind. Throughout these supplementary estimates B, we find these one dollar items thrown in, which means they really do not have a plan in the department or in the EDC to cover what is required. They put in another patch. This I deplore. Surely, a government which has been in power since 1962, throughout the last 11 years, should do better than that. They come here and ask for a little money, not taking time to present a proper bill, but dealing with one item only.
Since we are deeding with EDC, I will ask this question: how would that Corporation consider an application from a company which came to them and said "We need some money, gentlemen, to finance this project." The banker would say "Let me see the financial statement and I will consider it." "Oh no, I don't have a financial statement, just take me as I am." This is exactly what the government is asking us to do, accept them in good faith at face value. Surely, there is some business code parliament should look at when dealing with things like this. The expert Export Development Corporation comes here and asks parliament to bail them out of a situation, having overspent, having made commitments. I am reminded of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who came to parliament seeking for an out-of-court settlement in order to avoid being sued, if the term is not too lewd, for all the

March 15, 1973
Export Development Act
money he had spent. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the real reason for this legislation. There is no program. There is no policy. We look at what goes on within that department.
We look at Michelin Tires, for instance. The minister responsible for EDC said the other day, of course, that their only recourse was to bring a law suit in the United States if they do not get what they consider to be justice from the United States Government. I want to ask the minister in what state would the law suit be brought? Would that law suit be brought in the name of the Government of Canada or in the name of Michelin Tire? And if in the name of Michelin Tire, as it obviously must be, who would pay the court costs? This is very interesting question, and I wonder whether the minister will ever find time to reply to it. These are the types of things, this woolly, cottony attitude which this government presents to parliament every day, day after day. Surely, the people of Canada can expect a good deal more than this. And they deserve much better than this.
What has been the situation with the auto pact? We have had changing attitudes and stances, the government not knowing where they are going, or why or how. I wonder whether this is the type of government to which we are entitled. I suggest it is not.
I was under the impression-obviously mistaken-that the EDC was designed for the benefit and for the growth of Canadian industry. But as pointed out by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), loans to certain countries which would have benefitted the interests of certain Canadian industries were turned down. I wonder whether this had anything to do with the politics of Chile and whether the United States of America has still got its thumb on what this government does. Is this government afraid to act in its own right and to stand on its own feet? Certainly, its actions do not bespeak of a government with courage and foresight, one that knows where it is going.
I have said that the EDC is supposedly designed to be of benefit to Canadian industry. I notice a very curious item-I think it is item L17b in supplementary estimates B-concerning a loan to Canadair for the sale of water bombers to Spain. On the surface that is fine. If I may digress for a moment, I suggest there are too many nonlapsing loans in supplementary estimates B for this particular department. This department, with one other exception, is the only one with these non-lapsing items, these items of $1, and I suggest this is because they have no concrete policy. They know not where they go. I wish they had a light to guide their path; but there is too much heat over there and insufficient light.
With regard to this loan to Canadair to which I have just referred, it looks fine. But what was the quid pro quo that the EDC agreed to? The importation from Spain, primarily into the province of Quebec, of about $6.5 million worth of Spanish wine. I am informed that in the year 1971 the total consumption of Spanish wine in the whole of Canada was less than $2 million worth, and that the grape growers in the province of Ontario actually shipped about $1.75 million worth of wine to Quebec. Therefore, the

market for the Ontario grape grower is going to be vitally affected by this little deal.
I wonder whether there was consultation between the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Wine Institute or the Ontario Wine and Grape Growers Association before this little deal was made, a deal supposedly for the benefit of Canada. This is what it has done for a local industry, one of the few wine producing areas of this nation. Some grandiose statements were made about saving local industry, yet with the stroke of a pen and the grant of a loan to another nation, the potential of this industry has been greatly reduced, to the point where they find it difficult to compete in Canada for a Canadian market.
Surely, it behooves this government, through this department, to formulate a plan so it knows where it is going. It should have consultations with local industry and business that might possibly be adversely affected by some of these so-called policies that the government chooses to adopt. I urge that some kind of action be taken to amend the legislation under which this particular department operates so that this non-lapsing funding is discontinued and the department does not do by supplementary estimate what it should do by legislation. Then, the people of the country will be given a clear picture of what the EDC is doing for their benefit.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising as the final Conservative speaker on Bill C-3, and I should like to sum up the arguments put forward by my party. Upon my summation, we are reluctantly willing to see this bill go to committee; but we do so on the strict understanding that we will require an intensive examination of the operations of the Export Development Corporation during this committee stage. Indeed, we may feel it necessary to suggest some amendments to the Export Development Act.
Let me sum up first. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has been guilty of shameful misrepresentation to this House. On February 2, while presenting the bill, the minister stated that the Export Development Corporation had the capacity to sign agreements for over $200 million to provide for the requirement of over $500 million. At that point the minister clearly considered signed agreements to be part of the corporation's liability under section 30 of the act that restricted such liability to $850 million, which liability restriction the minister has asked to be raised through this bill to $1.5 billion. Subsequently, however, the minister's parliamentary secretary stated on March 9 that signed agreements were not to be taken into account, although he did point out that signed agreements amounted to $865 million as of January 31, 1973. The parliamentary secretary said that it was only instruments that were to be taken into account, and that on January 31 they amounted to only $500 million.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is right? The minister told us in February that he had only $200 million free; his parliamentary secretary in March indicated there was $350 million. The truth is that they know they are caught. There is a December 31, 1972 statement due from this corporation, and the minister is pressing to get this bill through the House because he does not want to be embar-
March 15, 1973

rassed by what that statement may show. To be more specific, the 1971 statement, in note 2, included an item as follows:
The uncommitted authority to guarantee and lend was $212 million.
If the forthcoming statement contains the same note, it would show that the uncommitted authority as at December 31 is only $9 million. Based on the parliamentary secretary's statement, therefore, they would have no uncommitted authority. Indeed, they would have exceeded it by $15 million by January 31, 1973 when the parliamentary secretary stated there were signed agreements totalling $865 million.
Let me make a prediction, Mr. Speaker. I predict that note 2, as it appeared in the 1971 statement, will not appear in the 1972 statement. They will duck the issue, and by doing so they will hope not only to duck but also to dupe this parliament. As a new member to the House, I believe it is disgraceful that the type of deception that is practised is tolerated by the House. At the very least the minister must apologize for the deception carried on by himself and his parliamentary secretary.
Let us look at how ridiculous their position is. Section 30 initially provided a ceiling of $600 million. In 1971, the ceiling was lifted to the present $850 million, because at that time it was represented that the amount committed would go over the ceiling if it was not so increased. Now, in 1973, the parliamentary secretary to the minister asks us to believe that only $500 million in notes is involved when you are determining the ceiling. If he were to be believed, why was it necessary to lift the ceiling, first of all from $600 million to $850 million back in 1971, when right now we are $100 million below what the ceiling was in the beginning, $350 million under the present ceiling and only one-third of what the government is asking for today has been committed? In other words, the corporation would be a full $1 billion under the limit they are presently asking for in order that the program can be continued. If I could effectively stop this charade I would do so, but unfortunately our right to amend this bill is limited.
Let me outline in point form the other matters affecting this bill which concern myself and my party greatly. This corporation has become the softest touch in the international financial world. It is serving in the main multinational corporations which are able to finance their operations out of the federal treasury. Out of the total capital of over $1 billion, only 43 Canadian companies benefited, and the majority are United States or foreign-controlled. In fact, over one-half a billion dollars of this financing has gone to only eight of these 43 companies.
Surely, it is ludicrous for a government to be bringing in a foreign takeover review act, while at the same time it is handing out money to the benefit of these same corporations at an interest rate of 71/8th per cent, on the average. The minister, in his rebuttal, stated that our members believe the Export Development Bank should discriminate against foreign-owned corporations, and that the job it is doing is terrible because it lends money to foreign corporations. While he admits that there could be a problem in respect of foreign ownership, he follows the usual
Export Development Act
tact of accusing our party of being anti-American or antiforeign. This is an old pattern the former hon. member of my riding used to try to discredit me when I was working within the area to unseat him. It did not work then, and I do not believe it will work now.
The people of Canada know there is a difference between discriminating against foreigners and actively encouraging Canadians. I do not believe we should discriminate against foreigners, be they American, British, German or whatever, but I do believe that we should have a government which will favour in all its actions, and through its many vehicles, including the CDC, the IDB and the EDB, Canadian-owned and controlled companies that will make their decisions based upon Canadian concerns and priorities alone. This is not the policy of the present government. It has not been its policy, and we have as yet no clear indication that it will be in the future. Surely, the Michelin fiasco should have taught this government a lesson, but that is now unlikely. Surely, the sale of that formerly all-Canadian company, which still advertises as such, Supertest, the all-British company, BP or British Petroleum, owned 50 per cent by the British government, illustrates their lack of concern.
This government's lack of concern not only for Canadian company growth but for small business is shown by what we know of this corporation's operation, and we still do not have full knowledge yet, since the accounts have not been fully audited and reported. Once again the parliamentary secretary, because of our concern for small businesses, businesses which, if given incentive and assistance, can become large, accused us of saying the corporation does not do anything at all for small business. We are not saying that it does nothing. We do say that the Canadian companies getting assistance through the EDB pay 11 per cent, while the large foreign-owned corporations pay 7 i per cent. Surely, this is a policy out of balance with our needs.
This corporation has no guidelines in respect of the amount it can lend to any single country. Surely, it would be prudent to draw up requirements that may not be violated. As it now stands, one-quarter, one-half or even a whole $1 billion could be lent to one country alone. The fact is eight countries right now have over $600 million from this corporation.
Next, I would point out that much of this financing is being utilized by these foreign countries to build transportation systems. That, in itself, is good and a valuable thing, but up to the end of December, $360 million has been pledged to such transportation systems. If our urban centres approach the federal government for funds to improve their urban transportation systems, they are told there is no money. Our priorities are wrong under the present government when a Crown corporation that is virtually out of control is allowed to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars to others, while our own people are told there are no funds available.
This corporation has many facets yet the minister, with this narrow bill, is trying to slip through only one facet of the corporation's operation without giving parliament an opportunity to look at the entire operation. If all the facts were known concerning the operation of this corporation, including its insurance of foreign investment to the extent

March 15, 1973
Export Development Act
of 150 per cent of the actual investment, it would be a national disgrace. As far as possible, we intend to bring out these facts before the committee, and we give the minister notice that we will expect him to table audited financial statements for the corporation at the committee hearings.
The government has put the gun to our head, however, in that it has indicated the passage of this bill is a priority. It certainly has top priority, because the Liberal government realized it had been embarrassed by still another bungle, having still another ceiling illegally exceeded, and by still another minister having no clear understanding with his subordinates of what constitutes fact or fiction.
The government has said it will not bring on its housing legislation until this bill has passed second reading. We do not wish to hold up whatever good there may be in the housing legislation. That, and that alone, is the reason we are submitting. What it could not achieve by persuasion, it is achieving once more by using as blackmail our known and rightful concern about the wellbeing of Canadians. We therefore will agree to allow this bill to go to the committee, but our stand in opposition to it and the tactics used by the minister in respect of this corporation is far from ended. I sincerely hope this bill will not be allowed to return to this House without significant amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). If he speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of winding up the debate on second reading. From my vantage point, this debate has taken a considerable period of time. We started second reading six weeks ago. I think it is worth reflecting on the length of time considering that we have before us a straightforward amendment to the Export Development Corporation Act. Normally, it might have been expected to be sent to the standing committee after a day's debate, where it would have been considered in some detail. I think we have lost six weeks of valuable time.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have listened very carefully to the points raised by hon. members opposite, and have wondered whether they are aware, as most of us are, that any debate on second reading is a debate on the principle of the bill.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest respect to the minister, I question his right to leave the impression that we have lingered over this bill for six weeks. He knows full well that the government has discretion as to what legislation will be introduced and with what legislation we will proceed. We are not suggesting the bill is not important, but I do not think it is proper for the minister to mislead the House in this way. As a matter of fact, I believe the record will show that we have considered the matter for little better than three days, which is not unacceptable.

I think the record should be clear that it has not been a six week debate. If they had chosen to proceed with the bill in the usual way, the debate could have been over in three days, three and a half days, or perhaps four days. But I think that, under the circumstances, it is improper for the minister to leave that impression on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order, it is really a point of debate. I think we have made this point from the Chair over and over again in this parliament, and Mr. Speaker had some extra words of advice to the House on this point the other day. I really think that hon. members should not use the rules and, under the guise of a point of order, bring in matters which can be dealt with in the ordinary debating process.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to recall for the benefit of hon. members opposite that this Crown corporation was created by an act of parliament in 1969. At that time, the bill went through a very considerable consultative process and process of examination at second reading, but more particularly in committee. That is where the detailed examination of the bill took place and should take place. It was reported out and passed, I think, with the support of virtually all members of the House. Subsequently, there was an amendment with respect to the particular item with which we are dealing today, namely, to increase the ceiling on direct loans. Again, that went through very rapidly without nearly four days of debate as we have had on this occasion. That was the point which I thought was well worth recording, that if there had been a serious interest on the part of Conservative members to examine this bill, they would have sent it to committee six weeks ago.


An hon. Member:: That is before you fouled it up.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would ask hon. members opposite whether they are more interested in talking about policy, about problems, or doing something about them. This bill and these amendments are aimed at increasing the basic ceiling on direct loans to foreign purchasers of Canadian equipment, loans which will very directly increase the employment levels of this country in the capital goods producing industries.


An hon. Member:: By how much?


Alastair William Gillespie: I will get to that point, Mr. Speaker. If I am not able to answer all the bootlegged questions this afternoon, I am sure I will have an opportunity to do so in committee, and I look forward to that. But talk is one thing, action is another. I would hope that hon. members opposite will consider it their responsibility to deal with the export potential, with the health and viability of the Canadian manufacturing industry in a forthright way because that, in a very real sense, is what the bill is all about.
As the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) said in his remarks to which I listened very carefully, the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. Either they want to support the manufacturing industries or they
March 15, 1973

do not, and if they cannot make up their minds-and that is the position they are in-


Walter David Baker: Sophistry.


Alastair William Gillespie: -I hope they will be forthright enough to say so.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Worry about your own position.


Alastair William Gillespie: As I indicated, we will have plenty of opportunity in committee to examine the procedures provided in this bill and the lending practices of the corporation. The officials of the corporation are looking forward to the same process themselves. They feel that their success story is a success story which all hon. members should hear, that through the committee, the Canadian people can come to understand how the export industries of Canada have been supported.


Walter David Baker: That is not what they are saying internally.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to deal with one or two criticisms that were raised in the course of debate on second reading. The first category is that of an unplanned bill or unplanned action, and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) led off with a statement that he thought, in the circumstances existing at that time,-he was referring back to last summer-the full co-operation of all opposition parties would have been cheerfully given to the expediting of a bill such as this. In other words, his argument was that we should have introduced this measure last September. Well, I ask hon. members, can we really accept this as a serious question? I think the simple answer is, no. All political parties at that time were adopting an election posture and the hon. member for Trinity was in his own search for a new election posture.


An hon. Member:: Is that your strongest point?


Alastair William Gillespie: An allegation was made by the hon. member for St. Catharine's (Mr. Morgan) this afternoon who said something like this: they ask us to bail them out, they have overstepped the work. The last Conservative speaker said something about a shameful misrepresentation to the House and the hon. member accused me of this shameful misrepresentation.


An hon. Member:: That is putting it mildly.


Alastair William Gillespie: He was referring to the matter of the authority on the lending ceilings. I am sure that the hon. member will be generous enough in committee to withdraw that statement when he is confronted with the facts.


An hon. Member:: No way.


Alastair William Gillespie: He will not have an opportunity perhaps until that time to make such a withdrawal, but I think it might be useful at this point-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We know what your legal authority says.


Alastair William Gillespie: -to read to members of the House an answer to the allegation which has been made, the question of exceeding the authority under the act.
Export Development Act
Under section 30 of the act, which fixes the limit for section 29 loans and guarantees, the corporation may not have instruments outstanding at any time in excess of $850 million. At February 28, 1973 the level of instruments outstanding totalled $502 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Under what definition?


Alastair William Gillespie: I ask hon. members opposite to listen carefully.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They don't want to listen.


Alastair William Gillespie: If they listen, they should learn something, but who can be sure of that? The answer goes on to read:
Instruments become outstanding only when disbursements are made under signed financing agreements.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who said that?


Alastair William Gillespie: It goes on to read:
Disbursements take place over an extended period after the signing of financing agreements. Concurrently during this period instruments are being retired as repayments of principal are made on loans outstanding. The corporation may, therefore, sign financing agreements somewhat in excess of the ceiling applicable to instruments so long as this never obligates the EDC to purchase instruments exceeding the statutory ceiling.
Hon. members opposite, or some of them, may have their own legal interpretation, but they will have an opportunity of putting it forward at a later date.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Alastair William Gillespie: But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those are the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has referred to a legal opinion. I would like him to table that in this House since it relates to the point he has just made.


An hon. Member:: Sit down. You are not in a boardroom now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that is a point of order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of Bill C-3, to amend the Export Development Corporation Act, to raise the lending ceiling, is therefore not because the corporation has exceeded the ceiling but because its capacity to sign new agreements under the present ceiling falls considerably short of the anticipated requirements for new financing in 1973, estimated to be in the order of $500 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is new business for Canada, and it represents new Canadian jobs. That is the reason we have brought this bill forward at this time.
There were other references with respect to the operations of the Export Development Corporation. There was a suggestion that in some way this was a Canadian corporation which was subsidizing big business, or subsidizing the foreign-controlled multinational corporations in Canada, that in some way it was oriented to bigness and

March 15, 1973
Export Development Act
oriented to foreign control. The basic reason I think hon. members made a mistake and misjudged the situation is that they are unaware-or if they were aware they chose to overlook it, even though on occasion they were reminded by myself-that the direct loans are not made to the vendors, to the Canadian corporations. The direct loans are made to the buyers.
Let us just consider the situation for a moment. Here is a country. We will call it country X.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, call it Chile.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is a country in a different part of the world. That country is concerned with capital goods, maybe locomotives. It may be building a railway and wants locomotives. When you are looking for locomotives there are perhaps a number of countries you would consider, and perhaps a number of companies within those countries that you might consider. The Export Corporation in the United Kingdom, the ECGD, and the Ex-IM Bank in the United States, and similar types of export financing corporations in various countries would support their own industries in such a case. They would say to this country X that is looking for a supplier of locomotives, "We build good locomotives in the United States." "We build good locomotives in the United Kingdom," or in France, or wherever it is. "We would like you to buy British locomotives."
For a long time Canada was not part of this game. For a long time we let the more sophisticated export industries of the world take the cream off without Canadian initiative. But with the passage of the 1969 act, an act that was passed by the last parliament of Canada without the kind of-I don't want to use the word filibuster but at times that comes to mind-


Some hon. Members:: Come off it.


Alastair William Gillespie: -by hon. members opposite, it dealt with a situation of real need. There is still a real need. Those loans are made to the buyer if he purchases Canadian locomotives. If the buyer purchases Canadian locomotives he gets a loan. If he purchases British locomotives he does not, but then he gets a loan from the British government agency to buy the locomotives. This is putting Canadian capital goods producers on a competitive basis with foreign capital goods exporters.
The EDC direct loans are oriented towards capital goods, and they are oriented to countries outside Canada. Further, they are oriented to all the businesses of Canada, because unless there is 80 per cent Canadian content there is no deal. The point which I think was often overlooked by the Conservative spokesmen is that there are literally thousands of small Canadian businesses which participate, each time one of these contracts is written.
Take the Northern Electric Company of Canada that has supplied capital equipment to countries like Turkey. It has 4,000 suppliers, and for the most part they are small suppliers. I mentioned locomotives a moment ago. Montreal Locomotive Works, I understand, adds about 20 per cent of its own content, and purchases 80 per cent from manufacturers all over Canada. In other words, these direct loans spread the benefit back, through the buyer

and the major Canadian supplier, to all corners of Canada that are involved in the manufacturing industries.
Another aspect of the EDC, that is to say, the export credit insurance aspect, is worth noting.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That isn't before us today.


Alastair William Gillespie: I know that, but it was raised and referred to by hon. members, and that is why I am mentioning it in order to put the record straight. Thousands of policies have been issued under this provision. At the present time, I understand that roughly 1,000 are outstanding, and that 70 per cent of those are for amounts of less than $250,000, which is obviously an assistance to the smaller businesses in Canada. Further, they are not related just to capital goods or just to manufactured goods. They also involve consumer goods, so that this widens the application.
In committee we will have an opportunity to talk about relending loans, which is yet another aspect of the EDC's activities which brings in small business. But to suggest that through the EDC we are charging small business 10 per cent, and subsidizing big business with a 7 per cent loan, is a patent distortion of the facts.
Other questions were raised with respect to directors, the proportion of private sector directors and of public sector directors. There was a reference to the make up of the private sector directors, with the suggestion that in some way they represent only the big interests of Canada. I believe that the men who are serving from the private sector are distinguished Canadians who, in their position as directors of the EDC, are making an important contribution to the growth of Canada.
Lest there be any suggestion that there is conflict of interest, and this was raised by one of the hon. members opposite with reference to an aluminum contract, I have been informed that the President of the Aluminum Company of Canada, who is a director from the private sector, declared his interest and abstained from the vote. We can discuss whether the majority of directors should be from the private sector or from the public sector, but we are dealing with public funds and it seems to me this parliament would want to reserve unto itself the right to appoint not a majority of directors from the private sector but a majority from the servants of this parliament and this government.
Questions were raised with respect to the support of the attractive looking resort in the Caribbean. Reference was made to this as being the type of project which the EDC should not support. I am not sure it was realized that the support for this particular project was an insurance of a direct investment. There was no EDC capital used in the development of that particular resort. No resources were loaned to the developer at the other end. This was an insurance of a direct investment by a Canadian investor, and that particular part of the act is aimed at providing what might be described as political insurance, or insurance against political risk. I think it is important to note in this particular connection that that particular investment had the full support of the government concerned. In fact, the views of the government concerned were sought before the insurance was granted.
March 15, 1973

I think I have covered some of the main considerations, Mr. Speaker-the question of small business, the question of the allegations with respect to exceeding the ceiling and I have touched on the directors. There will be an opportunity in committee to examine these questions in more detail as there will be to examine the part that the particular firms have played and the important part that these capital goods purchasers have played in terms of development of their own countries according to their own priorities. A foreign country is not going to undertake an obligation to the Export Development Corporation to repay Canada in Canadian funds for the purchase of Canadian capital goods unless it feels that the particular investment will support the development of that country according to its priorities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the committee stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before I put the question I could deal at length with the point raised by the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). As I understand it, he was asking for the production of a legal opinion made available to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) with reference to this particular bill.
When I listened to the minister make his statement I did not understand that there was any quotation in his speech from that legal opinion. I think the general practice is that if a document is quoted, then it is the practice of the House to ask that the document be made available to the House. As I understand it, the minister, while using the words "legal opinion" in referring to this bill, was not quoting from this legal opinion. Therefore, I think under the circumstances, and considering the past practices of the House, it would not be proper to ask that the opinion be tabled.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Stanley Ronald 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to begin the debate on Bill C-133 today and to move that it be referred to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In our discussions today, and during the debate on second reading, I want to deal with the principles of
National Housing Act
Bill C-133, an Act to amend the National Housing Act. In my view, some fundamental principles are involved in this legislation.
When we talk, as we undoubtedly will, in this debate in a general way about the subject of housing we are talking about an elemental human need-the need for shelter, for physical and emotional comfort in that shelter. When we talk about people's basic needs-the requirements for survival-society and the government obviously have an obligation to assure that these basic needs of shelter are met.
I have already acknowledged this obligation in stating that good housing at reasonable cost is a social right of every citizen of this country. As legislators, as administrators, as a federal government working with the provinces and with the private sector, that must be our objective, our obligation and our goal. The legislation which I am proposing to the House today is an expression of the government's policy, part of a broad plan, to try to make this right and this objective a reality.
The measures presented in this bill are designed, first of all, to give Canadians the kind of help that they have a right to expect in providing themselves and their families with adequate shelter. More particularly, they are directed first at those people whose need is most urgent-the old, the poor and those people who for one reason or another do not have access to the resources which this country can provide.
In considering people's need for shelter, however, we cannot concern ourselves simply with a roof and four walls. Man is a social animal and we must look beyond his house to the community of which it is a part. The community, as well as the house, must be safe and healthy and must allow and encourage man and his family to achieve the fullest possible growth and development, physically, emotionally and spiritually.
The bill is not, however, the government's only response to this challenge; it concerns only those sections which require immediate changes in the National Housing Act and it should be seen in the context of other responses which I have already described in a previous speech to the House. These are such things as the agreement at the federal-provincial conference held in January, to the development of a comprehensive national and local assessment of housing conditions. This will ensure that federal, national and regional policies are sufficiently flexible to meet the needs that exist across the country- things which are very different in different parts of the country. Such things as other parts of a total program of planned intergovernmental intervention in residential land markets-which I will mention in a moment-to reduce land costs and assist in the orderly development of urban communities; such as the growth of new intergovernment relations to assure the fullest possible consultation and co-ordination among all levels of government in developing and planning housing and community policies and programs including important changes that have been agreed upon recently for a three year commitment of funds so that federal and provincial housing agencies can plan for more than one year. As a result of the January agreement, officials of Central Mortgage and Housing are meeting with the provinces to agree upon these forward planning commitments, a part of which will

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
be the process of getting housing away from the countercyclical economic device that it has often been in the past.
In the process of these consultations on agreement for forward budgeting, we will provide for flexibility in the allocating of funds to provinces and their provincial housing agencies to account for regional and provincial priorities and flexibility in allocating resources between the various programs of the National Housing Act.
I might mention also the thorough review which I have already announced of the federal sewage treatment program through which the federal government lends money to provinces or municipalities, their water or sewage agencies or regional governments, for the development of trunk sewers and sewage disposal plants. That program is under intensive review by an intergovernmental committee of the federal government which is consulting presently with provincial governments on their needs. I hope to have an announcement this spring on how that program will continue and in what form. An important development will entail the support of the federal government with respect to sewage treatment services. This will improve the quality of the environment and the quality of our urban life and will, in addition, be instrumental in bringing land on to the open market.
I now want to mention a bill, also on the order paper, Bill C-135, which will bring in certain amendments necessary in this field. It is known as the financial mechanisms bill and will create the federal mortgage market corporation, commonly known as a residential mortgage bank. That will provide for a liquidity of mortgage investment, which does not now exist. The bill will provide for the establishment of mortgage investment companies. I know my friends in the NDP have indicated their resistance to this legislation. I think they ought to re-examine their position on that particular bill, which is designed to make mortgage investment more attractive.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They will never agree to that bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope all hon. members will examine that bill carefully and, no matter in what part of the House they sit or which party they support, that they will support it. Bill C-135, is complementary to the bill before the House.
May I mention that there is currently under wav a reorganization within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as a result of intensive management studies within the corporation. This is being carried out to assure that the corporation, in its operations and management functions, is totally able to carry out and fulfil legislative programs that we have enacted and are enacting. So this bill before us represents only part of the total picture with respect to housing policy and with respect to meeting the housing goals of this country. In terms of legislation, this bill represents, in my view, a major attack on the housing problems that face Canadians in the 1970's. This attack will take place on a number of critical fronts. It might be well to enumerate, briefly, those ten aspects of the bill.
There is to be, first, assistance for the planning and creation of new communities where they are part of provincial plans for dealing with the problems of urban

growth-an alternative to the uncontrolled sprawl of our great cities. Second, there are to be resources to plan and finance the public acquisition of residential land, as part of an intergovernmental attack on rising land prices and as an instrument to be used for the orderly development of Canadian cities and Canadian communities. Third, there is to be assistance to low-income families who, with some help, will be able to buy their own homes rather than occupy public housing or other forms of subsidized rental housing. Fourth, there is to be increased assistance to voluntary groups such as church groups and service clubs who are willing to take the initiative in creating housing for low-income people, and particularly the elderly. Fifth, there is to be assistance to co-operative housing corporations, to encourage personal initiative in the development of housing and to offer a wider range of choice, particularly to lower-income and middle-income people, in the kind of housing they will have and the way in which they will occupy it.
Sixth, there is to be a new and imaginative program designed to preserve and improve urban residential neighbourhoods which are a vital strand in the social fabric of Canada but which may be threatened with death and decay. Seventh, there is to be a program of assistance to rescue and restore old, deteriorating housing which, with some judicious investment, could have many more years of usable life. Eighth, there will be provisions to assist Indians living on reserves to acquire existing as well as new housing. Ninth, there is to be the first step towards a full program of protection for some buyers, similar to the warranties and guarantees offered to purchasers of other consumer products. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last feature of Bill C-133 will be new measures to encourage research and development in housing and community planning.
In recommending this legislation to the House, Mr. Speaker, I do so with the knowledge that it has been the subject of very extensive and thorough federal-provincial consultation and public examination. As hon. members know, a counterpart bill was introduced to parliament last June which had been the subject of intensive consultation with provinces. I have had the opportunity of discussing the provisions of that forerunner bill, and of this bill, in general terms with provincial ministers concerned with housing and with many municipal representatives. The most recent discussions took place at the federal-provincial conference on housing which, as I mentioned, was held here in January, of this year. The official communique of the conference expressed, after the outcome of previous consultations which had gone on at the official level was known, the general support of the provinces for these proposals.
Many of the suggestions made by provincial ministers concerned the implementation of these programs, rather than the legislative provisions themselves, and matters which are covered by regulation rather than statute. This matter will continue to be the subject of continuing consultation at the official level. It concerns not only orders in council and the regulations that support the legislation but the administrative procedures that flow from them.
As well, there has been advice and comment from many public and private organizations, and I should like to
March 15, 1973

acknowledge now my appreciation of the time and great energy which so many people have devoted to the study and analysis of these important public issues. I think all hon. members have been impressed so far with the briefs and submissions which have been tendered by interested groups of citizens who have concerned themselves with housing policy in this country. All of this advice that we have received has been carefully considered and many of their suggestions have been incorporated in the bill and will result in further changes in detail when we reach the committee stage.
I have been encouraged to find, so far as the principles of the legislation are concerned, that they have received widespread acceptance by those people and organizations who have given them careful consideration. The Canadian Council on Social Development, for example, has described the proposed programs as significant ones, which, if properly funded-and I think we should discuss funding of the programs in Committee-


Mr. Gilbert:: If properly funded.


Mr.   Bastard@: -promises to improve the accommodation of many Canadians. The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada has written, expressing general agreement with the tenor of the amendments. The Co-operative Housing Foundation and the Ontario Habitat Foundation of Toronto joined, I understand-although not in any written form, by the B.C. central credit union which is heavily involved in housing-suggest that this bill, if passed, will represent an enormous advance over the present National Housing Act.


John Gilbert: What about the proposed changes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will deal with them in a minute.
Having shown in general terms the general nature of the support for the bill, I should like to deal now with the particular aspects of the bill in terms of the principles involved and leave the discussion of the details of programs until we meet in committee, when I and my officials will discuss the bill in detail, go through it clause by clause and be examined on those clauses.
In its broadest sense, it seems to me this legislation is not only an attack on housing problems of the 1970's but is part of the government's response to the development of urban life in Canada during the rest of this century. Great cities are not and need not become disaster areas. We are all aware of the deeply satisfying aspects of life in the country and in country towns and villages. Rural areas of Canada have contributed and continue to foster some of the abiding values that have made Canada and her people great. But cities also have a contribution to make in their rich and exciting social and cultural diversity.
Our concern must be to see that Canadians continue to have a meaningful choice among places to live and work. Our irreplaceable farmland and our rural communities with their unique life styles must not be mindlessly gobbled up by sprawling suburbs. At the same time, those people who prefer an urban life must be accommodated in a way that preserves the advantages of the city while avoiding the congestion, pollution, crime and violence which have made many of the world's great urban centres almost uninhabitable.
National Housing Act
In many parts of Canada, an alternative to the continued expansion of the city is the development of new communities, either within urban-centred regions or in remote areas associated with the development of natural resources.
The new communities program, which is new to the National Housing Act, with the co-operation and participation of provincial and local governments will assist in the development of new or expanded centres offering comprehensively planned urban functions, including housing, employment, commercial and community facilities. Measures will ensure that the public retains the benefit resulting from subsequent appreciation in value of land acquired for the communities. Hon. members will note that that is provided in the bill by leasing of the public land rather than by its sale which has invariably been the practice under land assembly schemes of the past.
Very simply, then, it is my expectation that through the new communities program, which is provided for in this legislation for the first time as a federal initiative, we can make a positive contribution by taking much of the pressure off rapidly growing existing cities by creating new and self sufficient communities with the co-ordinated and rational use of existing government programs. This would take pressure off prices, the need for further farmland for development, and the need for urban sprawl and at the same time, by way of the total planning of new communities, engage in a whole series of experiments and demonstration projects using these new techniques in housing, planning and development. One such community was announced for the national capital region, south-east of Ottawa. We will be assembling the land, meeting with the regional district and over many years developing the kinds of plans we need for that community.
Associated with a new community's program is the provision in the existing National Housing Act relating to land assembly which Bill C-133 vastly improves. Land assembly has been mentioned in this House many times during the question period. The price of land is one of the most critical factors in the cost of housing in most markets throughout Canada.
All governments must be prepared to act to increase the supply of serviced land if housing is to continue to be available and financially accessible to Canadians. An over-all land strategy is necessary, and to this end I propose to encourage provincial and municipal governments to become more active in public land acquisition and servicing.
As I announced in January, the federal government is committed to at least $100 million a year for the next five years for the public assembly of land, including assistance to new communities. This figure, of course, has no reference to the vast amounts of money that have been and will continue to be spent under the existing and to be reformed trunk sewer program. Many have argued, and I have noticed this comment in the press, that $100 million per year is not enough for a concerted attack on rising land prices. It happens to be five times more than the Conservative party enunciated as their housing platform.

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that this amount is substantially more than any government has put forward for this purpose in the past in this country and, indeed, is substantially more than the combined requests of all the provinces in any year to date for the purpose of land assembly. I hope that the opposition, rather than concentrating on some amount, will see that the program is good. Then, we can go out and encourage municipalities and provinces to take full advantage of it and show that in actual fact that that amount is not enough. If it is not enough, we will just have to go out and get some more.
The land assembly provision is only part of the answer to the price of land, the question of land development and bringing serviced land into the market. At the federal-provincial conference, we discussed the question of land in a proposal of mine which was accepted by the provinces, namely that in this country we need a comprehensive co-ordinated land strategy directed at the question of a land policy and a housing policy.
Between the federal-provincial and municipal governments, there are four topics which have to be addressed by them as priority items. This is what I proposed at the federal-provincial conference and which was accepted. The first item is the level and allocation of federal and provincial public investment in land and services. As three levels of government, we must agree as to the level of expenditure that is required to have a concerted attack on the question of land price and land development.
The second item is the objectives and guidelines for public land banking and development. There is no sense in us simply using the taxpayer's resources and support to engage in land speculation. Purchases of land must have a purpose, namely good community planning and an effective intervention on the land market to affect the price of land in that particular market.
The third item is ways and means of co-ordinating federal-provincial and municipal activities directed toward moderating land prices on an individual market basis. If we are going to have a concerted attack on the question of land, it is going to involve all three levels of government for obvious reasons. We have got to develop more effective ways of co-ordinating activities between these three levels of government.
The fourth item is the effects of federal, provincial and municipal taxes on the price and availability of land. This is indeed a very important subject and I invited the other levels of government to address themselves on that with me. I feel that the federal commitment in this legislation, the federal commitment in terms of this budget and the federal commitment we have made to the other levels of government in wanting to develop a co-ordinated plan are in fact important features at the root of this question of land costs.
I now want to deal with a third element of Bill C-133. It is my belief that home ownership is desirable, but obviously for low and moderate income families, this is often impossible. We have to address ourselves to this problem. With some help, however, many of these low income families will be able to buy their own homes. The present bill contains provisions for this kind of assistance.

The amount of help available to a family under the assisted home ownership program is related to the family income and can be given in three ways; by reducing the interest rate on the mortgage, by extending the time over which the mortgage is to be repaid, and by a grant from the federal government to help with the monthly payments. In drafting the regulations necessary to implement this program throughout Canada, local needs and market conditions will be taken into account so that insofar as it is humanly possible, all Canadians will benefit equitably.
The aim will be, within the program regulations, to provide low income families who qualify with the assistance required to bring their monthly payments within 22 per cent of their income. The payment that would be required of them for purchasing a home toward principal, interest and taxes would not exceed more than 22 per cent of their income. For example, a family with two children-
Tho Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger): Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hesitate to ask the indulgence of the House. I am half way through my statement. I should be happy to complete it now, or at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Have a good supper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We would be glad to co-operate with the minister but if he is only half way through his statement, he would, were he to continue, be seriously cutting in to the private members' hour which is so precious.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There is no unanimity, so the rest of the statement will have to be postponed until eight o'clock.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the so-called Bryden report concerning the revision of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which was submitted to the then minister of manpower and immigration in June, 1971.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this debate is on a motion which some of us feel is important in itself, namely, that the so-called Bryden Report should be made public. However, the debate takes on an even wider significance today because there have been suggestions that there is less than complete satisfaction on this side of the House, at least, with the way in which the government responds to
March 15, 1973

motions for papers, and also because earlier today the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) tabled a document which, he suggested, listed the guidelines used by the government in responding to these motions. In this instance we are not only debating the desirability of the Bryden Report being tabled, we are also examining the government's general practice with regard to motions of this kind.
I should like to make a suggestion. I do not know how sympathetic a response will be forthcoming from the other side, but I make it very strongly. It is that there could not be a better motion on which to test this whole question and determine whether or not the House is satisfied with the position the government takes-I refer not only to its position on this motion but also to the statement which I believe the President of the Privy Council proposes to make in the course of this debate. I suggest, therefore, that if this debate is not concluded by six o'clock this evening the item before us should remain at the top of the list so that in a subsequent private members' hour the balance of the 90 minutes could be taken up, following which there could be a vote. In this way we could determine what the House felt about the matter. Whether the minister wishes to interrupt me, and respond at this point, remains to be seen. But if there is no response, and if the debate does not end at six o'clock, we shall be asking this-and we shall be asking it not in a casual way, as is sometimes done during private members' hour, but very seriously, because we think this is an important issue.
The document I am asking the government to table is a report prepared on the whole question of revising the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It relates to a matter which is of considerable concern to all hon. members, and one which is of particular concern to members of the Public Service. We, and they, feel that this report which the government has obtained should be made public, and I believe the House should have a chance to vote on this issue.
As for the guidelines the President of the Privy Council tabled at two o'clock this afternoon, copies of which he has supplied to a number of us on this side, I do not quite know how to describe them in polite language. Somewhere in the books on procedure there is a story about a bill which was introduced into the House of Commons at Westminster, one which the House, generally, disliked. At one point an hon. member moved that it not only be thrown out but that it be kicked right out of the chamber. A couple of members, so the books say, did precisely that, physically. I do not know that these guidelines are even worth kicking around. I do not want to take the time to read them all. Maybe the minister will. I do not know how we ever get anything if this is the document the President of the Privy Council has distributed among cabinet ministers as a guide to dealing with members' requests for papers.
As I say, I do not know how we ever get anything. The document consists of two long pages, 8i inches by 14, in typewritten form. Documents are to be tabled in certain circumstances, but there are exemptions-16 of them, 16 different exceptions to the general rule that documents requested in the House of Commons should be tabled.
Public Service
Then there are paragraphs about ministerial correspondence of a personal nature, or requests having to do with constituency or general political matters. That is an excuse which is probably acceptable. We do not want to go into the personal files of ministers. Then there is another section of four long paragraphs about studies made by consultants. I do not know how anything gets by these guidelines. As a matter of fact, very little does. These motions for papers appear on the order paper by the hundreds. The number to which a favourable response has been given can be measured in tens.
Much better than the document tabled by the President of the Privy Council earlier today is a statement which was made in the House of Commons on October 29, 1969 It is to be found at page 251 of Hansard of that date. The person speaking was a new member, and he had the privilege of taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In fact, he moved or seconded the motion. This is what he said:
It seems to me that we in this House must devise a better program to provide a more plentiful flow of information, and more meaningful information to the people. Over the years-and I am not attributing responsibility for this to any one government or party-a tremendous amount of unnecessary secrecy has developed in connection with the business of government. It seems to me we have done this: Somewhere, way back, we started from the assumption that everything was secret and that only the minimum information possible should be released. Surely a far better and more democratic approach would be to proceed on the assumption that everything is open, and only to withhold information from the general public when this is clearly necessary on the grounds of public interest or for security reasons.
The next line in Hansard reads:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us begin today.
The person who made that excellent pronouncement is today the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I think that is a much better guideline for this whole business than those tabled this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
I also have in my hand a copy of a paper entitled "How Much Administrative Secrecy?", written by Donald C. Rowat of Carleton University and which appeared in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science in November, 1965. This is a very useful paper, in my view, and it deals with the question of how the tendency seems to have grown up that the first thing to do with government papers is to say that they are secret and can only be released under the most extreme circumstances.
The writer of this paper is attracted by the provision in Sweden that actually goes the other way around. Let me quote a paragraph from it:
This provision is so unusual, perhaps unique in the world, that one immediately thinks of the many circumstances under which secrecy is desirable. How can such a provision work successfully in practice? Are there not serious limitations upon its application? The answer is that of course there are limitations, and these are provided for in the constitution itself. But the important point is that the principle has been reversed: whereas in most countries all documents are secret unless a specific authority is given for their release, in Sweden they are all public unless legal provision has been made for them to be withheld.

March 15, 1973
Public Service
This paper goes on to say that the actual wording of that provision is in the constitution, and it is given here in the paper itself.
I do not want to take the time of the House unduly because I should like to hear what the minister has to say, but it seems to me, in the quiet of this private members' hour, that we are discussing something that is very important. I think it is important that the Bryden report be tabled. I think it is also important that we establish the principle that government documents should be open unless there is good reason for their being kept secret-in other words, that we should get'away from the present practice which is the very reverse of this.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I present this motion in the hope that either before six o'clock this evening or at the next hour that is appointed for this category of motions the House will have a chance to vote on this motion, and in so doing to vote in a way that expresses an opinion on the guidelines tabled today by the President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have been concerned, as have other hon. members, about the increasing use of notices of motions for the production of papers. A very large number of motions have been put down, and in recent years the number has been growing. I have examined the responses of the government to these motions which generally have been quite good. Motions have been turned down because in some cases the papers that were requested did not exist, or there were other good reasons for turning the motions down. However, I felt, and certainly the government felt, that it would be in the interests of the House of Commons to make public the guidelines that we have now circulated to government departments, with the view that a uniform practice with respect to the production of information in the House of Commons will be developed.
I do not believe that up to the present time there has been put before the House in any form the guidelines that the government will use and which hon. members can examine as they frame their notices of motions for the production of papers. My approach and the approach of the government is exactly the approach of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Our objective is to make as much information available as possible. We believe that Members of Parliament require factual information about the operations of the government in order that they may carry out their parliamentary duties. That statement is included in the general principle. We are also aware that the desire to make available as much information as possible must be balanced against effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights to privacy. It is always a delicate matter of judgment to balance the desire to make information available with the effective administration of the government, security of the state and other considerations.
So on the first point, Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. I endorse fully the statement that was quoted, made at an earlier time by the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). What we

have attempted to do here is to declare a general principle and then to say that there are exceptions to that general principle. While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed his displeasure with the guidelines, he did not focus on any particular one of them, nor did he give any reason why any of these guidelines should not be invoked. I hope it will be possible to make these guidelines an appendix to Hansard, so hon. members will have them available and this debate can be related to the guidelines that have been laid on the table today. I want to make a number of points with respect to these guidelines. First of all, eight of them are soundly grounded on recognized parliamentary authorities. For example, No. 1 is "Legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government". There is ample authority to support that, and likewise guidelines Nos. 2, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16. We have not acted capriciously; we have attempted to base our conclusions upon recognized practice, and we have succeeded on relying on parliamentary authorities, both in Canada and in the United Kingdom, in establishing these guidelines.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to practices in Sweden. It is sometimes believed that Sweden has a totally open system of provision of information to the public, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden has a very wide-ranging system of exemptions regarding disclosure of public information. For example, seven of these guidelines that have been laid on the table today are in conformity with modern practices in Sweden. For example, No. 2, papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the state; No. 3, papers dealing with international relations; No. 5, papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or group of persons; No. 6, papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual; No. 10, papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract, before the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded; No. 11, papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute and No. 13, any proceedings before a court of justice or a judicial inquiry of any sort.
These guidelines and these exemptions are followed in Sweden which is put forward as having the recognized model, at least by some people, of the open information system. I believe when you examine the Swedish system you will find it has wide ranging grounds and reasons for refusing information, and in those areas where information is available what happens is that instead of putting this material on the record there is a much greater use of full discussion in private meetings so the information will not get on the record and, therefore, it is by that fact excluded from public disclosure. Whether we want that kind of a system in Canada is quite questionable in my judgment.
We have examined also the practice in the United States and found that nine of the guidelines which have been proposed here are in accordance with United States practice. I may refer to them just by number so that hon. members can have them available. They are Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16. The purpose of that particular line of argument is to establish that the government has not
March 15, 1973

acted capriciously, but has made extensive research into practices in other countries and into other parliamentary authorities in order to bring forward a system that might be generally acceptable.
I suggest to hon. members that if they object to these guidelines they ought to object to particular items. Do they, for example, believe that legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government should be made public? If that is their position, and we could go down through each of these guidelines, then it seems to me the opposition should take the responsibility for telling the government and the country that it believes papers reflecting on personal competence or the character of individuals in government should be made public, and that they believe government documents which include Privy Council confidences-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How does that become involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a series of guidelines that have been adopted as a basis for public disclosure and use-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a Cabinet document.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, it is a Cabinet directive in respect of the approach the government will use in dealing with this important question of freedom of papers. I do not regard it as a Cabinet document at all.


Mr. Howard:: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will at the end of my statement.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to an article by Dr. Rowat of Carleton University. This is an interesting article which promoted the response from Professor Knight of the University of Queensland in 1966. In that interesting article there is strong defence for not disclosing internal departmental memoranda. That is one of the main areas of interest in notices of motions asking departments to produce internal memoranda.
I refer hon. members to that article and, if I may quote one or two paragraphs of some interest to this particular discussion, I will do so. I refer to the suggestion that internal departmental memoranda ought to be made public. Professor Knight said:
The civil servant may feel, too, that he must avoid placing on record anything which is likely to offend or cut across the interests of any individual or group in the community. This could affect not only the generalist administrator having a policy advisory role, but also the large body of officials whose work is concerned essentially with matters of a technical or professional nature. An officer who prepared a report on, say, the relative merits of butter and margarine, might well find himself the centre of a political controversy long before any decision about subsidies or production restrictions had been reached at the political level. Even if he wished to defend himself and had the ability as a controversialist to do so, the means open to him to do so would hardly be adequate.
In my view it is both unwise and unfair to expect civil servants to engage in public controversy; but under conditions of open access they may be forced to do so, especially since not all ministers accept the obligation to assume sole public responsibility for departmental policies and to defend permanent officials who cannot defend themselves.
Public Service
Whenever a minister did not accept the advice of his departmental officials this would be known and it would be possible for political capital to be made of it. In these circumstances ministers would surely be tempted to fill senior posts with their political sympathizers or with officials prepared always to be acquiescent. The career civil servant would thus be jeopardized and there would be a stifling of frank criticism within departments.
If officials know that what they write is to become available to the public immediately or in the near future, many will be inclined to produce public records with an eye to history. That is to say, they are likely to put into their documents only what they believe will reflect creditably on them personally or upon the administration with which they are associated.
It stands to reason that if an individual or a particular departmental official, assistant deputy minister or deputy minister was to provide confidential advice for the use of the government, then he would present that advice in a much more frank and open way than he would if he knew the advice was to be made public. That principle was stated many years ago, even though it was restated in 1966 by Professor Knight. It was stated many years ago by Disraeli who said:
The system of laying upon the table of the House reports from officers addressed to particular departments of the executive government is most objectionable. And the House ought not to insist upon the production of papers and correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures; they would thereby put a stop to that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures." If the House were to insist upon the production of such documents, "instead of the government getting what we get now, confidential reports, containing the most minute details of the opinions of officers, given frankly and freely, for the heads of departments, we shall have a system of reports framed for laying upon the table of the House of Commons, and those will be accompanied by 'confidential reports for the head of the department alone'." There have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of the government have been laid upon the table of the House, to prepare the public mind and also that of Parliament, to consent to some large measure, or perhaps some considerable vote of public money; but, generally, I think it is a course which the House ought not to sanction".
Perhaps the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) would say that that is 100 years old, but it was restated recently by Professor Knight.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: How old is he?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Recently we had the Royal Commission on Security. I refer hon. members to paragraph 223 of its report, which reads:
We believe the process of policy-making implies a need for wide-ranging and tentative consideration of options, many of which it would be silly or undesirable to expose to the public gaze.
I could cite other examples, but that is the case for refusing to make public internal departmental documents. Any man who is writing for the public at large, who is writing for history, who is writing to have his views aired in public, is bound to couch this words in a different manner than if they are to be confidential and detailed. I doubt whether anybody can successfully contest that conclusion.
The argument for maintaining, so to speak, the protection of internal departmental memoranda has been stated and restated by this government and its predecessor. I

March 15, 1973
Public Service
believe it is a sound principle because it contributes to effective public administration. I believe that hon. members who take another view are entitled to do so, and certainly their views would be considered by the government. But I know that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) put a private member's bill on the order paper during the last parliament and he, too, laid out a fairly complete list of exemptions, matters that in his view should not be made public. Hon. members can compare this list of exemptions with those contained in the guidelines and they will find considerable similarity in substance between the approach we have taken and the approach in the private member's bill of the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) has introduced for several years a private member's bill and he, too, has laid down certain exemptions, certain areas of information which in his view should not be made public. So it seems to me there certainly is general agreement that certain documents cannot be made public. Certainly there is no quarrel about refusing to release papers which would, if released, be detrimental to the security of the state.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who decides that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to inform the minister that his time has expired. Is it agreed that the minister should continue?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Within reasonable limits.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite agreeable for the minister to proceed by unanimous consent. Of course, there are only 25 minutes left in private members' hour. I wonder whether as a companion to such unanimous consent we could agree to leave this item at the top of the order paper so that we could debate it further next time it comes up.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We would be agreeable to giving the minister a reasonable extension of time as well as to leaving this bill on top of the list so that we could complete it, if not in this session, in the next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I have two points of order before me. First, I must obtain the unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to continue his expose; second, I need the unanimous consent of the House to give priority to this bill. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: But shall the minister continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House in giving me a few additional minutes. This is a very extensive subject and I have not done justice to it. There is a great deal of information in con-
(Mr. MacEachen.]
nection with the studies made on this subject which I can possibly make available to the House.
What we have done in the interest of making available more information, not less, and to produce it more expeditiously and uniformly, is to present these guidelines. We expect hon. members to read them and to consider them individually. If good arguments can be brought forward why any particular guideline should not be in effect, then we would certainly consider the views of hon. members because I believe it is important to have some public paper that tells us why a particular minister rises and says, "I refuse to produce a document". We can do that now and hon. members will know the grounds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Will he tell us the value of these guidelines, particularly the one that says a cabinet document is not to be tabled, when it is left to the minister to say that one document is a cabinet document and another is not? How do we know where we stand?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Every announcement made by a minister in the House on orders of the day, for example, or a statement on motions, issues from a cabinet decision and a cabinet document. There is no question that many of them do. But when a minister tables a statement or makes a statement, he is not producing a cabinet document. As the hon. member knows, when cabinet documents are presented by ministers to the cabinet, some of the proposals may be accepted, some rejected or the whole thing may be rejected.
What kind of a system would we have if cabinet documents were made public and a particular minister would have the world know that he was unsuccessful, for example, in having his policies accepted by his colleagues? In my opinion it would lead to the breakdown of our cabinet system. Who decides what is a cabinet document? It is not a difficult question, because cabinet documents are visible; we all know what cabinet documents are when we see them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who decided that this one was not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I have said, this is a statement of policy adopted by the government, and of course it issued from cabinet and cabinet committee discussions. But all the documents that were prepared and considered have not been produced. I do not think that, as such, this is really a statement of policy by the government. If the hon. member saw the original documents, he would see them in a somewhat different form. I presume that a government could decide to make public a cabinet document if it wished, but what we are doing here is trying to establish guidelines that are generally acceptable and are sound.
Then it comes to the question of administering the guidelines. Are they properly administered? There can be difference of opinion on that score. For example, what are "papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded?" One must presume that the minister or the government is playing fair with the House if he
March 15, 1973

or it makes a refusal on the basis of guideline No. 10. One must assume that the truth is being told. If the government was not telling the truth, it would ultimately be found out. Whether it is the present government or any other government, in all these cases it would be found out.
The question really is: are these guidelines sound in principle? If we accept that they are sound in principle, the next question is: are they being administered properly? In the last few months I have taken considerable interest in this particular question because I wanted to make sure that when papers were refused they were refused on grounds that were solid in principle and that the principle was being properly applied. I have gone to various departments and ministers on occasion and asked, "Are you sure?" I think that is about the best we can do. I do not know of any other alternative.
I do not want to speak any longer, Mr. Speaker, except to suggest to hon. members that it would be useful to look at these guidelines, to consider them, to make argument about them and to determine whether they are sound in principle. If they are sound in principle, then we should attempt to administer them properly. If they are unsound in principle, then we should change them. That is why we have taken the effort to produce the guidelines and to make them available to the House. I hope this will result in a uniform practice and that hon. members will get more information rather than less. The purpose is to establish in general the principle that we give as much information as possible, with these exceptions. If this is sound in principle, it should be adhered to; if unsound, it should be abandoned. That is the gist of my argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) I would remind hon. members that during his speech the minister suggested that a document tabled today should be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For document above referred to, see Appendix "B".]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk)-Canadian Culture-Multicul-turalism-Maintenance of rights of cultural groups following takeover of radio station CKSB by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the hon. member for York-
Public Service
Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Export Development Corporation-Possible exceeding of ceiling on loans-Request for audit.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the so-called Bryden report concerning the revision of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which was submitted to the then minister of manpower and immigration in June, 1971.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I think the House is very grateful to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for taking the initiative in producing these regulations or criteria with respect to the production of papers.
Ever since I have been a member of this House it has been a continuous frustration to me that it has never been quite possible to know the guidelines by which notices of motions for the production of papers were either accepted or rejected, and which qualifications on occasion were enforced. Due to the shortness of notice I have not had time to examine the record on this, but I do not think it would take much effort by any hon. member to go back over the record of the past few years, look at the reasons given for tabling and for not tabling documents and to realize the sheer inconsistency with which the guidelines were enforced. I can remember one or two instances with respect to papers that where the same documents involved two departments, a motion for their release would be accepted by one department and refused by the other. One department would say that on basis of the beliefs of its officials it was not in the interest of the department to have the papers put on the record, and the other would say that according to its officials it did not see anything to prevent publication of the documents.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has said the problem that arises far too often is not really the basic question concerning security of the state, but the basic question concerning security of the government, of individual members of it, of government departments or of departmental officials. As I say, I commend the minister for bringing this matter forward but I am a little amazed that he has gone only this far.
He has asked for comment. Considering the brief time we have had to look at this document, we can make only initial comments. If he is sincere in this matter, and I hope he is, it should not be left just for a few minutes' debate in this hour or in any subsequent private members' hour. It deserves exhaustive examination, and the place for that examination would be the appropriate committee of the House. I can think of few more important tasks that committees could undertake in this parliament than to examine the detailed nature of this document and to consider the qualifications necessary for the release of infor-

March 15, 1973
Public Service
mation in a public way. Following that, the document should be returned to this House, either in its present form or amended, for final approval.
In this way we would at least be dealing with criteria established as acceptable to hon. members of this House, and not with criteria put forward by the present government just for this period of time, to be altered without anyone's particular knowledge at a subsequent date. We have no knowledge of how long these particular criteria have been in effect. Presumably, this document is a compilation of previous regulations that have existed and it is the latest document of that type.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but these criteria were formally approved and put into effect, I believe, in the month of February. We are trying to work our way forward from there, within these limits.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me again commend the minister for at least getting to this stage with this volume of criteria. As I say, the House appreciates receiving them, but this is just a first step. It is not really enough to say that these are adequate just because in other domains similar criteria are exercised with some merit.
The minister, perhaps inadvertently, gave the essential criteria that have existed for many years in terms of the tabling of papers under notices of motions for the production of papers when he said-I think I quote him correctly-that papers, in the final analysis, are not tabled either because the papers do not exist or for other good reasons. He has given us some reasons that now have been approved by cabinet and I am somewhat wondering, with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), just what papers could be tabled as a result of these criteria. As I have said, the President of the Privy Council has asked for comment. I do not want to speak at length because I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to comment on this document in detail. But let us look at the second guideline which refers to "papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the state." That is an inadequate definition in terms of what might be described as security of the state. Volumes have been written on what is in fact detrimental or otherwise to the security of the state.
Guideline No. 3 suggests that "papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations" should not be made public. I ask, detrimental according to whom? Obviously, this implies a very subjective judgment. One only has to realize the complexity and difficulty in achieving consensus on a whole variety of issues relating to foreign relations to realize that this is an impossible criterion. What the minister is really saying is that the government is free to pick and choose those documents that it feels would be harmless and not detrimental to its own security.
The same thing applies to guideline No. 4 dealing with "papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se." Again I ask, detrimental according to whom? The whole nature of federal-provin-

cial relations has been, for over 100 years, and will continue to be as long as this country exists, a very complicated, argumentative, disputative area of governmental activity and of political activity. Again, who will make the decision as to whether papers would have a detrimental effect on the future conduct of federal-provincial relations?
Consider guideline No. 7 which reads:
Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.
Again, there is latitude there for a variety of positions to be taken as to length of time for preparation. Guideline No. 10 reads:
Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
My goodness! The degree to which government departments are involved in continued rounds of negotiations is well known. Negotiations and contracts are not defined and the percentage of documents or of material that might be excluded from public scrutiny under this guideline is mind-boggling. Then we have guideline No. 14:
Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character.
Again, we need a great deal more elaboration as to what constitutes private and confidential documents and not documents of a public or official character. Guideline No. 15 is a real whopper. If anyone has any doubt about a document being private or public, this guideline in effect provides carte blanche. It is an invitation for the government to make its own decision on each and every issue which arises, without regard to any criterion which could be enforced. It merely reads:
Internal departmental memoranda.
I submit that guideline covers a multitude of material much of which it might be in the public interest to make public. Of course, any documents that are missed under other guidelines might come under No. 16, which reads:
Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
Presumably, the person who drew up that guideline knew something about guideline No. 10 which talks about papers relating to negotiations leading up to contracts, and so on; in fact, covering all options. If the President of the Privy Council will examine these guidelines and relate them to requests for the examination of documents, I think he will find that they are unsatisfactory. It may be that he is justifying the present criteria on the basis of what some political scientists have said in recent years or what Disraeli said 100 years ago. Although I welcome the minister's adherence to the doctrines of Disraeli, I think it ought to be realized that government responsibilities are much greater now than they were in Disraeli's time. Even in the British House, responsibilities are different in the 1970s than they were 100 years ago. I was intrigued, when talking to British parliamentarians on this subject, to have my own experiences of the last few years confirmed. Indeed, when they want information or a variety of documents dealing with matters which transcend national
March 15, 1973

activities or interests, my British colleagues have to rely on an outside source, the United States Senate.
The guidelines the minister has adopted are similar to those used in Westminster. When information is not available in the British parliament, the members there may more readily obtain it from United States congressional documents which often deal with questions similar to those asked in Great Britain. I know, from reading a document as recently as this morning on the matter of defence industries, about which there has been considerable interest in recent years, that information has been made available to political scientists and others, not from their own government but from another agency, in this case the government of the United States and its agencies.
Although what the minister put forward today is useful, he missed the essential point, that put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the latter part of his remarks. The burden of proof for not producing documents surely should be on the government. Instead of issuing these 16 qualifications or exemptions, the procedure should have been reversed. There ought to be a clear statement on when it is in the public interest to put documents on record if and when the production of papers is called for.
It has been apparent to me from the very beginning that when papers have been requested the government has avoided making clear its reasons for refusing certain documents; these reasons have never been fully explained. I think the entire reason for this debate on the production of papers is that no criteria have been agreed upon in this field, not only by members of the House but by the general public to whom we are essentially responsible.
Two things need to be done. I have already suggested the first, which is fundamental: criteria must be established. We need to establish such criteria. That matter will involve the consideration of a committee of this House. Second, there needs to be a continuing review procedure. It is not good enough, as happens now, for the parliamentary secretary to say that such and such a document is not available for this or that reason. There needs to be an effective review or appeal procedure which hon. members might use. The debates which take place to not indicate whether in the final analysis it is in the public interest to disclose documents. Therefore, I feel we need to establish such criteria.
In addition, we need to establish a review procedure. That ought to function on a continuing basis. When any conflict arises, the public ought to know clearly the grounds for refusal. The public ought to know that the refusal is not based on some subjective whim or criterion which can be used, as at present, to cover a whole multitude of sins but, rather, on certain rights. It should be known that the government was well within its rights in refusing to produce certain documents. At present there is not an appeal procedure.
In the words of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, it is not only important for governments to do right; they must appear to do right. That is not the case with respect to the tabling of government documents. I suggest that the motion before the House be amended in order to facilitate the procedures I have suggested. I therefore
Public Service
move, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles):
That the subject matter presently before the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privelege and Elections and, in particular, the guidelines for the production of papers tabled by the President of the Privy Council, these guidelines to be examined, with a view to accepting, rejecting or amending the same.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why not send it to the statutory instruments committee?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am flexible; I do not mind which committee considers it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member has raised something new in procedure. I do not think what the hon. member proposed ought to be considered as an amendment. It may be a request of some kind. Does the House unanimously agree to accept it?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Before presenting this matter to the House I must ask if there is unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are now in a somewhat unusual situation. We are dealing specifically with a motion for the production of papers moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and we are, in effect, dealing with the broad question of the criteria to be applied to the tabling of papers. Therefore, may I suggest, as I have moved an amendment asking for the subject matter of our discussion to be referred to a committee, that perhaps the committee on privileges and elections is not suitable: the committee on statutory instruments, or the committee on procedure and organization might be more appropriate. I would certainly be agreeable to any such suggestion. I think the intent of my amendment is clear. The exhaustive work necessary for producing a document or guidelines with which we can live can more properly be undertaken in a standing committee of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, despite the negative response we had 20 minutes ago, whether we could not agree to let this item stand at the top of the list of this category of items on the order paper, on the understanding that between now and the next time it comes forward we will, through the usual channels, find a device for referring the subject of the tabling of documents to an appropriate committee. In other words, I am not trying to put the government on the spot but, rather, trying to find a way in which we can get the subject of the tabling of documents referred to a committee. All I am asking now is that it stay at the top of the list on that understanding.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think we have already expressed the view that it would be useful to have an examination in a committee. I would be happy to discuss, through the usual channels, how and when that can be done. I would agree to having this

March 15, 1973
Public Service
motion stay at the top of the list on the understanding that it would provide for additional time to debate, but not necessarily a vote.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order with one final point. I purposely drafted this motion so as not to embarrass the government with respect to the question of a vote either on this motion for the production of papers or on the approval or disapproval of the guidelines put forward. I merely wanted to give the House a further opportunity to do its work well on this matter. I am hopeful that we can accept this motion or one similar, because I think that is the intent of all hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business having expired, I do now leave the chair.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a request has been made for unanimous consent to do a certain thing. Your Honour has not put that proposition to the House. I would appreciate it if you would do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I must say that the Chair already put the question once and.I heard a "no". It is now after six o'clock. I do not know if the Chair would even be in order to now ask for unanimous consent, because it is well past six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a different proposition. This is leaving it at the top of the list so that there can simply be negotiations, not a way of dealing with the Bryden report. It is finding a way to deal in committee with the subject matter of the tabling of documents. I think the government might be willing to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I see no objection to asking the House again for unanimous consent to give motion No. 86 the priority and have it rank first on the list of notices of motions for papers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult about this. I am ready to accept the notion of a discussion in the usual channels and have a further period for debate on this subject. However, if this motion stays at the top of the list I would like to hold in abeyance the question of coming to a decision on it. I agree, with that qualification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The minister is asking that it be under that condition, if it is agreed. The Chair has only to ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hour allotted for the consideration of private member's business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, before the House turned to private members' business I was moving the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of Bill C-133, the government's proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. I had placed those proposals in the context of our national housing policy, our national housing strategy, and I had dealt with certain features of the legislation, namely, the new communities program, the land assembly provisions and the proposals for assisted home ownership which offer low income people a means of purchasing houses for themselves and their families rather than living as tenants in low-income housing developments.
I am not sure whether I gave an example of the way in which this would work. But as a result of federal assistance, the payments for principal, interest and taxes would be reduced to 22 per cent of the family's gross income. For example, a family four, including two children, with an income of $7,500 could receive help to purchase a modest home at a purchase price, shall we say, of $19,000. With the help available under this program, their monthly payments would be reduced to $137, compared with the $170 or more they would need to pay if they were buying their house on the open market without federal assistance.
As many hon. members are aware, most of the provinces now provide some form of assistance toward home ownership, either by way of down payment assistance, interest assistance or assistance by way of a monthly subsidy to people with low incomes who are purchasing their own homes. Federal assistance and the grants we propose making are not dependent upon the provincial programs to which I have made reference and there is no requirement that our programs be matched. The programs will, of course, work together to benefit those who
March 15, 1973

are entitled to assistance under the provincial programs as well as under the federal program. To use the words of the pension people, they will be "stacked on" to it. The two programs can mesh together in this way.
I turn now to the provisions of Bill C-133 relating to non-profit housing assistance. I think you and all hon. member will agree, Mr. Speaker, that one important agency providing low-rental housing to people has been the hundreds of non-profit housing associations formed throughout the country of volunteers who in either service clubs, church groups, union groups or veterans groups have been providing housing to low income people, particularly to senior citizens. The work done in this area has made a very valuable contribution to providing housing for those who need it. The bill now before us takes assistance to those non-profit housing associations one step further than at present.
These non-profit organizations have over the years been encouraged and assisted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as part of the senior citizens' housing policy. I say this program is important because I am aware, as I am sure all hon. members are, of the very great debt this country owes to our senior citizens in all parts of the country who have worked so hard to build Canada and who are now, in their retirement years, entitled to decent housing within their income means. In so far as the non-profit housing program eases the burden on those who have grown old, it is an important repayment of the debt which the country has acknowledged it owes to them and which we, in this legislation, also acknowledge.
I think we have acknowledged this need to assist senior citizens in many ways, not only by what we are now proposing to do by way of assistance to the non-profit housing groups to provide senior citizens, housing, but also in the other measures which were proposed in the Speech from the Throne which opened this session, as well as in the budget speech, relating to increases in senior citizens pensions, increases in the guaranteed income supplement and increases in tax exemptions which my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), has talked about.
In our desire to provide low-cost housing to senior citizens, over the past five years more than 37,000 units of housing have been built under the National Housing Act for elderly people, more than two and a half times the number of such units built in the previous 20 years. I want to put that fact on the record. I repeat that during the last five years of the life of this government more senior citizens' housing has been built under the National Housing Act than in the previous 20 years.
The present bill, Bill C-133, makes it clear that the policy of the federal government is to assist and encourage this work to the greatest possible extent. We propose in the bill to make available to these non-profit organizations, low-cost loans to the full value of the housing they propose to build or acquire and, in addition, to make them a contribution of 10 per cent of the capital cost of the project. That is to say, if a church or ethnic group or union wishes to build a senior citizens' housing develop-
National Housing Act
ment or low-cost housing development, apart from any provincial assistance that is available we will provide a mortgage at a beneficial interest rate for the full cost; and if the organization concerned needs a grant of 10 per cent to get them going, we will provide that.
Furthermore, as many members who have become involved in this program are aware, many of these organizations need money just to get started. They require funds to develop their plans to the point where they can apply for a loan, for getting architects working on the project, worrying about where and how to acquire property, how to develop a strategy for the project, and so on. In such situations we are proposing by this amendment to give up to $10,000 in what are called "start up funds" for this purpose.
In addition, these non-profit housing groups can receive the loans and grants available under the residential rehabilitation program contained in Bill C-133 and which I shall mention in a moment. That is to say, rather than a non-profit group building a new senior citizens' housing project or a new low-renteil housing project, a non-profit group can acquire older houses or older multiple unit buildings and repair them, get the repair grants that are provided under the legislation and in this way provide low-cost housing. I am going to maintain an active program of encouragement in this regard. There have been some small developments of this kind in Winnipeg, Edmonton and a few other cities, but this must be encouraged to every extent possible.
I am persuaded that giving money by way of mortgages, grants or loans to non-profit groups is not, however, the whole answer. I am very much aware of the tremendous amount of work, effort and worry that is involved for the volunteer workers in these organizations in planning and organizing low-rented housing projects, making them reality and managing them thereafter. I fully appreciate the magnitude of their contribution and I assure these groups that the skills and resources that they need will be made available within the capability of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The reorganization of CMHC which is now under way will make it much more able to respond to local needs of this kind by setting up a special group to assist them.
I should like to make one further proposal which I shall implement when the legislation is passed. There is within these public service organizations a great wealth of expertise and experience which has been dearly bought over the years in making these housing projects a reality and, among the membership, a great willingness to be helpful and to share their experience with others. I hope that when the legislation is passed and we are ready to get this program going, when the budget and the legislation have been set, we will be able to convene a national meeting of all volunteer groups involved in non-profit housing activity in order to intensify the efforts that these groups are making in providing housing, particularly, as I say, for senior citizens' groups. I think there is a need for pooling the experience and knowledge which they possess so that full advantage can be taken of these new provisions which I hope parliament will pass as expeditiously as it can.
Also related to the provisions concerning the non-profit housing association groups are the amendments relating

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
to co-operative housing in this country. I mention that they are related because I look to the co-operative movement and to co-operative housing developments to involve themselves with the provision of housing for those of low and moderate income. Members from western Canada, where I come from, and from the Atlantic provinces who are represented in this House will be particularly aware of the part that co-operative organizations have played in the past in improving the economic condition of families both in the west and in the Atlantic provinces. In fact, in many areas of Canada co-operatives have been not just an economic instrument but part of the whole social and cultural development of the community. This is particularly true if one remembers what has come out of St. Francis Xavier University and from people who have worked there for many years. Housing co-operatives of one kind or another have a long, creditable and proud history in Canada, but for a number of reasons they have never realized, in my view, their full potential as a means of providing housing for people of low incomes.
I have sensed among co-operatives in Canada in recent years a growing awareness of the possibilities of this method of creating and owning housing, especially for the needs of people of low and moderate incomes. I feel that these organizations, which are capable of meeting the needs of many special groups of people, deserve all the encouragement that we can give them in this legislation, and the legislation is couched so as to give them that encouragement.
While assistance to co-operatives has been available in the past from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, they have not benefited from a single and concise section in the National Housing Act outlining the programs available to them. I now propose that a separate section of the act be created-as it is created by Bill C-133-in order to encourage to the maximum possible extent development of co-operative housing, to use their own words, as "a third force in the housing market". Under this section co-operatives, depending on their type of operation, will benefit from the provisions of the assisted home ownership program or the non-profit housing assistance program.
I might mention in passing that I have had an opportunity to discuss these proposals contained in Bill C-133 with representatives of co-operative organizations. As I think some hon. members are aware, they have expressed some concern about provisions regarding non-profit housing. They were concerned that references to corporations constituted-and I quote the bill-"exclusively for charitable purposes" might exclude co-operatives from assistance under this section. As a result, I will be proposing changes when the bill reaches committee stage so as to make it perfectly clear that bona fide non-profit co-operatives will in fact be eligible as charitable organizations, so they can take full advantage of these provisions.
While I am on the subject of co-operatives, I should also like to mention credit unions. In my view, they are playing an increasingly important part in the financing of housing and, as rapidly as they are able to qualify themselves-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Why don't you join them, Ron?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I can understand my hon. friend from Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), being a land developer himself, not being much in favour of the co-operative movement. I take some credit for the passage of the first national co-operatives act this country had had for 97 years. It didn't take me that long; it took me only two years. I find some support in the fact that it only took me two years, and I take a great deal of hope from the fact that co-operatives and credit unions are playing an increasingly important part in the financing of housing in this country and should be used to the maximum extent possible to build houses for Canadians.
The credit union movement is amassing a great deal of savings through its members and is playing, as a result of these savings, an increasingly important part in financing of housing. As rapidly as they are able to qualify, we have been happy to designate them as approved lenders under the act and to extend to them benefits of the mortgage insurance fund. I strongly urge more credit unions, and particularly the central unions operating at the provincial level, to get on the bandwagon both in the interest of their membership and in the national interest to increase the flow of capital available for house building in Canada. If I may put in a plug here, the credit unions which may have some doubt as to how best to organize themselves should take advantage of the National Housing Act by getting involved in the provision of housing; they should go to my own city of Vancouver and talk to the central credit union which is one of the leaders in this regard.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mrs. Sauve), says that in her province of Quebec the caisses populaires are ackowledged as an important element in the collection of savings for the provision of housing. I am happy to tell my colleague that only yesterday we approved a central unit of the caisse populaire as an approved lender in that province.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we were concerned not only with the building of houses and the provision of four walls; we were concerned, and must be concerned, with the nature of the communities we are building in this country. Therefore I turn now to the provisions of Bill C-133 which relate to the kind of neighbourhoods and communities we want in this country and how we as a parliament can assist in assuring that we have good neighbourhood and community planning.
I mention, first, the neighbourhood improvement program and the neighbourhood improvement provisions of Bill C-133. There are many neighbourhoods in Canada occupied by low and moderate income people where the housing is deteriorating, community facilities are lacking and the sense of community is in danger of being destroyed. The federal government believes that many of these neighbourhoods, with some financial help and some encouragement for the local residents, could be saved and could become healthy and satisfying places in which to live. At the same time, this program will have the effect of maintaining and improving existing housing-particularly for low-income people-improving the quality of the urban environment and relieving the growth pressure on the urban fringes.
March 15, 1973

Working with and through provincial governments, the federal government will provide grants and loans to improve and rebuild selected neighbourhoods, to assist in planning and acquisition of land and to create parks, recreational and community facilities such as day-care centres where they are needed. It is in the older neighbourhoods that these kind of community facilities are lacking to a very serious extent. The program will be subject to federal-provincial agreements which will spell out how the funds are to be paid out, how the residents of the neighbourhood will take part in the development and planning of the scheme and how new homes will be found for people who may be displaced because of activity arising from the program. This program is put forward in this bill as a replacement for the old urban renewal program under the National Housing Act which turned, in many cases, into a program under which bulldozers were brought in to bulldoze neighbourhoods and people out of the way. There are, surely, better ways of dealing with older areas in our cities and the neighbourhood improvement program is designed to meet that need.
Coupled with the neighbourhood improvement program is the residential rehabilitation program which is intended to be used in repairing and improving homes for people of low and moderate income. We are all aware of the unnecessary disruption and suffering that results when families are uprooted and forced to leave older homes in which they have lived for years, or perhaps generations, because these homes have deteriorated below the minimum standards of health and safety.
The moving of families and the destruction of older housing represents not only an emotional loss to the individuals involved but also an economic loss to society through the reduction of existing housing stock. I believe that considerable leverage can be gained, not to mention the avoidance of unnecessary dislocation, by allocating money to the repair of deteriorating houses and the upgrading of their plumbing, electrical and heating systems. Loans and grants are also available to landlords provided they enter an agreement to control their rents. Generally, this program will be used in conjunction with the new neighbourhood improvement program but it also can be used, as I have mentioned, for non-profit housing projects and co-operatives. Under special federal-provincial agreements it may apply outside neighbourhood improvement areas.
I mentioned that we were concerned with a program to improve the equity in our housing. The CMHC and the government of Canada over a period now close to 20 years has promoted research into housing and community planning. It has provided assistance to individuals and groups, fostered development and carried out some in-house research. There seems to be a need for the development of a program under the National Housing Act which will complement these purely research activities, motivated by active promotion and an improved program provided for under this amendment which will include experimental projects, administrative projects and pilot projects, all to improve the design of our housing and the quality of housing and neighbourhoods.
The proposed resolution, as hon. members will see upon reading it, will empower the CMHC to finance its own
National Housing Act
development activities and to enter jointly into such activities with others, as well as to accept risks associated with agreed innovative development projects undertaken by private and public groups. The corporation proposes to collaborate closely with industry and other levels of government in initiating and conducting experimental endeavours.
It is hoped that as soon as possible upon passage of the legislation, a structured series of experiments can be undertaken jointly with industry and other government agencies across the country. More specifically, because this is a new program several areas of activity are considered essential, in my view, within the scope of a development program. These would include physical projects to be initiated or undertaken either within or outside CMHC; technological developments by way of encouraging the development of new products, and efforts dedicated to improved productivity.
It is not only a physical type of thing that we need in developing new techniques. Money must be allocated and developmental projects must be initiated which concern themselves with the encouragement of the social and environmental aspects of housing by which to encourage the public to participate in the organization and the design of projects, in initiating demands upon the government and industry for new types of planning and new types of building.
To maintain and to improve the very high standard of housing in Canada there is a continuing need for a program of this type, a program of research and development. One unavoidable element of any experimental or innovative undertaking is the element of risk. Not everything you try is going to work. Experiments, no matter how well conceived and planned, which fall short of the mark, cost money and someone must be around to pick up the bills. While the private sector can be expected to shoulder a substantial part of the cost of research and development, in the public interest, should be prepared to underwrite its share of high risk innovative developments. The changes proposed through the present bill will encourage a systematic program of experimentation and will authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake developmental projects or share the risks of experiments undertaken by others.
There are two sections of the act with which I will deal in more detail in the committee. One relates to housing for Indians and is almost in the nature of a technical amendment. Its purpose is to assure that all the provisions of the National Housing Act are available to individuals or groups of individuals.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the minister, but the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Hollands) is seeking the floor to ask a question.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: Would the minister accept a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will only be about five minutes more, I wonder if I may answer the question after completing my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has the floor.

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: The purpose of the amendments relating to Indians is to ensure that all provisions of the NHA which give benefits to individuals or groups of individuals are available to native people whether they are living on or off a reserve; whether they are, to use the language of the Indian Act, status Indians or not. It is simply to make sure that whatever individuals receive by way of co-operative housing, low-rental housing or assisted home ownership programs, it can be obtained off the reserve as well as on the reserve.
The last feature of these amendments related to purchaser protection of homes. As hon. members know, for most families a home is the largest and most expensive single item that they will buy during the course of their working lives. Yet generally speaking home buyers do not enjoy the same kind of protection and warranties as do purchasers of less costly items such as cars or television sets. As I said in a speech a while ago, you buy a $5 or $10 steam iron and you get more warranties and guarantees than when you buy a house for the rest of your life.
You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that to me, a former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, this seems incongruous and it is a matter to which I am devoting my attention. I expect to be able to announce before many months a national system of warranties for house buyers. In the meantime, I propose amendments to the National Housing Act to deal with two aspects of this matter. Under the provisions, if accepted, if a builder goes bankrupt or becomes insolvent before completing a house which he has sold, the funds necessary for completion of the house will be advanced to the buyer through the mortgage insurance fund. The other provision is one to make sure that when the home protection development plan is announced we will have the authority of the NHA to ensure that it is implemented.


Walter David Baker: What was the name of that fund?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The mortgage insurance fund. The bill which we have before us and which I am moving for second reading is an indication of the concern which this government holds for the housing needs of all Canadians.
I think the provisions which I have outlined demonstrate very clearly our particular concern for the needs of low income families and represent a substantial effort to solve many of the problems which these families face. They represent a substantial advance on the present provisions and programs under the NHA. As many groups have said, we can pass legislation but if there is no funding behind it the amendments will not be very useful.
With regard to funding, the point has been made that without the necessary resources the proposed legislation will not have the desired impact in solving Canada's housing and community problems. I would like to point out that during the past five years the federal government has been responsible for the provision of sufficient funds to construct more than 170,000 units of social housing-more than two and a half times as much as was produced in the previous 20 years.
We have allocated-I will obviously want to discuss this matter in the committee when we get there-for the first year of operation an amount which we think realistically can be spent under those provisions, considering that

many of these programs will be in the start-up stage. If the provinces, municipalities and industry were able to use up the funds which I will be proposing for this fiscal year once the legislation is passed, further amounts could be transferred from other programs to meet the need. So far as I am concerned, the first job is to get the legislation passed and then to ensure that sufficient funds are available to carry out in an effective way the program which the legislation provides. I will be very happy when we reach the committee stage of this bill to discuss budget figures with members of the committee. I have tried, in accordance with the rules, to confine myself today to the principles of the bill but I will discuss in committee the budget matters.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, this legislation is a key element in the government's over-all thrust to meet the legitimate expectations of all Canadians to be well housed in healthy and satisfying communities, whether they be in the country, villages, towns or the great metropolitan centres. This bill provides some of the legislative instruments to achieve this goal. They will be backed up by all the dollars that are needed to get the job done. I will close my remarks by repeating what hon. members have heard me say many times before, namely, that these measures deserve and require the support and participation of all governments in Canada and of people everywhere who have ideas, energy and enthusiasm to bring to the task of providing housing at reasonable cost to all Canadians.
In moving second reading, I hope we will have a constructive and useful debate on Bill C-133 and that it can be expeditiously moved to the committee where we can start to deal in detail with the provisions of the legislation, because CMHC, the government and those in the country who want to provide housing cannot deal with any of these proposals until they are passed by parliament and given royal assent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Pembina may now ask his question, if the minister will accept it before he resumes his seat. The hon. member will be recognized for that purpose.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: Could the minister tell me why CMHC refuses to lend money to the many thousands of young families moving out of large cities onto acreages in the country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I imagine the hon. member is referring to the fact that the acreages they want to move onto are not on sewer systems but have septic tanks. I think the hon. member is familiar with this policy which was initiated by a Conservative government the last time that party held office. In fact, it was one of the few things the Conservatives implemented that has worked well. However, as I announced in my speech and as I announced earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the whole program of assistance to sewer systems and sewer works. Contained within that review would be the lending policy of CMHC so far as the present septic tank policy is concerned. There are cases, however, where we do lend money for the construction of septic tanks, and if the hon. member has particular
March 15, 1973

cases in mind I would be happy to have the corporation review them.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are not in committee and I am not sure how many questions we should have at this time. However, if the minister wishes to receive the question, the hon. member may be allowed to ask another question.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: Could the minister tell me where the legislation has been in effect under which CMHC has loaned money on acreages?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, CMHC has lent money on non-sewered lots, non-sewered houses in the country. It is not lending money in what are generally called rural subdivisions that are still on septic tanks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister for an hour and 15 minutes paint such a beautiful picture of urban affairs and of the housing situation in Canada, I cannot help reminding him of a Latin expression, caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. In this case he was the salesman selling a package to the Canadian people, and the Canadian people should beware the package that was sold them. I am reminded that in one of the most famous stories by Dickens, "The Cricket on the Hearth", it was said that four walls and a ceiling never made a home. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing today is to get four walls and a ceiling into such a position that the average Canadian can afford them.
The first problem, as I see Bill C-133 and the statement which the minister made on Monday, March 12, as recorded at page 2095 of Hansard, together with his contribution to the throne speech debate, is that all the changes made since the passage of the National Housing Act in the first instance have been made on an ad hoc basis. The minister admitted in his opening remarks that he had part of his plan in Bill C-133. He also had a plan when he spoke in the throne speech debate, and he had a plan last Monday as set out on page 2095 of Hansard. He is trying to remedy the housing situation and improve the quality of life for Canadians on an ad hoc basis.
When we come to grips with the general philosophy, the first questions we must ask ourselves is, what kind of housing policy do we really want in Canada? Where are we going with that policy? Will we get there on an ad hoc basis? What should be the objective of a housing program acceptable to our national urban development? In a nutshell, the objective of any national housing policy, within the terms of the constitution of Canada, should be an attempt of the government to plan, to adopt and to create a program whereby during their lifetime every Canadian family should be able to afford a house wherein they can gradually build up an equity, with an area of grass around the house and the kind of environment which provides a good quality of life, so that some day they can achieve either ownership or a substantial equity which would be an incentive to own a house. It may be that people will start out in apartments or town houses, as it were, and
25789-71*
National Housing Act
end up with such an equity ownership in a house, or vice versa.
Every Canadian is entitled to a home with a landscape. This should be the national thrust. This should be the national purpose of housing. This should be the urban jurisprudence of any housing project. I must say, as I read the bill, that on an ad hoc basis it falls far short of that kind of philosophy guaranteeing Canadians that during their lives they will have substantial equity in a home in which they can raise their families. I was hoping to hear that kind of philosophy from the minister.
Although the bill before the House has many good amendments to the National Housing Act and is great for propaganda purposes and for talking points, it falls short of achieving any real, long-term, long-time planned project for housing in order to improve the quality of life in our larger urban centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other cities. If we start now at this stage in our history, we can prevent the failures, the frustrations, the ghettos and the absolute poverty that have become part of the cities of the United States and of many European and Asian countries which I have seen, which you have seen, Mr. Speaker, and of which the members of this House are aware. Canada, a young country and a new country, full of resources, can do better.
Hence, first, the main objective is to put within the pocketbook of every Canadian the right to build up an equity in a house, where a family lives in a house with a little landscape, like a touch of wilderness, in peace, happiness and dignity, where the beauty of life is magnificent, rather than in an environment where the germs of crime breed on ignorance and illiteracy, without enlightenment to lead to the goal of a way of life to build a vigorous, strong and intelligent people and, therefore, a healthy nation.
A new national policy for housing cannot be brought about by a band-aid bill, and I call this a band-aid bill. The minister has admitted that it is a band-aid bill. He says, "Well, I have got some of my policy in this bill. I have some of my policy in the other bill. I have some of the policy that I set out in the Speech from the Throne debate, and some of my policy that I set out the other day on motions." It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that on that last day I was in Alberta at a political meeting, but when I read his announcement as reported at page 2095 of Hansard, I found it strange that the same kind of policy was announced in the province of Ontario. What he really did on that occasion was to promote a provincial program.
I say that this is a band-aid bill prepared on an ad hoc basis. The band-aid method will for a short time help to cure the wound; certainly it will help ease the housing crisis but in the final analysis the wound will become more infected for the crisis will remain within and will deepen until a sociological problem will develop, a revolutionary tendency will mature and violence and unrest will fester in our midst.
We will support this bill going to committee. But the facts of the bill must be laid naked in the hope that out of the committee's study there will be created, for the first time since World War II, a national housing development policy, an integral part of a national urban affairs policy

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
which will solve the crisis, a crisis that I will deal with in a few moments, that of housing and all the problems facing people in urban centres.
What kind of crisis am I talking about, Mr. Speaker? It has become, and continues to be, the major tragedy everywhere. A new national development and urban affairs policy with emphasis on housing, rapid transportation and the quality of life is the only answer. I should like to read again from the Toronto Star which I quoted when I was questioning the minister in the House some time ago. To relieve the conscience of my friends across the way, I will also read from the Globe and Mail. As my friend says, it will even it up. The article in the Toronto Star reads in part:
Major social tragedy. Less than 4 per cent of Toronto wage earners can afford a new home says a study by the urban development institute-
Not any newspaper, not politicians, parliamentarians nor legislators, Mr. Speaker.
-which calls the city's housing situation a major social tragedy.
Listening to the Minister, I would not have thought him a lawyer from Vancouver but, rather, a house salesman trying to sell a few houses to a few Canadians. This is the whole tragedy, Mr. Speaker. Think of it-only 4 per cent of the wage earners of a major city like Toronto can afford a new house! That has been the policy-if it is a policy-of this decadent Trudeau government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The article continues:
The study, released Wednesday, warns that "unless drastic action is taken immediately, this situation will become more desperate."
The institute's figures are based on a comparison of 1961 and 1971 incomes.
In 1961, a $5,284 annual wage was needed to buy a house, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported. In 1971, an income of $16,623 was needed to buy a house and only 4 per cent of the population could afford it.
Only that kind of income can afford a new house under the plan which the minister has outlined tonight. Then we find these words in the article:
The institute, which includes developers, builders and architects, blames a shortage of land for the skyrocketing prices.
"Lot prices around Toronto are now the highest on the continent," the report states.
Toronto is one of the fastest growing cities on the continent. The article goes on to say that average lot prices in Toronto are about $18,000 and the cheapest house today in the city of Toronto, one of the major centres of the country, is $35,000. That is under the housing plan outlined tonight on the ad hoc basis of the bill.


Mr. Caccia:: Get your facts straight.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says I should get the facts straight. I say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he should write to the Urban Development Institute and not to me. This is a statement made by the institute. If my friend wants to listen, let him listen. If he does not, let him go back to his constituency and they will tell him about housing. The article goes on to say:

To ease the situation, the study urged the provincial government to redirect funds for major sewer and water services.
The tragedy I am talking about is summed up in that manner. Time does not permit me to deal with the whole picture. The common ground for most of the grievances is contained in the report of the task force on housing, headed at one time by a minister of the Liberal government who now sits over here, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), except that the delay in the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report has deepened the crisis. They should be working for the good of all Canadians now, but instead the report has been gathering dust for the last three years.
Let us come to grips with the problem. Two problems must be solved immediately in the area of housing and urban affairs. The first problem is money and the second is the price of serviced land; to get enough money into projects and reduce the price of serviced land. Larger sums of money must be made available for an effective national housing policy to improve the standard of life and urban standards such as a rapid, non-polluting transit system, parks for leisure and rest, and sufficient and adequate playgrounds for our youth. These must be part of a national development program for urban affairs and for housing.
I suggest that the first problem is money, Mr. Speaker. If this government can afford, by its bumbling, a $2 billion program for unemployment insurance to assist the unemployed-it did not solve unemployment; the problem was aggravated by their policies-it must be prepared to share more money with the provinces and municipalities than $100 million for land bank costs. In a few moments I will read from the Globe and Mail to show that when the minister embraced his great land bank program under which he is pouring out $100 million a year, the immediate response from one large city was to apply for $93 million. Mr. Speaker, that would only leave $7 million for all the other cities in Canada. When dealing with land banks, the most important thing is to get serviced land ready for development, rather than raw land. The $100 million will not last long, considering the high cost of serviced land.
I have dealt with Toronto, but it doesn't matter which city you deal with: the minister's home city of Vancouver, the cities of Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg or Halifax- the facts are the same. Let us see how far this $100 million will go in the land bank. The Globe and Mail of January 29 wrote:
The province's land bank is the assembly it is now carrying out south of the proposed Pickering airport site. Coupled with the original federal government announcement of the airport were plans for provincial assembly of 25,000 acres. In December, Queen's Park applied to Ottawa for a CMHC loan of $93 million to cover 75 per cent of the estimated cost of the land assembly.
Toronto needs $93 million, and the minister says he has solved the problem of the nation. He says that by setting up $100 million for a land bank he has solved the problem. That is raw land, Mr. Speaker, not serviced land. If this amount were granted to Toronto it would leave only $7 million available to the other cities to solve their problems. We could afford $2 billion for unemployment insurance to help the unemployed. That unemployment was brought about by the policies of this government to cure inflation, and they still could not do it. Before the election
March 15, 1973

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked about this in Edmonton and he said if the Canadian people did not like it, they could lump it.
If we can afford that kind of luxury, $2 billion, surely the minister, with all his salesmanship and his public relations officers, could make a better deal than offering the Canadian people $100 million for a land bank to solve the problems of the cities. Toronto needs $93 million, and you have only to look at the map to see who owns the land around Toronto and what the situation is there. My friend says the Tories own it. One thing I would say, through you, Mr. Speaker-when it comes to getting into the hog trough, the Liberals have never been backward. A report in the Globe and Mail of January 9, 1973, reads:
Though news reports at the time made little of this announcement, $93 million is almost as much as the total amount the federal government has lent for public land assembly projects across Canada since the program was set up-
I received a letter the other day from a man who has knowledge of the housing situation. Speaking about Scarborough, he said that adjacent to Toronto vacant land sells for a price ranging from $40,000 per acre to $65,000 per acre. He mentioned parcels for a single family, detached dwelling units, services being available, although planning and interior services are not complete. When we talk about land, we mean land ready for development, that is, serviced land. It costs approximately $30,000 to service an acre of land today. If the land costs $65,000 and servicing it costs $30,000, the total cost is $95,000. If the regulations in the area concerned say that you may only subdivide at the rate of four lots per acre, the cheapest lot today, March 5, 1973, is $23,750. Yet the minister, who comes from Vancouver where there are grave difficulties, said today that this bill will solve the problems of people in Canada. That is why I say, let the buyer beware.


An hon. Member:: Caveat emptor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, let the buyer beware. The cost of land is one thing; the cost of serviced land is another. Any land, whether held by a public land bank or by private developers, must be brought into use quickly if it is to be of benefit; that is, it must be serviced quickly. There is no sign in the bill that there is to be federal leadership given to provinces or municipalities in creating serviced land. The point is this. Although the minister may purchase $93 million worth of land in Toronto, that is not serviced land. On top of that cost there is $30,000 an acre to be considered for putting in services. Therein lies the problem. Nothing in this bill suggests that private enterprise or land banks owned by the government will meet the difficulty. No inducement is held out for development and for bringing land into service quickly. The first thing the federal government must do is to provide leadership in this field.
What is the purpose of a land bank? A land bank in itself may be good, of course. If a high quality of leadership is provided, land may be serviced and brought into use for housing. On the other hand, if you buy land today and wait only three or four years, the land will increase in
National Housing Act
price; consequently, the extra cost will be passed on to the house purchaser.
The minister talked about land banking and how fine it was, but those were merely high-sounding, beautiful phrases. What a salesman the minister is. He is superb. I have sat in the gallery watching Members of Parliament and I say the minister is a superb salesman. He taiKed about land banking and the $100 million that will provide big solutions. Those were beautiful, high-sounding phrases. I invite him, with the committee, to go to our cities.
Let me talk about my own city. It is always said that Calgary is affluent. Let us begin with my constituency, Calgary North, where in the last two or three years public housing has been built which can best be described as ghettos. Workmanship is poor and the materials have just been thrown together on the land. These projects were expensive. However, asking families to live in them is like asking them to live in ghettos that are worse than those of the United States or Europe.


An hon. Member:: Has the hon. member complained to the carpenters?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member mentioned carpenters. If he does not wish to go to Calgary because Liberals are not too popular in the west these days, I advise him to go east. I could take him to Toronto and show him the same thing, or Montreal or Quebec City.


George Harris Hees: The Liberals are not too popular in Toronto right now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I could show him the same kinds of conditions. The minister tried to outline a plan the feeling that only he is capable of expressing.


George Harris Hees: You hardly see the Liberals in some parts of the country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Especially west of the Great Lakes.


George Harris Hees: And down east.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. The Maritimes is another
area where they seem to be experiencing some difficulty. The minister tried to talk about land banking. He tried to leave the impression that he would go after the big money makers so that the little fellow on the street would say, "Bully; the government has $100 million to spend in going after the big money makers". Do hon. members not realize that this money may solve part of the problem in one area only, Toronto? The speculators are there because circumstances allow them to be. The circumstances allow them to exist because for the last five years nothing has been done to ease the crisis. Circumstances permit their existence because there is not enough serviced land ready to be developed.
Some people say that it does not matter whether land is owned by the government or free enterprise because government policy will not make serviced land less expensive. Hon. members ought to read the statistics, Mr. Speaker. That is what the minister should do, rather than listening to his own verbosity. Nothing in the bill will encourage greater land supply. Supply will not exceed the

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
demand for housing. I know that mortgage money is to be made available and houses can be built, but who can afford accommodation at today's price? All figures, of course, are relative. On the other hand, only 4 per cent of the wage earners in Toronto can afford a new house, despite all the verbiage we have heard today. What does that means to the average Canadian?


George Harris Hees: It is just a rich man's policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Quite. How do you prevent delays in servicing land?


George Harris Hees: Get a new government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How do you devise a national housing policy that means something to average Canadians?


George Harris Hees: By electing a new government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Don't interrupt your own man.


George Harris Hees: He and I work as a team.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that we like his help. It adds colour to the debate. I hope other hon. members over there see the light.
First, tri-level conferences should be set up on an agenda basis and not on an ad hoc basis. The federal government must bring the municipalities together and propose a tri-level conference which understands the needs of the people. The needs vary from area to area. From my reading of the bill, and I hope I read it accurately, the needs of various regions will not be considered. What is good in Newfoundland and would help the people there may not apply to the people in Toronto or Montreal, and what may be good in Montreal or Toronto may not meet the needs of people in western Canada. Therefore, we need a flexible policy. That kind of policy can only be created if we create the kind of national housing program that is flexible, that will meet the needs of Canadians in all areas. That would be fulfilling the spirit of confederation.
The minister mentioned the meeting involving the municipalities. After that meeting was over I received letters telling me that, certainly, the provinces met with the federal government and with the minister, but the mayors of municipalities were just decoration at that meeting. We on this side of the House asked if we could attend that conference to see what was going on. We learned that the representatives of municipalities performed about as much function at that meeting as window-drapes in an office building. Is it not wonderful how the minister spread his arms and said, "What a policy we evolved and what a meeting we had when we got together." I wish to quote what a Vancouver alderman said:
Last week, I was in Toronto for the first meeting of the three levels of government in the history of Canada. It was an important meeting for the municipalities because it gave them some recognition as a legitimate third level of government, but it was a disap-

pointment in that there was no commitment to any long term tri-level consultation.
The first thing the municipalities should do is get their tri-level conference on an agenda basis. The mayors of our cities should have some say. The city of Montreal has a larger population than most provinces. The city of Toronto is larger in population than any province except the one in which it is situated, and the province of Quebec. Surely the mayors, aldermen and experts of our large urban centres should be able to talk, irrespective of the constitution, on the same level as the minister because they represent thousands of people, and in some cases millions.


An hon. Member:: That is why Phil Givens quit.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I believe that is why he quit. He could not stand it; it was awful. I will not describe his situation because I do not want to create any emotion in this debate.


George Harris Hees: Just keep it cool and factual.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. Conditional grants programs of the federal government cannot do the job. Uniform programs have seriously distorted local priorities. They fail to meet the real needs of municipalities and, therefore, the people. We must have a flexible federal program to meet the needs of the people; therefore, regions must be taken into consideration. When the bill goes to committee, I hope the minister will take heed of this recommendation.
The next thing we need is revenue-sharing on a greater scale with the provinces, and hence with the municipalities. The time has arrived. When we had the great tax reform bill it was painted as a great reformer. Now the government has to have Fred Davis sell the public. Yesterday when the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) asked a question the minister said the government has advisers telling people how to fill out their income tax returns. Although Fred Davis tells Canadians how to fill out their tax returns, he cannot guarantee it in six months when the assessors come along. The big thing about the tax bill is that the provinces now realize that the federal government, under the guise of tax reform, came in and seized the greatest share of the revenue, starving the provinces and municipalities. That is what has happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Therefore, there has to be a greater share of the revenues going from the federal government to the provinces. Even with the strong constitution of the United States, President Nixon signed a $30 billion revenue share to provide the states, counties and cities with revenue collected by the government for this very purpose. Maybe the time has arrived to take a good, hard look at the situation. In 1968, the Prime Minister rode the constitutional horse to death. That was his big issue. He was going to call great conferences, reform the British North America Act and do great things. We do not hear anything about that now; it has all died.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!
March 15, 1973


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are like a grape that withers on the vine. You will wither with the Prime Minister. I wish the hon. member would get up and make a speech when I am finished, because I know he has a lot to add to this debate. The federal government can no longer use the constitution as an excuse for inaction in this field. Up to 1946 housing was always looked upon as a local concern. After the war it became a common concern to all Canadians. What is the difference, basically, between a provincial matter and a federal matter? Those matters that affect people locally are provincial matters, and those matters that are common to all Canadians are federal matters. Surely housing is common to every Canadian whether he lives in Quebec or Alberta. People are looking for homes within the grasp of their pocketbook. Surely that is common to all Canadians. I wish this government would now get off that horse and quit hiding under the constitution. It is a do-nothing, constitutional government.


An hon. Member:: Constipated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I might have something to say about that later. If I recall my notes, I cover that a little later in my speech. After the war it became a common concern to all Canadians, and the national government amended the National Housing Act, authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans up to 80 per cent and, one year later, direct loans. The constitutional hard-core complained that the federal government was interfering. I recall what one great Liberal said. I speak with reverence when I speak about him because he has now passed on. I refer to the late Hon. Robert Winters. When the change was made just after the war, Mr. Winters talked about the common rights and common purpose of national housing. These people are 30 years behind Winters and that kind of government. Perhaps they married the wrong people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All subsequent governments enlarged the federal field. I want to give an illustration. We spoke about the great progress under CMHC. In one part of the country 125 apartments are being held up; there are 750 projects across the country that have been held up for months and months because the International Elevator Constructors Union has been on strike. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is not in his place tonight. I do not make anything of that. He was here earlier today. However, when I questioned him the other day about getting on with the job of building accommodation for people, he said this was a provincial matter and if Ontario has solved it, why can't Alberta?


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says "louder". He always has been deaf. I wish he would take out his earplugs. I have always said that only whispers have nothing to offer. The member who said that is not sitting so very pretty in his constituency. He had one of those close shaves like Jimmy Gardiner had in Melville many years ago. I am not going to digress again. The only reason the NDP continues to vote with the government is that they sold their souls for their jobs.
National Housing Act
If there are 750 projects being held up across this country, surely the strike that is going on in nine provinces, with a slowdown in the other where something was done, is a national matter. We have reached a period when we are dealing with things like housing, building and employment. Housing development, commercial development and CMHC development is being held up in every province. Surely the government can apply the theory that was applied to the constitution during the war; that in time of war, peace, order and good government overrides all other concerns in the constitution. This is the time for the federal government to give leadership.
Even the Prime Minister in spite of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), in spite of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), said that to bring the ministers of labour together would probably be a good idea. But nothing developed. That strike is still on. The day it is solved in one province, it will be going on in the other provinces.


Mr. Lalonde:: It is the law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He says it is the law. There is that fine little brain working on the constitution. The Minister of Health cannot see, because he was so long an executive assistant at a high salary, that the matter is of common concern to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is why that minute brain places this within the realm of impossibility. Anything to get off the hook. Do you know what Liberal policy is when dealing with housing? It is to do as little as possible, and if you are ever asked to do anything which looks difficult, blame the constitution. Loans for services are good in themselves but direct grants should be considered. Federal loans to cities increase the over-all debt of those cities, preventing them from obtaining credit by way of debentures.
I just want to spend a few moments on that thought. In the program the minister announced tonight he spoke of loans with respect to sewage disposal plants because large ciyes were still pouring raw sewage into the rivers. The reason they will not come for the loans is very simple, and I wish the minister would get closer to local government. As soon as the federal government lends a province or a city money for that sort of thing, their liabilities are increased and when they go to get credit ratings to get debentures they are turned down. So I say that instead of making loans to the large urban centres today, let us make direct grants to these cities where the people are living, where they can have the kind of quality of life of which the minister spoke, without including it in the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to say a few words now about specific projects, although my colleagues on the committee will be dealing directly with many of these points. Public housing is a "must" today because there are so many people in Canada below the poverty line. Why has this system been brought about? I think if we could have a

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
system which did not demand public housing we would be a greater and better nation. I referred a while ago to the jurisprudence of the national housing policy I should like to see for Canadians. Surely that is the kind of system under which every person could own a house or have an equity in a house. But today they have to get into public housing. I say its a "must" because the low income groups have tried for years, but cannot afford housing either by way of equity or rent. As I see it, the only way we can solve that problem is to bring up the income of those people and also ensure that the purchasing power of a dollar is there. This This will improve the financial capacity of people so they are able to afford something better than public housing.
I have received dozens of letters, since I was asked to take on this position, from people all over Canada complaining about public housing. Really, what they are saying to me is that public housing, the way it is being administered today, will become the ghettos of tomorrow. And that is my warning. Public housing is good in itself, but public housing not properly administered, with proper care, proper supervision, with pride of equity and pride of ownership, is only beginning the seeds of new ghettos for Canada. Yet people talk about public housing as if it is a newborn baby with all the qualities and a high IQ.
Co-operation housing is good if it creates a right of equity and the qualification to obtain mortgages. This will be discussed by other members of my party. One hundred per cent mortgages: I am for it provided they are not used by house developers or anyone else for the extra profit of 10 per cent. What do I mean by that? Over the years in this country we have had 8 per cent loans and 9 per cent loans. What really happens? They get the land together and the mix goes on. They put the property together and they finally come out with a profit of 80 per cent to 90 per cent. So a hundred per cent mortgage really means another 10 per cent going somewhere else. It is not going to help the ordinary person.
I have always felt that as Canadians we should differentiate ourselves. We are a new country; that is why people from Europe and Asia came here. Surely in a new country the ambition of every red-blooded Canadian is to walk into a house some day, lay down the payment on that house and say, "Some day I will own it". What inspiration is there when you give a man a 50 or a 60-year mortgage? He has to take good care of his health if he is ever going to have title to the house.
A lot has been said by the minister about rehabilitation. The days of the bulldozer, I am glad to say, are over. They were started by this government. Knock down everything that is in your way. Cost-sharing between the federal government and the provincial government is good, but as I read the act the federal government says: In our generous way we are going to give $2,000, and that $2,000 will be matched either by the municipality or by the provincial government. Four thousand dollars! There is an open end to the bill, to be fair to the minister. Governments other than the federal government can put in more dough. Assume they do not. Generally, it is dollar for dollar. Go into the cities where there are run-down houses. Start hiring the plumbers. Start hiring the carpenters. Start

buying the materials. Four thousand dollars is not enough to renovate the average roof, let alone the house. It sounds beautiful when you put it in words, but when you explore it in practice it is just like a hungry elephant eating a peanut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again, money is the number one solution. If we are to have a new national urban development program as outlined by me on behalf of my party, this cannot be achieved by a department of government which is directly independent of the government. I am not being critical of CMHC. Over the years they have done a great job. They have had some great presidents. But surely when we ask the government, from this side, to set up an urban affairs department and they finally concede and put the minister where he is today, one of the things they should have done was to make CMHC responsible to that department of the government. As I see the corporation, it is as independent as the CBC or the Bank of Canada. The minister could have the finest program in the world, but if that independent agency slowed it down to a crawl, the minister's program would be slowed down to a crawl.
So the recommendation I would make tonight is that in some way CMHC be made directly responsible to the minister so that the minister can give us direct answers to our questions when we ask about the actions of the corporation. I do not intend to go into the mechanics of how this could be arranged, but the draftsmen could certainly work something out. When we asked him about rent increases affecting old age pensioners, he said it was according to some contract. The next day he said it was according to some dividend program. He said he had issued a directive. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the agency can do? We heard a lot about directives today. They can throw it into the wastepaper basket. So why not adopt a more realistic approach? Let us make CMHC responsible to the minister so that it is really a part of his department like any other department of government.
Therefore, there needs to be a new amendment to the National Housing Act, or an act setting up a department of urban affairs and making the minister secretary of state for urban affairs and housing, so that, as with any other department of government, he set the tone of policies and the department carried them out. The minister would be responsible for the department's administration, its successes, its errors, its adversities and its achievements. The last, of course, would be somewhat difficult. If a deadlock or disagreement occurred between the present setup of CHMC and the minister, outside of the good will that they have today-and which I assume all ministers have-without any legal thrust or implications, the minister could not implement his policy.


Mr.   Bastard@: That is not right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says that is not right. I am not going to say "I told you so" but I have heard the government say "That is not right" before. They think nothing is ever right. We warned them what would happen to the unemployment insurance fund; they said that that would never happen.
March 15, 1973

CMHC is more independent than the CBC and the Bank of Canada and many other crown corporations. The ad hoc basis of the policies on housing has been the result of this agency recommending amendments to the act. Let us make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting this, but I would ask, through you, whether some of the people in CMHC helped put together the hour and a half speech that I listened to this evening.


George Harris Hees: No, they can do better than that. I have heard them and you cannot insult them like that. They will only take so much.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right, they will only take so much. The time is fast coming, if we are going to work with all levels of government so as to have that degree of control within the terms of the constitution, when the federal government will be able to give leadership not only in developing new communities but in improving old communities. They must work, as I said, under a new national urban development policy and a new national housing development policy, so that pollution control can be effective, so that money-wise, rapid transit systems can be implemented, not only in newly developing areas but in established areas, and so that the whole quality of life in the city can be improved and men and women and their families can live in proper accommodation with dignity and happiness. This policy could become the greatest tool in halting the increase in crime. For crime breeds in poverty and poverty exists in ghettos. The growth and development of youth in the nation is only a product of the environment from whence they spring.
I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker, but when dealing with differences between what happens in Newfoundland, what happens in Ontario, what happens in Alberta and what happens in British Columbia, perhaps a small poem written by Don Harron in satirical fashion might do a lot to show what I mean by differences between people. It is entitled, "Ode on You, O Canada" and it is from the book "Charlie Farquharson's Histry of Canada". My son gave me this to read, and when I read it last night I felt it added the right touch. I have not ended on a poetical note for some time, so if the House will forgive me I should like to put it on the record. I am sure I will get the ears of the House because I do not put this forward in a partisan way. I rather like it:
What is Canada to you?
This land so strong and true.
Have you ever before heard the words "This land so strong and true", Mr. Speaker?
What does it make you think of,
And why and where and how?
Whenever I think of my country,
It seems like a great big cow.
Yes, a Guernsey or a Holsteen,
Is that sich a foolish notion?
Lappin' its fill of the waters Of our very own Pasifick Ocean.
Then chewin' its cud on the Prayerees,
Right over yer Kickin' Horse Pass In the breadbasket of our nation,
As it regurgitates its grass.
And settles its mash in Ontaryo,
National Housing Act
Then to the loins of our country,
Where somethin' surely is stirrin'!
Listen and you can hear
A rumblin' and grumblin' and whirrin'.
The wind of change is Mowin'!
Can't you hear its howls?
As we wonder at all those movements
Deep in our nation's bowels.
And so we come to the end of my tail
And all its little rimes . ..
And doesn't this alius happen
To the dear old Marrytimes?


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who just preceded me, from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), had not been spokesman for the Conservative party, at times during his speech I would have been moved to tears as a reaction to his expression of profound concern for the plight of those in Canada who need housing. One would have thought that nowhere in this country were there to be found Conservative governments at the provincial level who have had some responsibility for housing. One would have thought that at the federal level the Conservative party from 1958 till 1962 had had no responsibility for housing. One would have thought, indeed, that all the faults of housing policy in Canada-there are many and I shall say something about them in a moment-were attributable solely to the party opposite, the Liberals.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Calgary North that when the New Democratic Party was elected in Manitoba it did more for housing in one year than was done in the preceding five by the Conservative government in that province. I should like to remind the hon. member who has just spoken that the Conservative party, not just the Liberal party, must bear their share of responsibility for the housing situation that has existed across the country ever since the Second World War when the National Housing Act was passed and CMHC came into being soon after.
However, I am not going to spend time on the hon. member's very interesting and rhetorical address. I want to move on to what the minister had to say, because it is the government of the day that must bear the responsibility for present housing policies. I was touched by the minister's phrases. He talked in his speech about the basic and elemental needs of people. He said it was not merely a question of housing and shelter but a question of community with which we must be concerned. He talked about housing being a basic right of all Canadians. Another phrase he used was that we must look beyond the home to the community in which a man and his family lives. He has only been minister for two years now, and I am not suggesting that he is not personally concerned about housing.


Stanley Ronald Basford: One year.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister corrects me and says one year. It is a year that seems like two years.


Stanley Ronald Basford: So much has been done.


John Edward Broadbent: I will come to that. It is interesting to read the catalogue of programs that the minister presented to us. What it really is is the best possible documenta-

March 15, 1973
National Housing Act
tion one can find of a catalogue of neglect in Canada for some 25 to 30 years. Just let me repeat them. First of all, we had the neighbourhood improvement program. He told us what had not been done in that area in recent times. Then there was the assisted home ownership program. The minister pointed out that average and low income people cannot afford to buy housing and have been unable to buy it in Canada for decades. So, he says, at last something has to be done. Then he went on to land assembly and then programs of rehabilitation. He talked movingly about the needs of senior citizens in Canada. Although I missed a couple of other programs en route, finally at the end of his speech he got around to talking about the importance of housing warranties.
I say that this is simply a catalogue of neglect. It illustrates very well that in terms of providing for a basic human need, which is important for people in Canada or anywhere else-housing-the market system on which this government and its Conservative predecessor has relied has failed. This market system, under which we allow the forces of so-called free competition to allocate our capital resources has not done the housing job in Canada. It is time we moved well beyond that and categorically recognized that it will not do the job. We should begin to look-I will come to this later when we are discussing the financial instruments bill-at our financial institutions to make sure that we get the money we need for housing in Canada.
I listened to the minister outline these programs. On the one hand they reveal a shortage, but at the same time, almost in one sentence following upon another, there is the contradictory reference to what this government has done. The minister's constant reference is to housing starts which have taken place in each of the past few years under the Liberal government. One might have thought that the situation was not all that bad and that this bill is needed merely to patch up the deficiencies of the system; but let me remind hon. members of some basic facts which were revealed in the recent Dennis report suppressed by this government but which finally emerged in the fall of last year.
In our country in 1972 we had 750,000 units of housing which were not safe, not decent and not sanitary. By a conservative estimate, I think that means that about 3 million Canadians are living under those circumstances. I repeat, this report is not based on conditions in the 1930s but on conditions in 1972. The report also indicates that 500,000 units need heating, plumbing repairs of a significant sort, and major structural improvements. That means that well over another million Canadians are living under these deplorable circumstances.
Let us look at the distribution of funds under the National Housing Act which was originally set up to provide money for the average Canadian to achieve what the hon. member for Calgary North suggested was a good objective, that is, ownership of a home. What do we find the situation to be? We find that most of the funds provided under the National Housing Act have been provided to upper income Canadians. The figures for the past two years indicate that the median income of a Canadian family was approximately $2,000 less than the median

family income of a recipient of an NHA loan. What that means, stated in different terms, is that the income of the average Canadian earner, who pays most of the taxes, is being used to finance the homes of upper income Canadians. When we combine that fact with the facts I have just mentioned, we see a picture for the year 1972 of which Canadians cannot be proud.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Broadbent: If the minister would not mind, I would be glad to answer his question at the close of my remarks, following his own example. The point I am making is that our capital or disposable income in the main is left in the hands of bankers and insurance companies and is flowing to those in higher income brackets for the purposes of housing. We have to change the present system of providing homes or we will not do that job which needs to be done. We will not be able to provide homes for those Canadians who live under conditions that are not safe, decent or even sanitary.
This bill represents the first significant change in housing legislation since 1964. In that year there were changes which provided CMHC with the right to lend funds to provinces for construction of subsidized housing. That was an important step taken at that time. All we have seen since then, however, in terms of basic housing legislation is a bit of tinkering, for instance, authorization to lend funds to provinces and municipalities for land assembly. What the present government proposes is obviously inadequate. We need funding at more adequate levels.
Since 1964 we have seen additional provisions to aid private lending institutions, including the freeing of interest rates on NHA loans, and amendments under the National Housing Act to allow chartered banks to take part in NHA mortgages. We have put these private institutions on the CMHC gravy train. A good illustration of this is the rising curve indicating the rate of profits for the banks and trust company. This has led to the highest mortgage interest rates in the history of Canada. This is the real evidence of the effectiveness of these changes. I refer also to changes to section 15 of the act which made it possible for developers to build trash, and I use that word advisedly. These changes are the kind of which we cannot be proud.
Before I say something about the provisions of the present bill may I refer to the minister's description, to the effect that it represents a "major attack against our housing problems". Frankly, I do not think this is the case and I will illustrate why I feel that way. The present bill represents only a slight move to ease the burden of rising housing costs for a few Canadians. It does not deal with the basic problem of housing inflation. It will not reduce interest rates. It will not put a stop to spiralling land prices. It does not promise to provide the level of support needed to ease the burden of price increases in recent years, let alone solve the housing problem.
It is important to realize-this is especially true with respect to housing-that parliament has an important effect, but a limited one, on all its policies. The present bill, as well as ones in other areas, allows considerable
March 15, 1973

discretion to authorities set up under the legislation and for us, in housing that means CMHC. The rate at which the housing problems of Canadians is ameliorated depends, of course, upon the actual commitments of the government in its budgetary appropriations as handled by CMHC.
The present legislation is not a significant innovation. I say this because most of the provisions of this bill, as the minister well knows, have already been implemented in some form, appropriately authorized or not, by CMHC. For instance, Canadian Housing Statistics contains references to the assisted home ownership program that has been in operation for three years how. We are told by our colleagues in British Columbia that a rehabilitation project similar to the one proposed in the present bill is in operation in the minister's own riding, although the NHA as it now stands contains no provisions for this kind of a project. It would be interesting to know under what authority this project was started.
Likewise, much that is proposed under the neighbourhood improvement program can now be done under the present urban renewal legislation, although we can understand the government's decision to discourage the continued use of a section so rightly identified with the destruction of many neighbourhoods in many of our large cities. This having been said, provision for these and other programs in the present bill are welcome, if only because adoption of the bill will make their availability more widely known and therefore more widely utilized by Canadians from coast to coast.
The bill in its present state, however, will not receive the unqualified support of the NDP. We have some questions which we want the minister and his officials to answer. We would like to know more precisely, for example, what is contained in some of the anticipated regulations. We would like to see amendments to the CMHC budget introduced in the House soon after the present bill is passed because, as the minister and as everyone who is seriously concerned with housing knows, it is the allocation of funds which will be so crucial in terms of implementing a number of the laudable objectives described in the different clauses of the bill.
A question related to that is that if we do not get adequate money we will simply be raising the expectations of countless Canadians across the land who will read in the bill some good provisions and expect that everything will be implemented within a reasonable period of time. If the government does not show a real desire to overcome the deplorable housing situation by providing money, then this bill will be appropriately seen as a piece of sham legislation.
Another question that concerns us is whether we are going to continue financing projects by large developers whose quality standards in terms of work in recent years has proven to be quite inadequate. I could document a number of cases but I will not take the time of the House to do it now. These were documented at length in the reports by Charney and Dennis.
Another question is whether the government will switch its emphasis, as we would prefer, to non-profit associations and co-operative societies. They have a potential for real social benefit over the long term in Canada, provid-
National Housing Act
ing not only adequate accommodation but, from our point of view, good social relations for people. The minister indicated tonight-and I know this from conversations with co-operative societies which have met with him-that he is fully sympathetic to the development of co-operatives. I for one welcome that and hope that the budgetary arrangements which the minister makes within his department reflect the concern which he has expressed.
The other matter which concerns us, and it is a matter of apprehension that is perhaps more real to me than the others I have mentioned, apart from funding, is that some of the programs that the minister has announced recently are intended not simply as alternative choices to public housing but perhaps reveal an intention of the government to replace public housing. We feel that that would be a tragic mistake. We think that the AHOP which was announced last year and is now before us in the bill, and the added measures that the minister announced a few days ago which provide diversification in terms of types of low income housing, are fine.
We think that these are steps, with some qualifications which were noted at the time, which will provide a greater range of choice to people in the low income group in Canada. But we think it would be a disastrous mistake if these programs were to replace public housing. Every authority I know of in the field of low income housing would agree that improvements are needed and that there must be some alternative choices. But they all say that we must maintain a basic commitment to public housing for low income Canadians.
What is needed is not the removal of public housing but additional choices. What is needed is an absolute expansion in the amount of money that is allocated to low income housing. So if we bring in AHOP and the kind of program which the minister announced the other day, they should represent, in terms of his own budgetary proposals, a cause to increase the amount of money for low income housing and not represent, I hope, a decision to take some money out of public housing and put it into these other schemes.
There are a number of improvements that we would like to suggest to the bill, but I see it is almost ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, the acting government House leader may want to put on the record what is proposed for the House tomorrow so, that all members will be made aware of it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was not aware that I was the acting House leader, but I will take the job unto myself. I believe we are continuing with the housing bill, if that is agreeable to my colleague, the Secretary of State.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I can announce that we will continue with the item that is now before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there not some understanding that we might proceed with the

March 15, 1973
Adjournment Debate
report stage and third reading of the bills amending the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, subject to some discussion among the parties?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been no agreement among the parties on that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did anyone try?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the moment we have to listen, with pleasure I am sure, to the hon. member for Athabasca.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue which has been the cause of a great deal of concern in certain parts of the country, particularly in Manitoba. It concerns the fact that in spite of the government's stated policy of acceptance of the concept of mul-ticulturalism, this concept is not being applied in Manitoba. In fact, established rights of ethnic groups that have been accustomed to programming via the use of radio station CKSB have been lost. I have a letter here which expresses the situation clearly. I would like to quote from it, to explain the problem to whomsoever will be responding to it. It reads:
It is with great interest that we now note that radio station CKSB, St. Boniface, Manitoba, has been purchased by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Of course, notice of the intending purchase was given. However, the application for the approval of the purchase before the Canadian Radio and Television Commission was heard, not in Winnipeg, not in Manitoba, but in Montreal, Quebec. By holding the hearing in Montreal, interested parties in the Winnipeg area were almost entirely precluded from airing their opinions. In spite of this fact, six representations were made at the hearing by cultural groups opposed to the transfer in ownership.
For your information, radio station CKSB, St. Boniface, Manitoba, has for approximately 20 years sold time on the station so that programs in languages other than French and English might be broadcast in the Winnipeg area. You must bear in mind that Winnipeg is an area composed largely of non-English and nonFrench speaking people. Indeed, next to the English speaking majority, Ukrainian speaking and German speaking peoples represent the largest cultural groups in this area.
On Sunday, February 25th, 1973, the cultural groups who broadcast over radio station CKSB made their final broadcast over that station. Due to the transfer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, non-French and non-English speaking groups are prohibited from using this station. For approximately 20 years the citizens of the Winnipeg area have been able to listen to radio broadcasts in Ukrainian, German, Hebrew, Italian, Polish, and Greek, to name but a few. The aforementioned groups are now forced to

either discontinue programming, or to broadcast over rural radio stations, some distance from Winnipeg.
The writer takes strong exception to the takeover of radio station CKSB by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Although the Prime Minister has expressed his belief in a multicultural Canada, the writer feels that he is doing no more than paying lip service to the principle of a multicultural Canada. It is for this reason that I write this letter to you, for it is my belief that if the letter was addressed to the Prime Minister's office, it would be ignored. The government, through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is in fact taking steps to hinder multiculturalism in Canada rather than to promote it. By arbitrarily purchasing radio station CKSB, at a purchase price that is greatly inflated over the actual value of the radio station, the rights and privileges which the cultural groups of the Winnipeg area have enjoyed for decades are being destroyed. This cannot, and should not be tolerated. I strongly urge you to take the government to task for this flagrant and blatant step against multiculturalism in Canada.
This issue has been raised in the House on several occasions. Questions have been asked of the minister as to what he proposes to do about it. Unfortunately, the answers have been such that they do not give me the impression that he is being very aggressive about protecting the established, customary rights. I want to give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. On February 8 when he was asked about this matter, he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with my colleagues in the cabinet and everything possible is being done. .. I have made representations on this matter to the chairman of the CRTC.
He was asked again on February 15, and he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the report of the officials of the CBC on their multicultural programs.
The question was again raised on February 22. This time it was directed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who replied in part:
-I think I would prefer to deal with that question when these various agencies are examined before the standing committee of the House.
Then the Minister of State (Mr. Haidasz), responsible for multiculturalism, said:
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and if anything is to be done it will be announced in the usual way.
Both ministers were questioned again today. The Minister of State gave his usual nothing answer and the Secretary of State followed suit. I want to read from section 38 of the Official Languages Act, Mr. Speaker, because this is what has been violated by the takeover of the station by the CBC. This section reads:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the seventh day of September 1969 with respect to any language that is not an official language.
The customary right referred to in section 38 has obviously been taken away from various cultural groups. The CBC has taken the position that the Broadcasting Act forbids them to use other languages on their stations. They refer to the Broadcasting Act, section 3(e) of which reads:
(e) all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English
and in French-
Section 3(g)(iii) provides that the national broadcasting service should be in English and French, etc. It seems to me that in this particular case where the station is being taken over, there is a conflict between section 38 of the
March 15, 1973

Official Languages Act and sections 3(e) and 3(g)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act. The question was raised today whether the Secretary of State would be willing to amend the Broadcasting Act in order to get around this obstacle which the CBC claims exists, but the minister said he was not proposing any kind of amendment to the act at this time. I see my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Yes, it has expired. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I be forgiven for answering the second part of this question first.
I am informed that the CBC has made arrangements for ethnic groups that have an interest in the future of station CKSB to be represented at the CRTC hearing in Montreal, at no cost to them, to give them a chance to put their points of view to the CRTC.
With regard to the CRTC regulations, these allow for a large number of multi-lingual and multi-cultural programs.
For one thing, any private radio station can devote 15 per cent of its broadcasting time, which makes 20 hours a week, to multi-lingual and multi-cultural programs, without requiring the commission's permission. And for another, with just written permission and no public hearing, any private station can devote about 20 per cent, or 28 hours, of its time on the air to multi-lingual programs. The commission also grants permits to stations that broadcast almost entirely in foreign languages. There are already such stations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
With regard to the situation in Winnipeg, I am told that some stations in that city and its surroundings broadcast programs in several languages, and that they would be interested in devoting more time to this type of program.
Station CKSB has existed since 1945 and is a private French-language station. Thanks to the money collected from the Francophone community in Saint-Boniface, that station, which is affiliated to the French network of the CBC, has survived since 1945 under the management of a non-profit organization, the Fondation Radio Saint-Boniface Incorporee.
It broadcasts 132 hours a week, of which 76 originate locally and 56 are provided by the French network of the CBC. That station sold various ethnic groups, Jewish, Italian, Ukrainian, Polish and Portuguese, local broadcasting time on Sunday afternoons from 12.30 to 6 o'clock.
The CBC recently signed an agreement with the Fondation Radio Saint-Boniface Incorporee, holder of the CKSB license, for the purchase of that broadcasting station. This agreement expires on March 31, 1973 and is subject to the approval of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The Commission has decided that the hearing would most appropriately be held in Montreal on February 19.
The hearings of the commission are planned months ahead to allow numerous hearings at regular intervals. For instance, the commission sat in Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, to hear the comments of the public-
Adjournment Debate


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


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-POSSIBLE EXCEEDING OF CEILING ON LOANS-REQUEST FOR AUDIT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed sorry that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) is not in the House tonight and that he has sent his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), to answer this question. The fact is that the minister has misled the House. I feel he should have had the courage to come to this House and explain why he so deliberately misled this House by suggesting that the ceiling with respect to section 29 and section 30 financings, as set out in the Export Development Corporation Act, had not been exceeded as of February 28.
The parliamentary secretary inadvertently set the record straight. He showed that the minister misled this House. May I refer to Hansard for March 9 where, at page 2084, the parliamentary secretary is reported as having said:
It has been alleged that because the EDC has to date signed financing agreements totalling $865 million, it has already exceeded its existing statutory lending ceiling under section 30 of the act.
The parliamentary secretary then went on to point out that this was a misunderstanding. He said that as of January 31, 1973, the same date as the $865 million was outstanding, instruments outstanding totalled $500 million, but that it was instruments that were solely taken into account when determining liability under section 30.
I will not repeat the definition of "instrument" which is found in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter E 18, because my time is short. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary ought to have read the minister's speech when he introduced the bill in question in the House on February 2. At page 909 of Hansard he said that financing agreements signed by the corporation with foreign buyers of Canadian goods and services rose dramatically. He then gave figures for each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972. The he said, as recorded on pages 910 of Hansard that the capacity to sign agreements for over $200 million is all that is left. The words "all that is left" are my own.
That is what he intended to convey to the House, to indicate the urgency for passing the bill. The minister ignored, or perhaps was not informed by his subordinates, that there was another $250 million of signed agreements which had been taken over by this corporation from its predecessor. The fact is that as of December 31 the outstanding total of signed agreements of this corporation were $841 million. The minister now knows this, and the parliamentary secretary confirmed that on January 31 $865 million had been signed.
I would point out that in each of the annual reports for 1969, 1970 and 1971 with respect to this corporation, note 2 is identical in its terminology. It is at all times pointed out that there is an uncommitted authorized liability of a certain amount. For example, in 1969 it was $238 million; in 1970 it was $173 million; in 1971 the note pointed out it was $212 million. I wish to stress that at all times the

March 15, 1973
Adjournment Debate
outstanding notes of the corporation never at any time exceeded $375 million.
If the parliamentary secretary is to be believed, I ask the minister and this House why it was necessary in 1971 to ask the House to increase the then ceiling from $600 million to $850 million. If we are to believe the parliamentary secretary, in fact as of January 31 they were still not over the $600 million ceiling which they told this House in 1971 they had to have increased to $850 million to allow them to proceed.
I have been fortunate enough to see the internal projections for this corporation. I can tell the House that it is not until May, 1974, that they will exceed the ceiling of $850 million, if the ceiling alleged by the parliamentary secretary is a correct interpretation under this act. The fact is, it is wanton misleading of this House. They know they are caught and they do not want to admit it. Instead, they run to a solicitor and say, "Please give us a fresh definition of how we can interpret the liabilities under section 30." However, they forget that fortunately we have the internal records of the corporation, including the records referred to in their minutes. We know what has been said.
We only hope the officers of the corporation will be prepared to appear before the committee and not deny that in their own records, listed under liabilities pertaining to section 30, the liabilities as of December 31 were $841 million and that they had less than $9 million left under their authorization of $850 million. As of January 31, the parliamentary secretary is correct. The record then showed that they had in fact exceeded their ceiling. I feel this House deserves an apology.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has been alleging for some time what he has again repeated this evening. I first wish to say that it is a recognized practice in this House, although it may not be a tradition, for the parliamentary secretary to in fact answer questions on what we call the "late show". There is no question of the minister not having the courage to be here. The minister was here this afternoon to answer in the debate, and he will appear before the committee when the Export Development Act amendments are before it, as the committee sees fit. Therefore, it is my duty as parliamentary secretary to answer questions on the "late show". I intend to continue doing so.
The hon. member, of course, is basing all of his argument on a legal judgment. I do not know if he is a lawyer. I am not.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am.


Herb Breau: You are a lawyer?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


Herb Breau: Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer. I have to rely on legal opinions that I read or that are provided to me in some way or another.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a different one.


Herb Breau: If you have, I wish you would bring it forward because I have not heard it yet.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will at committee.


Herb Breau: That is fine. This evening the hon. member again referred to two points. He referred, first, to a financial statement as if that was an adequate basis for a legal argument. Even though I am not a lawyer, I cannot understand that. In my view, a financial statement cannot be used to make a legal judgment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Get your corporation's financial statements for three years.


Herb Breau: It does not matter what the financial statement is, although the hon. member must have seen a lot of them in his years in business. The hon. member says that he is a lawyer. If he had to have a legal opinion, there is no way that he would refer to a financial statement. He would refer to statements and things of that sort. Even in respect of that financial statement, the hon. member mentioned-and I have his words-uncommitted liability. That confirms, it seems to me, the fact that a liability does not exist before disbursements have been made. It has to be this way because the corporation, like any other lending authority, takes in cash receipts all the time. There is money flowing back in. This is why the act specifies "on the outstanding instruments". So even if the corporation exceeded the ceiling in financial agreements, it could very well be that because of the money coming in it would be within the permitted ceiling.
I could give the answer again. It has been given three times in the House. It is really a matter of legal opinion. If the hon. member thinks he has a better one, somebody will have to be the judge.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.
March 15, 1973


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
October 2, 1972
TO:
Assistant Deputy Minister Operations.
FROM:
Deputy Minister.
1.	Would you please issue immediate telex orders to all regions, areas and CMC's to the following effect:
(a)	In making referrals for placement, Local Initiatives and On-the-Job Training, give first priority to qualified clients who are unemployed.
(b)	Give absolute priority to vacancies from employers who claim they are unable to obtain workers.
(c)	Make every effort to reduce to a minimum the time between the referral or notification of a client from UIC, and his referral to a job.
(d)	Make every effort to obtain additional job orders from employers, particularly those referred in (b) above.
2.	These directives should take effect now and continue until further notice.
J. M. DesRoches
c.c. A.D.M.-Immigration c.c. A.D.M.-Manpower c.c. A.D.M-PDS c.c. A.D.M.-Administration

[Stage Direction]
October 2, 1972
FROM:
J. C. Best
Assistant Deputy Minister (Operations)
TO:
W. C. Stewart, Halifax L. E. Duquette, Montreal G. D. A. Reid, Toronto Mrs. J. W. Edmonds, Winnipeg L. S. McGill, Vancouver
All CMCS and area managers in your region must be advised by Telex as follows without change, on an urgent basis. These instructions must be followed explicitly and take effect immediately:
"(A) In making referrals for placement, local initiatives and on-the-job training, give first priority to qualified clients who are unemployed.
(B)	Give absolute priority to vacancies from employers who claim they are unable to obtain workers.
(C)	Make every effort to reduce to a minimum the time between the referral or notification of a client from UIC, and his referral to a job.
(D)	Make every effort to obtain additional job orders from employers, particularly those referred in (B) above.
These directives will continue in force until further notice."
J. C. Best

[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1972
"The $500 million Direct Employment Programs announced earlier this morning by the Minister of Finance and myself included a $90 million allocation for the LIP and Training on-the-Job Program which will not only greatly contribute to the reduction of winter unemployment, but will also help to develop, on a long-term basis, the new ideas and techniques these programs have generated."
This statement was made by Manpower and Immigration Minister Robert Andras when he announced to-day the expansion of those portions of the over-all Direct Employment Program administered by his department. This expansion adds $80 million to the Local Initiatives Program and $10 million to the Training on-the-Job Program.
The addition of this $90 million for LIP and TOJ represents a total allocation of $215 million for job creation this winter compared with $120 million for the corresponding period last year. It is estimated that more than 125,000 jobs or 510,000 man-months of employment will be created during the life of the programs.
"We have many applications on hand and I have directed my officials to process them and put these new funds into circulation as quickly as possible. In addition, I have directed that about $10 million be set aside for innovations currently under study, which, I hope, will give more flexibility and new dimensions to LIP. In this connection I am discussing with my officials several interesting variations for a concerted attack on the unemployment problem.
We will look at such ideas as marshalling the entrepreneurial skills and talents of the private sector toward community betterment, obviously on a non-profit basis. Another idea I would like to explore is assistance to unemployed persons in forming co-operative, non-profit organizations for the purpose of providing, on a fee basis, needed community services. I hope to have a more definitive statement concerning these innovations within a few weeks, but in the meantime the bulk of the funds will be used to finance the regular applications which are flowing into the department from private sponsors and municipal governments.
We know there is a lot of pressure on the government these days from certain groups for continued funding, and we will be studying ways and means of assisting them, either directly or by recommending alternate sources.
[Stage Direction]
March 15, 1973
As the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration I intend to do everything in my power to develop, as quickly as possible, not only the additional measures necessary to bridge the severe winter months ahead, but also to come up with the answers to the middle-term questions,
i.e., one-to two-year requirements, and then the longer term possibilities of job creation," Mr. Andras continued.
The Minister invited employers, large and small, to participate in the Canada Manpower Training-on-the-Job Program which last year produced more than 42,000 new jobs with more than two-thirds of the trainees gaining permanent employment.
"The CMTJP formula enables employers to hire trainees in preparation for projected expansion," the Minister said, "and provides trainees with an opportunity to develop valuable and transferable skills."
Complete details on both LIP and CMTJP can be obtained through all of the 390 Canada Manpower Centres of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Ottawa, December 6, 1972.
Notes for a Press Conference
Mr. Robert Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration
Local Initiatives Program 1972-73:
Original allocation	$	85,000,000Added today	$	80,000,000Sub-total	$165,000,000Estimated Number of Jobs	95,000Estimated man-months of employment	350,000Canada Manpower Training-on-the-Job 1972-73: Original allocation	$	40,000,000Added today	$	10,000,000Sub-total	$	50,000,000Estimated Number of Jobs	40,000Estimated man-months of employment	160,000
Program Totals:
Allocations, from $125,000,000 to $215,000,000
New money allocated: $90 million
Estimated total jobs to be created-135,000
Estimated man-months of employment to be created-
510,000
Objectives:
1.	To create jobs.
2.	To provide skills of continuing and transferable value.
3.	To improve community services, quality of life, encourage imagination and initiative amongst Canadians.
4.	To encourage projected employer expansions.
Canada Manpower Training-on-the-Job
New opportunity for the employer:
The new injection of funds into the CMTJP program will permit Canadian employers to increase their participation in a scheme which was labelled "the most successful part of the (1971-72) special federal plan to cut unemployment."
Canadian employers, taking advantage of the incentives of the program (partial reimbursement of wages of the trainees), will be able to hire trainees in preparation for projected expansion and will be in a position to channel more of their own funding in the planned expansion.
A skill and a future for the employee:
Several thousand additional Canadians will have the chance to develop valuable skills and talents leading to rewarding career opportunities. Last year, CMTJP produced more than 42,000 new jobs with more than two-thirds of the trainees gaining permanent employment.
Trainees under CMTJP are just like other employees and receive the same wage rates and fringe benefits.
Program dates:
The program began December 1, 1972 and all project applications must be received by December 31, 1972 Trainees must be on the job no later than March 31, 1973.
Reimbursement for employers:
Employers qualifying under the program will receive 75 per cent of the trainee wage costs during the first half of the training period and 50 per cent of the wage costs during the last half. Maximum reimbursement payable to employers under the program is $118 per trainee per week.
The role of the CMC:
CMTJP, as well as LIP, are administered by more than 390 Canada Manpower Centres of the Department of Manpower and Immigration throughout Canada where advice and assistance can be obtained on both programs.
Local Initiatives Program
New dimension:
The additional money will not only permit the launching of a larger number of regular LIP projects but will also give increased flexibility and a new dimension to the Local Initiatives Program through the possibility of adding some or all of the following elements:
A/ LIP for the private sector:
These projects would be non-profit making, in the public interest and unrelated to the normal production or service sold by the business. This idea results from the suggestions of businessmen who have expressed a desire to undertake community projects in the public interest using their plant, equipment and managerial time with assistance from LIP for wages (and overhead) of workers hired from the unemployed. Such projects could be of particular help to businesses that are faced with seasonal layoffs.
B/ LIP for potential self-sufficient entrepreneurs:
This fascinating concept has been requested by a number of regular individual LIP project sponsors.
The basic idea is that LIP would make contributions towards the capital cost of a project as well as financing
March 15, 1973
[Stage Direction]
the wage bill. These projects might also be permitted to retain earnings for future development.
Projects in this category would have to be non-competitive with local firms, and the sponsors should have demonstrated skills and a potentially viable idea.
A good example of this type of project would be a co-operative business organization, run on a non-profit basis, for the purpose of providing needed community services. Another example might be the construction and operation of a medical clinic in a remote area.
The underlying concept of this type of project would be that a price must be charged for the goods produced or services provided; projects would also be organized and managed by the unemployed themselves.
Progress report:
Applications are flowing in at an increasing rate; their value having risen from $64.7 million on November 8 to $250 million on December 4.
Announcements on approved LIP projects are currently being made locally and regionally across the country.
A preliminary analysis of the types of projects indicates the following percentage breakdown: social services (30 per cent), construction (25 per cent), sports and recreation (20 per cent), arts and culture (10 per cent), with the remainder being for research, education, information, health, etc.
Program dates:
The program officially began December 1, 1972, and all project applications must be received by December 31, 1972.
General:
New project applications are generally better prepared than last year, reflecting the experience gained from the 1971-72 program. This year the controls are tighter, the criteria are clearer, and the monitoring and auditing will be stepped-up and refined.
Last year's program had a minimal number of projects that did not meet their stated objectives satisfactorily. Of 5,700 approved projects, only five cases of fraud have been recorded and only four projects have been terminated by the Department owing to mismanagement by the project sponsor.
N.B. For additional information, call 996-0261

[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1973
FROM:
J. M. DesRoches, Deputy Minister
TO:
Director General-Atlantic, Quebec Ontario, Prairie and Pacific
As of now all CMCs will give absolute priority in referral for all jobs including TOJ to UIC claimants in the first instance, welfare recipients in the second instance, and other unemployed in the third instance. Only when these three sources have been thoroughly reviewed or exhausted in each particular situation should other people be referred. This order will be followed by all CMCs and counsellors without fault. Every effort will be made to fill TOJ vacancies forthwith as per above order.
J. M. DesRoches
c.c. File Copy
c.c. Deputy Minister's Special File c.c. Mr. McCloskey

[Stage Direction]
March 15, 1973
FROM:
J. M. DesRoches,
Deputy Minister, M & I OTTAWA, Ont.
TO: All Regional Directors General
This cancels and replaces my telex of March 9th.
The purpose of that telex was to emphasize the importance of aggressive, affirmative action by CMCs to utilize emerging employment opportunities, especially those created by the local initiative and training on the job programs for those people who are definitely unemployed and in need.
As you are aware priority in referral to jobs is governed by regulation 27 to the unemployment insurance regulations. Consistent with regulation 27, all job orders will be checked as soon as they are received against existing live files of registrations to ensure that preference in referral is given to qualified registrants as required by the regulation. The telex of March 9th was not intended to change this basic procedure.
In the case of the LIP and training on the job programs it has been publicly announced as government policy that priority in placement would be given to those who are unemployed. Within that priority emphasis must be given to those on unemployment insurance, welfare or otherwise unemployed and actively seeking work.
A special effort must be made to complete recruitment for LIP and training on the job, particularly the latter, as quickly as possible and in accordance with the foregoing policy.
J. M. DesRoches
2288
[Stage Direction]
March 15, 1973

[Stage Direction]
General Principle
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistant with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
Exemptions
The following criteria are to be applied in determining if government papers or documents should be exempt from production:
1.	Legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government.
2.	Papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the State.
3.	Papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations; (the release of papers received from other countries to be subject to the consent of the originating country).
4.	Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se; (the release of papers received from provinces to be subject to the consent of the originating province).
5.	Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons.
6.	Papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual.
7.	Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.
8.	Papers relating to the business of the Senate.
9.	Papers, the release of which would be personally embarrassing to Her Majesty or the Royal Family or official representatives of Her Majesty.
10.	Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
11.	Papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute.
12.	Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.
13.	Any proceedings before a court of justice or a judicial inquiry of any sort.
14.	Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character.
15.	Internal departmental memoranda.
16.	Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
Ministers' Correspondence
Ministers' correspondence of a personal nature, or dealing with constituency or general political matters, should not be identified with government papers and therefore should not be subject to production in the House.
Consultant Studies
In the case of consultant studies, the following guidelines are to be applied:
1.	Consultant studies, the nature of which is identifiable and comparable to work that would be done within the Public Service, should be treated as such (the reports and also the terms of reference) when consideration is being given to their release.
2.	Consultant studies, the nature of which is identifiable and comparable to the kind of investigation of public policy for which the alternative would be a Royal Commission, should be treated as such and both the terms of reference for such studies and the resulting reports should be produced.
3.	Prior to engaging the services of a consultant, Ministers are to decide in which category the study belongs, and in cases of dotibt are to seek the advice of their colleagues.
4.	Regardless of the decision as to which category (1. or 2. above) the consultant report will belong, the terms of reference and contract for the consultant study are to ensure that the resulting report comprises two or more volumes, one of which is to be the recommendations while the other volume(s) is (are) to be the facts and the analysis of the study. The purpose of this separation is to facilitate the release of the factual and analytical portions (providing that the material is not covered by the exemptions listed above) enabling the recommendations (which, in the case of studies under category 1., would be exempt from production) to be separated for consideration by Ministers.
February 16, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 16, 1973