1973-06-12

Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to advise the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Lafon-taine, Nipissing, Welland, Sherbrooke, Kingston and the Islands, Prince George-Peace River, Saint-Denis, Gloucester, Lapointe, Saint-Jean, Bruce and Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine has been delivered to me under section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, concerning the report of the Quebec Electoral Boundaries Commission.
If the House agrees, I suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in the two official languages the provincial reports on the federal-provincial program of co-operation for the development of bilingualism in education at the pre-university level.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43, concerning a very important question.
As the government has voted unlimited funds for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to support unemployed Canadians, while Opportunities for Youth projects, which make students feel they are useful and provide them with employment, have been voted only very limited funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House study, as soon as possible, what means can be used to get the Secretary of State to overcome his shyness and ask Treasury Board for additional funds so that more Opportunities for Youth projects can be approved and the young people given the chance to do useful work in the community.


Mr. Speaker:: I have my doubts as to the admissibility of a motion moved in such terms, but in any event the House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: First reading of Senate public bills:
June 7, 1973-Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).
Mr. Speaker:: When Bill S-5 came before the House yesterday the Chair indicated that there might be some reservations as to some aspects of the bill. The hon. member for St. Boniface undertook to look at the matter, since the bill is under his sponsorship, and to guide the Chair in relation to the procedural aspects of the bill.


Mr. Joseph-Phillippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be most difficult for me to give you any guidance because I know the important role you have played in the House, and you are still doing a very good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 12, 1973
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments you made yesterday I have had a chance to study this matter once again. The actual liability of the Crown is not affected by this bill. The liability of the Crown is established in sections 4 and 5 of the act, not in section 3. Therefore this bill, which amends section 3, does not impose a charge on the people, does not require a recommendation, and does not have to start in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his generous comments. For a moment I thought I might be swayed by his approach. However, the Chair's natural virtue and humility took over, and I must tell the hon. member that I too have looked at the bill very closely and I have the same doubts that I had yesterday and before. As I indicated yesterday, the bill appears to be out of order in that it proposes an amendment to a financial provision in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. When the Farm Improvement Loans Act was amended in 1968, the recommendation of the Crown stated specifically that the maximum for any loan to a borrower under the provisions of the act would be $25,000. The recommendation which accompanied the bill at that time read in part:
-to increase from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of any loan that may be made under the Act to a borrower together with any amount owing in respect of other guaranteed farm improvement loans;
Bill S-5 now proposes that the maximum of such loans be increased to $40,000. An amendment to the same purport could not have been proposed when the preceding bill was under consideration in 1968.
It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys. Section 3 of Citation 246 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition states in part as follows:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
Under similar circumstances in 1969, when a Senate bill containing financial provisions was before the House, the Chair stated as follows:
By allowing these financial provisions to remain in a public bill sent down from the Senate, the privileges of this House, in my opinion, have been infringed. Section (1) of Standing Order 62 which is explicit in that regard, reads as follows: "This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."
I must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the provision in Bill S-5 relating to the appropriation of public moneys does infringe the privileges of this House and that the bill should be laid aside. Therefore the notice for first reading of this bill will be removed from the order paper.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to discuss a matter of national importance, namely, the inability of the government to cope with regional unemployment and national inflation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: -as demonstrated by the increase over the past year in the cost of living figure of 7.2 per cent, and the rise in unemployment figures in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if the House is not willing to debate this motion this afternoon, assuming it is agreed to, because it wants to finish the housing bill, we would be quite prepared to debate it tomorrow or Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the matter that has been stated by him.
Putting aside for the moment that the proposed request may be contrary to that section of the Standing Order which prohibits the raising of more than one matter, the Chair has frequently stated in considering proposed motions to adjourn the House that the question that must be determined does not necessarily concern itself with the importance of the topic raised but rather with the requirement that the matter should be one that must be given urgent consideration under the Standing Order.
In considering that portion of the hon. member's proposition which deals with regional unemployment, I think it is fair for the Chair to say that while the topic is one which has been of concern to all members, it is also one of a continuing nature which, as such, does not seem to meet the requirements of Standing Order 26.
I might say that my real difficulty is in the form of the proposal of the hon. member. The hon. member, when he proposed the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific matter, used the words: "the inability of the government to cope with regional unemployment and national inflation".
The reaction which those words evoked confirms my opinion that what the hon. member has proposed at this point is substantially, a non-confidence or censure motion. That is not the purpose of Standing Order 26. There are other procedures under our Standing Orders for non-confidence motions to be proposed for the consideration of the House and, with great respect to the hon. member and to the House, that is not, I suggest, a proper subject for debate under the terms of Standing Order 26. For this and other reasons I do not think the Chair would be allowed to put the hon. member's motion for the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.
June 12, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase in the cost of living reported by Statistics Canada this morning, which is over 7 per cent above May a year ago and is also reported to be the biggest increase in May over April in any year in the last 25 years, I should like to ask the minister whether the government has decided to take any immediate initiatives to halt this escalation in the cost of living?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the figures and they cause the government, of course, continuing concern. We still rely on our analysis that it is primarily a commodity situation and, as a matter of fact, about one-third of the increase in May over April is directly attributable to the rise in the sales tax in the province of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, now!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that when you eliminate anything the minister may be able to attribute to the increase in the sales tax in Ontario the increase in May over April is the biggest increase in May over April in any year in the last 25 years, is the minister prepared to take any initiatives? I want to get through to my hon. friend. When you eliminate any possible effect of the increased sales tax in Ontario this is still the biggest increase in the cost of living in May over April of any year in the past 25 years. I should like to ask the minister whether he will at least interview the Prime Minister to see whether he can get the attack on inflation moved up to a higher priority than it was placed in the confidential document that was leaked which indicated that it was in seventh or eighth position?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. If one were to eliminate the sales tax increase in Ontario the figures would not have been the same.


Mr. Hees:: He did not say that.


An hon. Member:: That is a specious argument.


John Napier Turner: I can recall the hon. gentleman and his two other financial critics, the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Don Valley, calling for a deficit twice as large as we called for in the budget because they underestimated the expansion in this particular area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are going to have somewhat of a debate and it should be carried out in an orderly fashion. The Leader of the Opposition now has the floor for a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Finance might begin by answering the questions directed to him.


George Harris Hees: It would be quite a change and a great refresher.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since he will not do anything with regard to inflation generally, I should like to ask him whether he proposes to allow the increase in the bank rate which was announced over the weekend and in the banks' prime rate announced yesterday to work their way inevitably through the whole interest structure, including the rates of interest on mortgages which will affect new home owners? Does the minister intend just to let this happen or has he any proposal in this connection?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the rise in interest rates is in response not only to an international situation, as was interjected by an hon. member, but also to a remarkably strong expansion of the economy which has been expanding in real terms over the past six months at 11.6 per cent and which has produced the biggest increase in jobs, May over May, 497,000 new jobs, the largest increase in the history of this country.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-INTENTION RESPECTING NATURE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR FLOAT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the increase in the cost of living may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he and the Bank of Canada intend to keep our floating dollar at a dirty float so as to retain Canada's dollar at the same level as the United States dollar in view of the fact that when that happens imports into Canada-vegetables, fruits and other things-are naturally higher in price than they would be if the dollar were allowed to float? I therefore ask him whether it is his intention to remove the dirt from the float and have a genuinely floating rate for the Canadian dollar.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman has been looking at the exchange figures with the calm analysis that they dictate. The governor of the bank, as the agent of the government, through the exchange fund is allowing market forces to dictate the level of our exchange, and intervention is limited to maintaining an orderly market on both sides of the exchange. If the hon. gentleman looks at the figures since we have had this float, and particularly since the two devaluations of the American dollar, he will find that to be true. Our exchange and reserve figures reflect the fact that interventions merely for an orderly market have been on both sides of the market.


David Lewis: Without accepting what the minister has said, does the minister suggest, therefore, that the fact that the Canadian dollar is almost at par with the Ameri-

June 12, 1973
Oral Questions
can dollar, no matter how far the American dollar has latterly been devalued, is sheer coincidence, or is it not a fact that the Bank of Canada has intervened to keep the Canadian dollar at that level?


John Napier Turner: I am saying to the hon. gentleman that it is the judgment of the market because the Canadian dollar has been floating freely and, as the hon. gentleman suggested, has been remaining almost at par with the American dollar. If he is suggesting to the House that there should be a premium on the Canadian dollar against the American dollar, then he should think not only about imports but about our export trade which is directed mainly at the American market and he should also take into consideration the fact that we have had a great advantage in our export potential with respect to Europe and Japan. Free market forces have determined the value of the dollar and have created a good deal of advantage for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a further supplementary, but I might say that to my mind the hon. member's series of questions were not really supplementary to the question asked originally by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the hon. member may ask his supplementary and then we wiU return to the original question and to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Temiscamingue for supplementaries.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-ONTARIO SALES TAX INCREASE AS FACTOR
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada. In view of the very obvious political bias in that statement this morning by Statistics Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -and in light of the fact that no provincial retail sales tax has any impact on food prices, nor could any new provincial sales tax at the moment have any effect on housing, I wonder if the minister who is responsible for that statement could explain to us very briefly just how one-third of the commodity groupings across the country are related to the Ontario sales tax increase?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that I do not prepare the statements of Statistics Canada. These statements are prepared according to the mandate of Statistics Canada, recognizing the objectivity of the body itself.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Wou 1 d the minister be good enough then to ask his officials in Statistics Canada to explain for the benefit of the public, and especially the members of this House, how that type of political boondoggling can appear in a statement like that?


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF FEDERAL SALES TAX TO OFFSET ONTARIO INCREASE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since I cannot get answers to the other questions I have asked may I change the subject slightly and ask the minister whether, in view of his reference to the statement in the report of Statistics Canada that one-third of the increase in the cost of living was attributable to the higher sales tax in Ontario, he is prepared to take steps now, as I suggest he should, to reduce the federal sales tax to the point where it would offset the harm done by the increase in the Ontario sales tax?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Alastair William Gillespie: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the kind of statement made by the hon. member opposite is the kind of statement that should not be made in this House. The hon. member knows perfectly well that officials cannot defend themselves. If he cannot accept the truth of the objectivity of that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in such a politically oriented discussion, but I will say that the government s response to the rising cost of living has been twofold: First, to increase the supply of world commodities and agricultural commodities, because basically the problem of the increasing cost of living is a supply problem and, second, to increase the disposable income of Canadians by reducing personal income taxes, eliminating all federal sales tax on food and drink except alcohol, and eliminating the sales tax at the federal level on children's clothing and footwear-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Temiscamingue on a supplementary.
* *
*
[ Translation]


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
INCREASE IN BANK OF CANADA INTEREST R^E-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT-DISCUSSION BETWEEN GOVERNOR AND UNITED STATES BANKING
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.

Before the Governor of the Bank of Canada decided to increase the bank's interest rate, had there been any prior consultations between the government and the governor? Also, can the minister advise the House whether, before such decision was taken, discussions had taken place between the U.S. banking organization, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are always prior consultations with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance. While the day to day decisions concerning monetary policies remain the responsibility of the governor, it is necessary for the Minister of Finance and the government to concur with the governor's general monetary policies.
To the second part of the question, I shall answer negatively.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that unemployment in the Atlantic region actually increased to 9.8 per cent whereas employment on a seasonally adjusted basis declined in the Atlantic region and in the prairie provinces, is the government now going to introduce new policies to stimulate rather than moderate economic growth in certain regions and, if so, does the government intend to review immediately the present monetary policies of the Bank of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the figures in the Atlantic provinces must be weighed against an increase in employment over the period of 9.1 per cent. As a matter of fact the statistics, I suppose, have to be reviewed in light of the strike of construction workers in Nova Scotia to which Statistics Canada makes reference. In any event, we are analysing those statistics which tend to run counter to a general tendency in the country, and we are quite willing to accept them when they are not favourable to government policy unlike the opposition which questions them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East, then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and the hon. member for Brant, and then return to a third round of supplementaries.


James Aloysius McGrath: While the minister is analysing his statistics, in view of the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada that we are now approaching a full employment situation and in light of the figures released today by
Oral Questions
Statistics Canada, would the minister tell the House what the government's definition of full employment is?


John Napier Turner: When every man and woman in this country willing and able to find a job is able to find a job.


COST OF LIVING INCREASE-INCREASE IN CORPORATE INCOME TAX OTHER THAN ON MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING AS FACTOR
George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. As the 7 per cent increase in corporate income tax which was reimposed on January 1 on all businesses other than manufacturing and processing, which is two-thirds of the total economy, has obviously been passed on in the cost of services to the Canadian people since the first of the year, have the minister and his department figured out how much that increase in corporate taxation has increased the cost of living since the first of the year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not demonstrable. I ought to remind the hon. gentleman that the general corporate tax continues to move down from 50 per cent to 46 per cent on the scale anticipated and set in the law by my predecessor.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister try to deny the fact that this increase in taxation was imposed upon all business other than processors and manufacturers and that it has been passed on to the consumer? Why does he try to duck out of this straight honest question by uttering misleading nonsense?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MANPOWER
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the looming employment problem facing tobacco, vegetable and fruit farmers this season in southern Ontario? If he is, what measures is his department taking to solve this very serious problem?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been and continues to work very closely with the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board. At the same time we are sharing with the government of Ontario the cost of producing brochures outlining for students and others detailed information concerning employment available in tobacco. There are very many steps that we are taking. We recently authorized the admission of 500 European workers since there is very strong evidence that

June 12, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadians are not available for this work. Earlier in the year, we agreed to double the quota of European students allowed to enter Canada for work in tobacco to 1350-


Some hon. Members:: Author!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Knight Andras: -we can also make available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. May I suggest to the minister and others who are giving answers to questions that such lengthy statements normally ought to be made on motions. I appreciate that there are a number of further supplementaries to the first question asked. We will return to them but I believe we are still on the first round of questions. I will return to supplementaries, including the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others in a moment.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham involving the objectivity of the statistics released today. In view of the fact that in the release by the government organ today it is indicated that the price of food increased by .8 of one per cent, all items excluding food increased by .8 of one per cent, and the combination of those two groupings increased by .7 of one per cent, can the minister explain this?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the highly technical nature of the question I would be very pleased to take it as notice.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not aware of this very serious loophole in his response today. Using the DBS method of weighting the various components and adding up all those components we arrive at .77 of one per cent instead of the .7 which is indicated in the document. Would the minister investigate the objectivity, reliability and honesty of the reporting which is coming from this particular government organ?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to put the hon. member in touch with the statisticians.


FINANCE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that one of the most difficult problems in managing the Canadian

economy is the length of lag before things take place, given the fact that the increase in employment in the month of May was 14,000 compared with an increase in earlier months of approximately 100,000, is the minister willing to discuss with the governor of the Bank of Canada whether it may be too early to apply the tight money policy that seems to be in effect?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, as I have told the House and the hon. gentleman on several occasions, there is no tight money policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when bank loans have been increasing for the first five months of this year at an annual rate of 30 per cent, when the money supply has been increasing at an annual rate for the first five months of this year of from 18 per cent to 20 per cent, well over the potential expansion of the economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: -that is not a tight money policy.


Mr. Baldwin:: How about bankruptcy?


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I used the sensitive words "tight money". Would the minister discuss with the governor of the Bank of Canada whether or not, given the fact that the indicators are not clear yet as to where the economy is going, particularly the employment figures released for May, the policy of increasing interest rates which has happened is really an effective policy to follow right at this time, in addition to the fact we have so many predictions that the economy of the United States is going to slow down in the fourth quarter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously making a speech at this point. If the minister can reply briefly, he will be recognized for that purpose.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may not be convinced about the current expansion of the economy, but I would remind him and the House that the economy is expanding at an annual rate in real terms of 11.6 per cent, and that the increase in new jobs, May over May, was 497,000 or 6 per cent, is the highest increase-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Would the hon. minister kindly resume his seat. I suggest to both the minister and the hon. member for Don Valley that they are having a debate at this point. The hon. member for York-Simcoe.
June 12, 1973


INTEREST RATE CHARGED BY BANKS ON LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESSMEN, FARMERS AND FISHERMEN
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. With chartered banks now charging many small businessmen, farmers and fishermen an effective interest rate in excess of 10 per cent per annum, more than two and a half points above the so-called low prime rate, would the minister tell the House if this is the way he envisaged his policy of dual lending would work? In short, did he intend one rate for larger corporations and a substantially higher rate for small businesses, farmers and fishermen?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the banks are in effect applying a dual rate system. If the hon. gentleman has evidence running counter to that I would be glad to see the facts of the particular case.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the absence of the Minister of Finance yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he was confident the banks were following the directives of the Minister of Finance with respect to maintaining a dual prime rate. Would the minister inform the House in what way he has monitored the actions of the chartered banks in respect of small business loans during this tight money period, or is he content to rely solely on the supervision of the Inspector General of Banks, who has one secretary and one clerk-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the figures on bank loans come forward, the amount of loans under $100,000, $500,000, $1 million and so on, and the locations of those loans, we hope to have figures to substantiate that particular matter.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to you that we are now completing a first turn, what with supplementary questions and others put between our own questions and those of the Progressive Conservatives mostly.
I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As it is rather difficult to become bilingual, would the Prime Minister tell us whether, among other steps designed to encourage the teaching of the two languages in Canada, the government intends to pay subsidies to all the provinces with a view to facilitating the teaching of
Oral Questions
the two official languages in all Canadian elementary schools?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the federal government pays enormous sums of money to all Canadian provinces to help with the teaching of one or the other official language as a second language. Those amounts are spent by the provinces but the federal government does exercise some control. In this regard, a report was made at the last federal-provincial conference, and the Secretary of State did say in fact that he had seen the report in question, and that we do intend to pay subsidies while exercising closer control over the way the provincial governments spend this money to make sure that, in fact, it goes to the teaching of languages and is not put to other uses.


INCREASE IN TROPICAL DISEASES IN CANADA-STEPS TO TRAIN PHYSICIANS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming increase in tropical diseases in Canada, the potential hazard of 200,000 visitors from tropical countries on the loose, and the scarcity of physicians in this field, leaving an almost hopeless task for the physicians trained in treatment, would the minister take steps to assure federal aid to provide training and physicians to cope with this very serious situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having drawn this problem to my attention. We are in discussions with the tropical and parasitic disease centre in Toronto on a continuing basis and we are investigating with them ways of improving the situation. At the same time, the fact that there are so many visitors coming to Canada makes it rather difficult to keep a medical check on everybody. There is a practical administrative and technical problem that is also involved. This is more the result of the jet age than of tropical diseases themselves.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he will communicate with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on this very important point?


Marc Lalonde: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker, but the problem is not easy in itself.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
4664

Oral Questions
Can the minister tell the House if it is true that some 27 CN cars labeled "bad order", worth millions of dollars and built hardly more than five years ago, have been abandoned for more than two years on a track near Varennes, in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that such a question could easily be put on the order paper. The hon. member wants information concerning a situation which apparently has existed for two years already; it seems to me that, in such circumstances, the question could easily be put on the order paper. But, if the minister wants to give a short answer, I will recognize him accordingly.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if it took two years to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe to find that out, he will give me until tomorrow to ascertain if those facts are accurate.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In viewr of the warning of the Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that the world faces a serious food shortage, and in view of the fact that such a disaster will drive food prices in Canada still higher than they are at present, will the government contact the provincial governments immediately to discuss a federally financed program to supplement the food dollars of those on low incomes in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask Barrett about egg prices in British Columbia.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will the government at least enter into immediate discussions with the provinces to implement the Food Prices Committee recommendation, which this House has already accepted, for a co-sponsored program to get proper food on the tables of people with low incomes?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the dire warning from the Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization yesterday, has the minister considered any new proposals in addition to those he indicat-

ed when I asked a question about West Africa about a month ago?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have approved further action to help in relieving the very serious food shortage that has developed around the rim of the Sahara because of the extension of the drought.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that mounting food prices as indicated by the increase in the consumer price index are particularly affecting people on low incomes-I mention particularly blind pensioners who have not received an increase since 1955-is the minister going to take action to help these people instead of waiting for another five years until his orange paper proves fruitful?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I missed part of the question. My translation system was not working. Could I hear the question again?


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, lots of systems are not working. My question was, in view of the fact that the consumer price index increase has particularly affected low income people, particularly the disadvantaged like the blind who have not had an increase since 1954, is the minister going to take action prior to the production of the orange paper in five years to help those people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member may be blind to the facts. The situation is that the pensions the hon. member is referring to come under the Canada Assistance Plan for the most part and this is a provincial responsibility. I understand that the payments have been adjusted on a regular basis by the provinces from time to time.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, but I would hope we would try to limit supplementaries in the last ten minutes of the question period in order to give more members an opportunity to ask questions. For the moment, the hon. member can ask his supplementary question.


Jack Marshall: While I realize that some of these programs fall within the purview of the Canada Assistance Plan, would the minister answer the question as to how these people can wait for five years until the orange paper comes out and continue to cope with the mounting increases in the cost of living?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is paying 50 per cent of those pensions and it is up to the provincial governments to decide what they want to give.
June 12, 1973

Oral Questions
As far as the areas under federal responsibility are concerned, we have moved on old age pensions and we hope to move on family allowances very quickly.

[ Translation]


POLLUTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of the Environment.
Since municipalities have an essential role in the fight against water pollution, is the minister considering bringing in specific financial measures intended to help municipalities, through the provinces, in order that they carry out their responsibilities in this regard?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there is already an extensive program of support administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under which a 25 per cent subsidy is given to municipalities that engage in programs of this kind.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the program mentioned by the minister failing to meet adequately the needs of small municipalities, I would like to state my question more precisely. Does the Department of the Environment consider setting up a very specific financial program that would help the municipalities I just mentioned?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but I might add that the province of Quebec has not taken up all the money allocated to it under the CMHC program.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked about food prices and is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I paid 27 cents for a pint of milk last night at a retail grocer's just outside Ottawa. This is at the rate of almost $22 per hundredweight. The farmer received about 9 cents for that quantity. Is the minister doing anything to combat this unreasonable inflationary condition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport relating to passenger transportation on railway trains in southwestern Ontario. Is the minister now in a position to report on his visit with Premier Davis of Ontario, and would he be willing to make a statement in the near future on this subject? Perhaps I could ask him now, in order to avoid a supplementary whether he would explain the statement he made to me two months ago that before he makes a statement in the House Canadian National Railways will have to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission for the installation of new lines.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the problem that was posed to us involved the abandonment of an existing train.


Henry Perrin Beatty: No.


Jean Marchand: I know what I am saying, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: The hon. gentleman says no. He was not in my office when the discussions took place with the representatives of the government of Ontario. I say that the demand which was made implied the abandonment of another branch, and this is why they have to go to the CTC.

[ Transla tion]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the announcement made yesterday by the Mayor of Montreal regarding the use of the green spaces of Viau park as the site for the Olympic Games of 1976, does the minister intend to avail himself of the powers given him under the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act in order to prohibit the municipal government from removing these green spaces?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, so far we have received no application from either the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec for funds under the National Housing Act for any housing related to the Olympic Village. If such an application is received it will have to meet the normal standards of lending for such housing, namely, that it makes a contribution to the community in which the housing is established, that it falls within the normal program relat-
4666

June 12, 1973
Oral Questions
ed to low income housing and meets the criteria which are normally applied.


WHEAT-ENCOURAGEMENT OF DELIVERIES BY DEFERMENT OF PAYMENT SETTLEMENT UNTIL 1974
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because of the urgent need to encourage western producers to deliver the maximum possible amount of grain in this calendar year to meet export sales, and in order that they will not be penalized by storage charges or income tax, will the minister allow producers to defer settlement until 1974 without penalty?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: We have looked into the question of income tax deferrals. Such action was taken in the immediate post-war period under a law then in effect but no longer in effect. A legislative amendment would therefore be required in order to allow the kind of postponement to which the hon. member refers.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I was not thinking in terms of income tax deferrals but of deferring the cash settlement for the grain until the year 1974. Would the minister also consider paying interest on the deferred settlement if it comes about?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not think they can have it both ways. I was referring specifically to the deferral of payment. The difficulty in the present situation is that a payment to which one is entitled may be taxable even though it is not actually received. The point therefore is to determine whether we could arrange a credit situation that did not attract tax.


HARBOURS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that a large delegation of parliamentarians, government officials from Quebec and the federal Department of Transport and businessmen visited the area of the Gros Cacouna oil port last week. Would the minister inform the House whether he or any of his officials received an invitation to visit the port with this delegation and, if not, would he have liked to receive one?


John (Jack) Davis: The
answer to the latter part of the question is yes. I do not know of any invitation and I will have to inquire whether any officials of Environment Canada were invited or were present.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the hon. gentleman now able to inform the House as to the government's reaction and response to the request from Atlantic fishermen for assistance to compensate them for loss of earnings because of heavy ice in their area?


John (Jack) Davis: I can only say that the matter is under active consideration.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In order to do something about employment in Atlantic Canada, if only in a small way, will the minister bring the House up to date as to the present situation with respect to the crewing of the motor vessel Travetal!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think we sent a wire yesterday to the owner of the Travetal and he will probably be allowed to operate for a couple of months to St. John's, Newfoundland.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister support an initiative at the NATO Council meeting later this week which would consider the future of the military government of Greece within the alliance?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not the intention of the Canadian government to call for the expulsion of Greece from the NATO alliance.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Mitchell William Sharp: I want to make the point quite clear. We are not in favour of the expulsion of Greece from the NATO alliance, not because we agree with the principles upon which its government is operating but because we think it would neither help the alliance nor help in achieving the goals we have in common. However, I shall, at this conference, be supporting what I consider to be one of the fundamentals of the alliance, namely, the upholding of democratic principles.
June 12, 1973


PATENTS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. On May 30 I asked the minister whether he would refer the annual report of Canadian Patents and Development Limited to the appropriate committee for consideration. He informed me he would like to discuss the matter first with the President of the Privy Council. I understand this may have been done. Perhaps he can inform us now whether he will let the annual report go to the appropriate committee.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have written the hon. gentleman a letter which he probably has not yet received or had a chance to read.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The Post Office again.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I believe the procedure suggested in the letter would probably be more satisfactory to him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to those about the increase in food prices. Bearing in mind these increases, and in view of the fact that farm input costs in the last three months went up by 6.1 per cent, will the minister undertake to demand that the Food Prices Review Board investigate the reason for this rise in farm costs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the farm representative on this board to make sure this is done.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the unwarranted seizure by police last week of two paintings and a print by well-known artists being displayed in a legitimate Toronto art gallery, and in view of the earlier seizure by police in Manitoba of the film "Last Tango in Paris" and the increasing use of the arbitrary power of seizure by police forces throughout Canada, has the minister considered introducing an amendment to the
Oral Questions
Criminal Code in order to restrict this type of activity by police and to restore the power to decide alleged cases of obscenity to the courts where it belongs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of obscenity in the law is one of the matters which is being examined by the Law Reform Commission. However, let me say that I would not accept some of the adjectives used by the hon. member, particularly his use of the word "arbitrary", to describe the operation of the present law in the Criminal Code against obscenity, which was introduced when his party formed the government.


Ronald George Atkey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary, then I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition, and then I shall have to call orders of the day.


Ronald George Atkey: Is it the minister's position, then, that there will be no changes to the Criminal Code along these lines until we have the official report of the Law Reform Commission?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once having referred a subject matter like this to the Law Reform Commission I would ordinarily take the position, without absolutely binding the government to it, of waiting for the final report of the commission.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board who indicated on December 14 that, following discussions, directives would be sent to departments in regard to the implementation of his guidelines. In view of his statement on April 12 that these consultations had been completed and that the directives to the departments would be tabled in the House when the minister spoke on the bilingualism resolution sponsored by the Prime Minister, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board why these directives have not been tabled in the House, as he indicated they would be?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it was proposed to table them at the time they were printed and prepared for issue to all departments concerned, and this will be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-4, to amend the Fisheries Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 11, consideration of Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 (Mr. Woolliams), and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gilbert (p. 4650).
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, just before the close-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just at the conclusion of what I thought was the debate on the amendments moved by myself, Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, the hon. member for Broadview moved an amendment which was accepted by the Chair. The amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the phrase "one half" and by substituting therefor the phrase "one quarter".
My amendment commences as follows:
-Governor in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one half of one per cent-
I think the words that the hon. member for Broadview missed throughout his whole speech are the words "shall not exceed". I am not suggesting for a moment that the interest rate above the rate that is paid by the government on money it borrows through long term bonds should be one half of one per cent. What I suggested in my amendment, with some flexibility and realism, was that the rate shall not exceed by more than one half of one per cent the bond rate. The hon. member for Broadview and his many friends in that party, with the greatest respect to them, attempted all of last evening and for part of the afternoon to try to get in an amendment in order to prove to the House and to the country that they were the ones who, for the first time, had moved that there be a ceiling on interest rates. I thought it was time I stood in my place and laid the facts before the House.
When this bill came before the standing committee for examination, I and other members of my party moved an amendment with reference to a ceiling on interest rates

for loans of this kind. At no time did the members of the NDP-I am sure they will admit this-move any amendment at the committee stage dealing with a ceiling on interest rates. Now, after the committee stage is over, they come along and move an amendment to provide that there shall not be any rate of interest or that there be a zero rate of interest over and above the rate that the government has to pay to borrow money. I entertained that proposal in the committee, and I frankly and honestly admitted that yesterday, but I decided to come forward with the only amendment that would be acceptable to the government at the committee level and which I felt the House would support at this level. I did so because I and my party were serious about this question.
One of the fundamental problems facing the people of Canada today is high interest rates. Today, we heard questions asked by members of all the opposition parties about interest rates. We know that today interest rates across the country charged by banks and lending institutions are running at the 9 to 10 per cent level, which makes it very difficult for people who want to buy homes. I wonder whether the minister and the government are satisfied with the fact that only 4 per cent of the people of Canada who are wage earners can afford to buy homes. Not only have homes doubled in price, but interest rates are such that homes are now placed beyond the reach of, I suggest, even less than 4 per cent.
At no time during the committee stage did the NDP support my suggestion with reference to a ceiling on interest rates. Therefore, I took a realistic approach and moved, realistically and conscientiously, an amendment that I felt would carry in parliament in regard to a ceiling on interest rates, because I felt this party was exercising its responsibilities in assisting the people in this way.
I must emphasize the words in my motion "shall not exceed". In his speech, the hon. member for Broadview always left the impression that I wanted an interest rate of one half of one percent above the bond rate, whereas in actual fact my motion says "shall not exceed by more than one half of one per cent". As I said yesterday, if the bond rate were 6 per cent, the charge could be 6 '/a per cent, or 614 per cent, but not more than 6!4>
per cent. The members of this party intend to support the amendment that I have placed on the order paper, and to put on the record the fact that not only in this House but also on the radio members of the NDP have been trying to prove to the country that they were the only people concerned with putting a ceiling on interest rates. In actual fact, as I have said, they never mentioned it during the committee stage. That is why I take this position at the present time.
Yesterday the NDP tried to move an amendment and attach it to the motion that I had put before the House. I contend that what they are trying to do is to jockey for position. I and my party have come here in the sincere belief that we are going to serve the people by moving a realistic amendment to deal with this particular problem. It is true that the amendments were worded slightly differently, but the rate prescribed in the amendments approved by a vote of the committee was one half of one per cent. The only difference between the amendments now and then is in the wording relating to the long term bond rate. The original amendment I moved in committee
June 12, 1973

referred merely to the market price that the government had to pay for its money. As 95 per cent or more of the money raised by the government is raised through bonds, I felt this formula would be easier for the CMHC to implement, particularly after I had interviewed some of those people who were most fair and helpful. Therefore, my party intends to support the amendment we put on the order paper and reject the political jockeying of the NDP who are trying to prove they are the only party that have feelings about this matter.
Having said that, I should like to refer to another matter to which I object. I never intended to get into this debate, but hon. members of the NDP left the impression yesterday that I had only moved the amendment to cover a very small segment of the load.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says that is right, but he is as wrong as he can be. If the Bank Act were before parliament or if the Interest Act were before parliament, I would certainly adopt a different position. If any member tried to move an amendment to the Bank Act or the Interest Act using this legislation as the vehicle he would be ruled out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I believe the only thing I can say is that those hon. members' arguments are filled with such holes they contain nothing but hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They cannot say the same thing about my attitude yesterday because I supported their first amendment which was based on realistic grounds rather than politics in an attempt to accomplish this objective. The hon. member says that we should get on with the job, legislate and stop filibustering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, after listening to such complete and utter distortion of reality one is just amazed. What the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has just said could hardly be said to be true in the slightest detail. Since reality apparently escapes the hon. member, let me remind him that when he proposed the amendment in the committee members of the NDP said to him privately and publicly that the hon. member's idea was a good one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you support it then, instead of playing politics?


An hon. Member:: Don't shout like that, Eldon.


John Edward Broadbent: If you would like to check the record, the point was made in the committee that he should carry his argument to its logical conclusion, namely that there is no excuse whatsoever for the government to be charging a recipient of a CMHC loan more than it was paying itself for the same loan. This is particularly true when in this
National Housing Act
bill before us there are provisions for administrative costs of such transactions above and beyond the additional one per cent the minister is asking.
The hon. member gets up and eloquently denounces the NDP, yet is on record as saying that our argument is right. He said that in committee and in the debate yesterday. He said he was inclined to accept our theory. He said there was no justification for any charge, so what is his magnificent excuse for the nonsense he has proposed instead? I suggest the excuse is that we have a government over there with which he has been able to wheel and deal. He suggests the only reason we will get this amendment through is that the noble minister has indicated he would co-operate.
Let me remind the hon. member that his party and this party together constitute a majority, and if the hon. member were not insulting in the most open kind of hypocritical way, playing politics, he would repeat what he said yesterday and admit the logic of the NDP position. If he really wanted to make that government change this bill along the lines he argued yesterday, he would support this amendment by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). The hon. member for Broadview moved toward the position of the party of the hon. member for Calgary North. Instead of that member making the phoniest kind of hypocritical denouncement of the NDP, that party which recognized the plausible suggestion made by the hon. member at the committee stage, supported him there and carried his argument one step further in this House yesterday, I suggest he should put aside his political gamesmanship and work with other parties in the opposition to implement the policy which you advanced in the committee and proposed in this House yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the emotion of the day carried me away.


An hon. Member:: But not the logic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can't stand the truth.


An hon. Member:: There is no logic.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot ignore one other point the hon. member has made. Apparently he does not pay attention to logic, but he does listen to the radio. He said he heard on the radio recently that the NDP was trying to convey the impression it was the only party concerned with interest rates. He gets up and shouts and hollers and says that is not so, the Conservative party is also concerned with interest rates. I suggest that he demonstrate the wonderful concern he expresses by supporting the NDP when the opportunity comes, and it will not come in relation to this bill.
I should have thought the hon. member for Calgary North, who has been around for a few years, would have known we cannot deal with the Bank Act when we are talking about a series of amendments to the National Housing Act. We will see the hypocrisy of the hon. member, or his lack of it, when we move an amendment to the Bank Act when that measure is before us. That amend-

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act
ment will do two things. It will direct the banks in Canada to allocate a percentage of their investment to housing, and will make it mandatory that these interest rates do not exceed the prime rate. When we are dealing with the interest rates in this country in a serious way the NDP will move that amendment and then we will watch the hon. member for Calgary North and his party to see how they stand. We will then know who is playing a hypocritical game.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11, of Mr. Woolliams, seconded by Mr. Hales, that Bill C-133, an act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 33 to 40-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: And the amendment by Mr. Gilbert, seconded by Mr. Orlikow. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement made yesterday, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.
The House will move to the consideration of motion No.
4.	The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), moves, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting line 39 on page 10 from Clause 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceed".
At the same time motion No. 6 will be considered. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting line 6 on page 13 from Clause 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceed".
At the same time the House will consider motion No. 10 and motion No. 12. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moves as follows:
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting lines 33 and 34 on page 22 from Clause 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"in council, but shall not exceed such rate as".
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting lines 34 and 35 on page 26 from Clause 19 and substituting the following therefor:

"not exceed such rate as the Governor in".


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the bill. We had the debate on the amendments moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, and there is no point in duplicating once again the arguments made at that time from our point of view in opposition to the details of the proposals of motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, but in agreement with the principle. While I would be making the same points all over again on amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12, I think it would be simply a waste of time to repeat the argument at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motions Nos. 4, 6, 10 and
12.
All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 45 the recorded division on the proposed amendments will stand deferred.
The next motion is motion No. 7 in the name of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford).
[ Translation]
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) moved:
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 11 to 13 on page 14 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(a) such amount as may be prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council in respect of each family housing".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a very brief explanation of our reason for moving this amendment and to urge the support of members opposite to this amendment. This section was amended in committee on motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I appreciate his motives and his intention in moving it. He believed that the forgiveness provision of the repair and rehabilitation sections should be limited to amounts set by regulation of the Governor in Council in relation to the income of the recipient. The previous bill, as introduced in the committee, set the amount of forgiveness at $2,000. The amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, which was approved by the committee, had I think an effect which may not have been foreseen.
I have received representations since the amendment was moved from the province of Quebec on behalf of the repair program in the city of Montreal. My officials and I
June 12, 1973

have studied the amendment and I think it has an effect which I would like to point out to the House in the hope that the members of the NDP and Conservative parties would support the government's amendment. The effect of it, as I say, is that the forgiveness sections of the repair provisions would apply only to low-income people. The object of the repair and rehabilitation section is to have as wide an effect and to cause as much rehabilitation as possible within neighbourhood improvement areas, irrespective of the income of the people involved. Where there is a non-resident owner of the property receiving the grant, the amendment makes very clear that he receives forgiveness of the grant as a contribution toward repair only if he enters into an agreement to pass on that saving to the tenant.
Without this amendment, we would not be able to make any contribution to the repair of such housing and this would have the effect of defeating part of the purpose of our bill, which everybody supports, in respect of rehabilitation. It would have the effect of making it far more difficult to carry on the work in Montreal, which is a city with the most advanced repair and rehabilitation program in the country. That is the reason the province of Quebec made the representation it has made. Therefore, I would urge hon. members to support this amendment and clear up a difficulty which I think was not foreseen by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby when he moved his amendment in the committee taking out the $2,000 provision which I am quite happy to see taken out.
The Governor in Council, from time to time, can set the forgiveness amounts in light of the funds available and the need for the program. Therefore, I support the basis of the amendment moved by the hon. member, but it has had this undesirable effect of limiting the program only to low-income houses owned by low-income people in which they were living. This would prevent the program from having any effect on non-resident owned properties which would have a very undesirable effect on the repair and neighbourhood improvement section. I assure the House that there is no rip-off, if I may use that term, because anyone getting the grant must agree to pass on the saving to the tenant by way of lower rental.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather good news to hear the minister now say he is happy that the $2,000 ceiling is out of the legislation. It was the minister who placed the ceiling in the legislation and it was the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who moved the amendment to remove that $2,000 ceiling. In the previous bill introduced by the minister, the ceiling was $4,000 and I suppose, on reflection, he decided he should bring it down to $2,000. We are happy the ceiling has been removed and share that happiness with the minister. We accept the interpretation placed on his amendment with regard to the advantage which may have been obtained by the landlord if our amendment in committee had gone through without the amendment of the minister. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the amendment of the minister.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
National Housing Act


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Basford) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).

The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moved:
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the Natiqpal Housing Act, be amended by deleting proposed section 34.12 in Clause 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"34.12 Except as provided in paragraph 34.1(1) (b), a loan may not be made under section 34.1 to the owner of a family housing unit who does not reside in the unit unless the unit is located in a neighbourhood referred to in paragraph 34.1(l)(a) and the owner has entered into a contract with the Corporation that provides that
(a)	the rental to be charged shall not, for such period of time as is determined by the Corporation, exceed the rental that the Corporation deems to be fair and reasonable having regard to the probable family income of the lessee of the unit;
(b)	the unit shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of during the duration of the contract except with the consent of the Corporation and on such terms and conditions as the Corporation may approve; and
(c)	the Corporation shall have the right, in the event that the borrower commits a breach of the contract, to declare the unpaid principal of the loan due and payable forthwith or to increase the interest payable thereafter on the unpaid balance of the loan to such rate as the Governor in Council may determine."


John Edward Broadbent: I shall speak very briefly on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, the purpose is really to restore the bill to its original state when it was sent to the committee. In the committee an amendment was moved by the Conservative party which, from our point of view and op first analysis, had real merit. It would have provided for landlords to receive rehabilitation grants for buildings outside the NIP areas. We thought this would be desirable because we could not only get work done but we could get rehabilitation done outside the areas. Therefore, at the time we supported the proposal.
On second thought, however, we considered that one of the unforeseen consequences-unforeseen by us and, in our judgment, by the mover of the motion at that time, and it was certainly not intended-was that NIP could be undermined in two ways. If you make grants for rehabilitation available outside of NIP areas as well as within, this will serve to deplete the amount of money available for serious work to be done under NIP. If we are really going to zero in on certain cities in certain parts of the country and do a significant job in terms of rehabilitation, then by definition we will have to concentrate our financial resources on those areas if we are to do a good job. So if you make funds available for rehabilitation outside NIP areas, by definition you are going to undermine in precise-
4672

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act
ly that degree the efficacy of NIP by taking funds away from NIP areas that would otherwise go there.
The second point I wish to make is that if a landlord in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Montreal has buildings in a NIP area and also has them located outside a NIP area, if the bill remains as it is amended by the Conservative proposal, there will be perhaps a strong temptation for that landlord to take funds that would be available for rehabilitation for improving Suildings outside the NIP area and not use them for rehabilitating buildings which he owns within the NIP area. In sum, the point I am making is that the force of this amendment would be to restore the bill to its original state with regard to the provisions for NIP. I think that is desirable if we want to maximize the use of the funds that we are going to put into neighbourhood improvement.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the original amendment which put the bill into its present form, I want to have an opportunity to comment on the apparent change of heart of my friends to the left and their efforts to restore the bill to its original form. I do not know what representations were made to them from various sources to bring forth the arguments which have just been advanced by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), but let me say that my party is much in favour of the bill as it now stands.
The clauses in question were changed to accomplish two purposes. The first purpose, to which reference has not been made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, was to provide some incentive for landlords to put their own money into projects. As hon. members who are on the committee will recall, the amendment introduced the concept, suggested to us incidentally by Mr. Legault of the city of Montreal, that for every dollar of rehabilitation funds that the landlord would receive from the government he would put in a dollar of his own. In this way, the provision regarding the rehabilitation of housing, rather than a totally government subsidized operation, would become a partnership operation between private landlords and the government. We saw that as a healthier development which would provide a basis for a sound rehabilitation program under the National Housing Act. The amendment put by the hon. member to my left will remove that feature and make it a totally subsidized government operation in that field. I think that that is not acceptable to my party or to the country.
The second reason the initial amendment to the clause was moved and, I suggest, why it should remain is that the area orientation of the rehabilitation program and NIP leaves something to be desired. I suggest that the restriction of rehabilitation funds to a specifically designated area in the city will tend to create ghettos from those areas and stigmatize the people who will be living in those areas as poor people by definition, only too visible to all who know, all who can see, and who have some ideas as to the source of the funds for the housing in which they live.
It has always been part of the philosophy of this party, in attempting to assist low income people through provision for the rehabilitation of existing housing, that such housing should be made available throughout the cities, in the towns, and everywhere else on an integrated basis. It is not right to confine government financed rehabilitation

of housing to one area. It is a far healthier development to spread it across the city. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby suggested that this would tend to deplete the funds for work required to be done in neighbourhood improvement areas. I suggest that the reverse may be true, because if we really look for some evidence of the government's spending intention in the neighbourhood improvement areas we can go back to the minister's earlier statements, and specifically his statement last year, when an earlier version of the bill was before the House. At that time only a relatively small sum out of a total of $6 million was to be allocated to this program involving existing housing. In our judgment, this sum was not sufficient to do the job.
It was argued that in expanding the scope of the rehabilitation program to take into account all areas of the country there would be a greater onus on the government to provide the funds to fit the program which the people need. Unfortunately, in planning its housing policy this government all too often merely designates a small sum of money available and then tries to tailor the program around the money available. I think this is backward planning. In the development of housing policy we should look at needs first, and this is what the initial amendment which was put before the committee attempted to do.
I think there are grave dangers in continuing the area orientation of the rehabilitation program. I agree with my friends to the left that initially an attempt should be made to concentrate efforts in neighbourhood improvement areas. I do not want to be understood as having said that this is an entirely bad concept, but to put all moneys for the renovation and redevelopment of existing residential areas in the cities into one area, without allowing any other moneys to go outside those areas into the centres of some of the suburbs and to some of the rural and middle income areas of the cities is, I think, to continue a concept which is not conducive to a sound and lasting policy for the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock which is the general program before us at present. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to reconsider the matter before us and to defeat the amendment which has now been put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) because it seems to me, if I understood him correctly, that what he is proposing is contrary to the very clear, concise and, I think very practical suggestions made in the submission to the committee dealing with this act on April 10 of this year by Professor Michael Dennis who headed the study that led to this bill. In his submission Professor Dennis made it clear that we must do something that we have not done up until now. We must stop devoting the overwhelming part of our finances and efforts to the provision of homes for people in the middle and upper income brackets. He said specifically in connection with NIP programs that they should be restricted to housing for the people in the lower income brackets.
Let me put on the record a few of the suggestions made by Professor Dennis on April 10. I quote from page 6 of the
June 12, 1973

mimeograph submission which was distributed at the time Professor Dennis reported to the committee. I read the following:
One of the criteria for selection of NIP areas should be the need for the type of assistance contemplated. That criterion should be clearly stated in the legislation, to shape the proposed agreements.
Here is the point where Professor Dennis is completely at odds with the hon. member for St. Paul's:
NIP funds should not be spent in middle and upper income areas, unless the volume of funding is increased drastically.
One cannot live in cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver without knowing that many areas which contained pretty fine housing have deteriorated markedly over the past ten or 15 years. I will certainly join with any hon. member who wants to urge the government to adopt programs to stop this deterioration.
I will be dealing with the question of how much money the government is prepared to put into housing improvements, into stopping the deterioration of existing houses, and into encouraging the building of houses at prices which people with moderate and low incomes can afford, either to own or rent. Here, we are talking actually about a small amount of money, and the total needs of the Canadian people will not be met. Certainly during the last few years, the housing needs of people in the low income brackets, and even of people in the middle income brackets, have not been met. If we start out with too small a sum of money for any of the plans which the minister has proposed, then I say to him and to the hon. member for St. Paul's that we will continue to have substantial problems, because most of the available money in one way or another will be pumped into the provision of housing for middle income and upper income people.
I submit that while middle income people are paying too much for housing accommodation, whether they rent or own it, in one way or another they can satisfy their own needs. They may have to scrape a little on other living expenses. As a matter of fact, when I look at the real estate advertisements in the Toronto newspapers I wonder how people can afford to pay $50,000 and $60,000 for the homes which are advertised in page after page. But, as I say, those people are able to meet their own needs. People in the lower income brackets have not been able to get decent accommodation at a cost they can afford. Because of all this, I agree with Professor Dennis, I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, but Professor Dennis is not only an expert, in addition he had a group of people working with him who are extremely knowledgeable about housing needs in Canada.


Ronald George Atkey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quoting liberally from Professor Dennis. He quotes from Professor Dennis in relation to the other program, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. The matter under consideration is the Residential Rehabilitation Program. I would be glad if he would quote Professor Dennis' remarks on it, because they sustain the position I put forward.


David Orlikow: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Ronald George Atkey: Page 11.
National Housing Act


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has invited me to do this. He has even given me the page.


Ronald George Atkey: The top paragraph.


David Orlikow: It is the top paragraph on page 11 which reads:
Section 34.12 excludes absentee landlords from eligibility for assistance outside NIP areas. Presumably this overrides the provision empowering federal-provincial agreements to make exceptions. Once again the non-urban (or at least non-centre city) tenant suffers, for no valid reason.
Not being a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, my first reading of that paragraph does not prompt me to interpret it in the same way as the hon. member for St. Paul's does, as affecting the argument which I am making. The point I want to make is a very simple one. I am not concerned about the housing needs of members of parliament, professors, lawyers or doctors, or indeed even of skilled workers in auto and steel plants who, for the first time in many years, are earning wages and salaries which enable them to get housing accommodation for themselves. I am concerned about the people in the major cities who have not been able to get housing accommodation for themselves. I do not know whether to be sad or happy about the fact that the price of homes in Winnipeg has not suffered the mad increase that the price of housing in places such as Toronto has. But even in Winnipeg, the price of homes over the last two years has increased at a tremendous rate.
I go back to what I interpret to be the spirit of the Dennis report, and certainly of the Charney report, which is that our housing policies ought to have as their first priority something which they have not had until now. Whether the main fault be in the legislation, in the administration by CMHC, or in the thrust of recent government policy, both Liberal and Conservative, the fact remains that we have not had an outright drive to meet the housing needs of the hundreds of thousands of people in the low income brackets who live in our major cities, who simply cannot afford to purchase housing on their own, or to rent it at a cost they can afford.
Despite all the great speeches and the supposedly imaginative proposals of the minister, and of former ministers in charge of housing during the last three or four years, from month to month and from year to year the situation has become much worse. I wish to close by quoting just one more sentence from page 7 of Professor Dennis' brief, which reads:
-measures to be taken to ensure that the public will obtain any economic benefits that may be obtained from the lands and services in respect of which the loans are made.-
I suggest that this should apply to lands as well. People in the lower income brackets have a very difficult time getting some of the benefits. Of the hundreds of millions of dollars which federal governments of both political stripes have pumped into housing over the last 20 years, 95 per cent of the benefits have gone to the people in the middle and upper brackets. I should like to see a sharp reversal of that kind of policy, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly to indicate on
26446-6)

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act
behalf of the government that we support this amendment and hope it will pass. It puts the bill back into somewhat the same condition in which it was in committee. I agree with what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has said. It seems to us very desirable, when we look at the neighbourhood improvement program and the repair and rehabilitation sections, that the budget and the program should be concentrated where it can do the most good. I believe that all parties in the House have accepted the fact that the old idea of bulldozing neighbourhoods is dead and gone. We are trying now to create a program that will replace urban renewal and will preserve and conserve older neighbourhoods in cities and towns. Provision for that program is made in this section, and it seems to me desirable that it be concentrated in the neighbourhood improvement areas and concentrated behind this effort to preserve and conserve older communities.
There is another point I want to make. In terms of the repair program, if we are going outside the neighbourhood improvement program and if we are going to have some sort of repair program-there is merit in saying we should have that and undoubtedly the country will come to it- surely such programs should apply to owners who live in their own homes. The way the bill reads, as reported from committee, means that landlords who do not live in the housing can get grants and assistance but some old age pensioner living in his own house could not get any help. That seems to be a complete anomaly, Mr. Speaker, and it may not have been seen by the mover of the amendment in committee. I think it should not be allowed to continue in the National Housing Act.
If we are going to have a general program, it should not be limited to landlords, which would be the effect of Bill C-133 if it were passed as amended in committee by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I agree with the hon. members of the New Democratic Party that we should get this repair and rehabilitation program going in older neighbourhoods and we should make sure that it works.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the motion and acknowledging some of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), I would draw to his attention that the CMHC budget for 1973 sets forth the amount of moneys to be allocated under section 34(1>, rehabilitation, of $6 million, and the amount of moneys to be allocated for the neighbourhood improvement programs of $1 million. He says that these are start-up funds. We have a total of $7 million for rehabilitation of homes across the country and that is not very much.
Experience has shown that when people wanted to improve their homes they used the provisions of the home improvement plan and this was not successful. Probably the reason was that people in the lower income bracket did not want to go to banks to establish credit in order to obtain a loan to make home improvements. In the past, they have gone to finance companies and instead of paying the ordinary bank rate they paid double that in many cases. The result was that many people did not repair their homes.
Attempts have been made in the past to have co-operation between the federal government and municipal gov-

ernments in order to work out a plan whereby a person could borrow money from the city and repay it as part of his taxes. In Toronto, there is a pilot project along that line with the interest rate being something like 3 per cent. I should like to see that program extended and see the federal government fund the municipalities so that there could be an adequate rehabilitation program right across the country rather than the limited one we have at the moment.
With so little money allocated, we must be careful that it is applied to people who are in desperate need of home repairs. These sections provide the opportunity for the allocation of the money to such people. It may be that some will not qualify and will have to use the ordinary channels in order to obtain money to rehabilitate their houses. Unfortunately, that will probably be the case, but I think we can persuade the government-when I say "we", I depend on the good offices and persuasive ability of the hon. member for St. Paul's-to give the priority to the people who need their houses rehabilitated.
I am not convinced that landlords are going to use those moneys to rehabilitate homes for the use of people on low income; I suspect they are going to use it to increase their own profits. I am sure that after reflection the hon. member for St. Paul's will support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. If we are short of money, we must use it for the people who need it to repair their homes. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about old age pensioners and people on very low incomes who just cannot afford the high interest rates that prevail at banks and finance companies. I, therefore, support the amendment.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, briefly, it strikes me as significant that none of those who preceded me saw fit to address themselves to the other reason for the amendment, that being the incentive built into the program that for every dollar of public money put into the rehabilitation program, a dollar would be required from the landlord. It seems to me that if there is a shortage of funds, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has pointed out, one way of overcoming that and yet providing more housing would be to adopt the scheme which was inherent in my original amendment-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has already spoken to this question. How does he get an opportunity to make a second speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood that the hon. member for St. Paul's had taken part in a point of order before, but I had not understood that he had spoken. If he has spoken on this particular motion, then of course he is barred from speaking now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Counting that point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is his third speech.
June 12, 1973


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Broadbent) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 13. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), moves as follows:
That Bill C-133, An act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting from clause 21 lines 27 to 33 on page 29 and substituting therefor the following:
"59. The corporation may, subject to and in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, make loans to
(a)	Indians, as defined in the Indian Act, for the purpose of assisting in the purchase, improvement or construction of housing projects on Indian reserves and
(b)	individuals or corporations for the purpose of assisting in the purchase, improvement or construction of single family housing units, with such sanitary facilities as may be required therefor by law, in non-incorporated municipal rural areas and such incorporated areas, and rural areas without collective sanitary sewer and water systems."


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although I hope the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) will be permitted to make his speech on the need for housing assistance in remote areas, may I point out that this amendment was moved in committee and ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee on the basis that it went beyond the recommendation of the governor general. I will be replying to the hon. member, if he speaks to the substance of the motion, and say simply that the Housing Act provides for everything which would be provided by his motion. It seems to me, therefore, the amendment is out of order on that basis. It is unnecessary, and therefore out of order. Nevertheless, whether the motion is in order or out of order, I hope the hon. member will be allowed to make his speech, if not now, then at third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order concerning the point of order raised by the minister. I submit to you that the chairman of the committee erred in making the particular ruling alluded to by the minister. Of course, that is not the first time that a committee chairman has made a mistake in ruling. The purpose of section 59 is to make a slight amendment to the act as it now stands. The act now provides that loans can be made to an Indian for the construction of a home. The bill seeks to expand that by providing that loans may be made to Indians for the purchase, renovation or construction of homes on Indian reserves, and defines Indians as that class of people mentioned in the Indian Aet.
National Housing Act
I submit that the amendment seeks to say, and I think I can anticipate the feeling of members who wanted this amendment brought forward, that the provisions of the law which are now confined to Indians as defined in the Indian Act, and particularly Indians on Indian reserves, shall be expanded and encompass Indian people who may not be defined in the act. I submit that we may find it impossible to define an Indian for general classification purposes, because it would be presumptuous on the part of this parliament to make that determination. The amendment seeks to establish that Indians, without the status of Indians under the act, shall be permitted to apply for loans that are available to those people on the reserves. The amendment would apply also to Indian people with respect to the purchase, construction or renovation of housing. I see the minister shakes his head. I realize that it is easy for him to be negative.
I submit that the amendment seeks to do just what I suggest, to extend the application of these loans. That, I submit, would come within the ambit of the royal recommendation. The provisions of the law in this regard would then apply to Indian people who live off the reserve, to those Indian people who are not narrowly defined under the Indian Act. After all, it would be a one-sided obligation on the part of this parliament if it were to try to determine who is or who is not an Indian, or who has or who does not have the status of an Indian, as the case may be. The amendment must be worded in this way. It would apply to individuals who are Indians but who do not have status under the Indian Act, and to incorporated groups, such as the Metis Association, the B.C. Association of non-status Indians or the Yansi group of Indians in the Yukon. It would include any other group of Indian people which is excluded by the definition in the Indian Act. That is what the amendment seeks to do. In short, it seeks to provide that the law that applies in some respects to Indians who are on the reserve shall apply also to Indians who do not live on the reserve, and shall apply without distinction. I submit that the amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker, on that basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on a point of order.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to my motion once the point of order has been settled, and I appreciate the minister's concession in allowing me to make my speech, even though he has brought up this point of order. Until then, I shall remain in my seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Calgary North also rising on the point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to adopt the main argument developed by the hon. member for Skeena and point out, too, that the minister suggested the amendment really does not go beyond what the bill encompasses. Of course, that may be a matter of interpretation. I suppose it was kind of the minister to speak. I suggest that the minister was not objecting to the amendment so much on the grounds that it is out of order as that it calls for the expenditure of money. If the amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill, and if it does not do anything wrong in that regard, how can it be out of

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act
order? I would ask, in view of that, that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) present his argument in support of his amendment.


Frank Oberle: May I make a short argument on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I intend, in my speech, to point out what my colleague for Skeena has said. I intend to look at the bill as one that is intended to be enabling legislation. In other words, it enables people and groups of people to do certain things. It is not intended to be restrictive, as I intend to point out in my argument in support of the amendment. Certainly, I feel that the amendment, on those grounds, is in order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may speak?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One should not speak on the point of order twice, not even if one is the minister.


Mr. Reid:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the royal recommendation, on page 2 of the bill, about 11 lines from the bottom, reads as follows:
... to provide for loans to an Indian by the Corporation for the purpose of purchasing and improving housing projects on Indian reserves;.. .
It seems to me that the point Your Honour has to decide is whether the effect of the amendment would fall within the recommendation of His Excellency. I would think you would want to look at this very carefully. Having read the amendment, I think that it goes beyond the recommendation, but that is a matter for Your Honour to determine. It is a difficult situation because it seems to me that, although the amendment as proposed seems to be beyond the royal recommendation, there seems to be a blurring of the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could indicate to the House the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself with regard to the amendment. Notwithstanding previous statements I have made to the effect that I do not like people to speak a second time on points of order, I might seek further assistance. The parliamentary secretary has brought the matter into focus. The recommendation does say-
-to provide for loans to an Indian by the Corporation for the purpose of purchasing and improving housing projects on Indian reserves.
The proposed amendment by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) states:
. . . for the purpose of assisting in the purchase, improvement or construction of housing projects on Indian reserves.
The lack of the words "or construction" in the recommendation is the point at issue. If hon. members would assist me on that question, I will proceed to make my decision.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we have become somewhat confused, here, if I may say so. If Your Honour would look at the bill as reported out of the committee, the last page, page 29, you will find clause 21 which reads:
Section 59 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

The Corporation may, subject to and in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, make loans to Indians as defined in the Indian Act for the purpose-


John Gilbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister is already speaking on the point of order. I will hear the hon. member for Broadview later on the same point of order.


John Gilbert: On a question of privilege, then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member invoking a question of privilege? I think not. I will hear the minister on the point of order. Then I will hear the hon. member for Broadview.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Thank you. I was reading clause 21 of the bill as reported out of committee. To continue:
-for the purpose of assisting in the purchase, improvement or construction of housing projects on Indian reserves.
That quotation is from the bill as moved by the government in the first instance, and as reported out of committee. What has happened is this. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has moved an amendment to clause 21 which adds subsection (b) to section 59 relating to septic tanks. The question is whether or not that paragraph (b) relating to septic tanks is in order. The point of order has absolutely nothing to do with Indians. Indians are covered in the bill as reported out of committee and in the amendment of the hon. member. Subsection (b) is unrelated to subsection (a) and I suggest it is out of order on that ground. The simple ruling needed is whether or not sub-paragraph (b) is in order. Sub-paragraph (a) is already in the bill as reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview, on his question of privilege.


John Gilbert: It has been taken care of, thank you.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I grasp what Your Honour proposed as a question, it is that there was, in the recommendation of His Excellency with reference to providing loans to an Indian by the Corporation for the purpose of purchasing and improving housing projects on Indian reserves, an absence of the word "construction". Yet both the bill and the amendment which is before you talk in terms of assisting in the purchase, improvement or construction of housing projects. This is the case both in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and in the bill itself as proposed by the minister. If Your Honour would proceed, looking again at the recommendation of His Excellency, you would find, following the quotation I have just read, that there is another part relating to projects on Indian reserves. I ' quote: "for housing projects on Indian reserves." This contemplates the idea of construction. So, I think the three parts fit together. The first part says:
-to provide for loans to an Indian for the purpose of purchasing and improving housing projects on Indian reserves . . . and to provide for the Corporation an amount not exceeding $10 billion for the purpose of making loans . . . for municipal sewage treatment projects and for housing projects on Indian reserves.
I think this encompasses the concept of construction which Your Honour was wondering about. The recommen-
June 12, 1973

dation is contained in two different parts. If this interpretation is acceptable to Your Honour, that purchasing of and improvement in housing is contained in one part of the recommendation, and the reference to construction is contained within the ambit of the phrase "for housing projects on Indian reserves", and it encompasses construction, this would seem to me to be the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair has to admit that the first part of the proposed amendment is clearly in order, since it duplicates what is to be found on the bottom of page 29 of the bill which is before us for consideration. Now, I have to concern myself with the second part of the proposed amendment and I call upon the sponsor, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the minister should present an argument founded on a point of order, as he has done. In the first place, he said that everything the amendment wishes to accomplish is already contained in the bill. Then, in his argument on the point of order, he said something was being added which was completely divorced from the intention of the paragraph to which he referred. But he has done the very same thing. He said the bill enables everyone who wishes to build a house outside the boundaries of a municipality to do so. I suggest that the bill refers in almost every instance, in almost every paragraph, to areas to which the bill is restricted.
I would refer first of all to the neighbourhood improvement program. The bill states:
For the purposes of improving the amenities of neighbourhoods and the housing and living conditions of the residents of such neighbourhoods the Corporation may make contributions and loans pursuant to this part to or for the benefit of municipalities in a province.
This clause restricts the program to municipalities.
In the selected neighbourhood program, we are in accordance with an amendment made under 27(1). When an application is made for a neighbourhood improvement loan, the Corporation may approve such an application and make contributions for the benefit of municipalities, and so forth. In this case we are making a loan, 50 per cent of which is forgivable. The same is true of the site clearance program. The loans are made to municipalities and to provincial governments. The bill applies also outside municipalities and in Indian reserves. The amendment seeks to have the bill apply to Indians outside Indian reserves as well, and look after people in need. The minister has argued that these people are covered by the bill, so why would he restrict its application to Indian reserves and to municipalities? It just does not make sense.
On July 1, two weeks from now, CTV on its program "W5" will present a half hour film entitled "Moccasin Flats" which portrays the situation I am about to bring to the attention of the House. In direct partnership with the municipality concerned, of which I happened to be mayor at the time, and with the province of British Columbia, the minister has shared in a production that is likely to set the pace for many a similar project in Canada. By employing the resources of all the people concerned in the municipal-
National Housing Act
ity in question, as well as the resources of the provincial and federal governments, a program was produced that actually works.
What happened was this. The municipality chose a tract of land, which had to be incorporated into the municipality under the terms of the Act, serviced that land and made it available to people in the area who are now living in houses that have been constructed on that land. Since the province initially gave the land to the municipality, these people were provided with a down payment and a mortgage from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and today 36 families are living in this particular community. Almost all of them were on welfare at the time they moved in and all are native people.
If one looks at the film, one sees how successful the project was; the minister and I agree that it was very successful. However, there are a few things we would do differently next time. For example, we would not retain the requirement that people have to be bunched together within the confines of the municipality. There should be some way of maintaining the quality of life and life style which people establish for themselves-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is perhaps venturing into a speech rather than dealing with the point of order raised in connection with the proposed section 59(b). If hon. members have no further contribution to make on this particular point I will make my ruling. Does the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River wish to make a specific point with regard to the proposed section 59(b)?


Frank Oberle: The specific point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister has said that not only is paragraph (b) of my amendment out of order because it does not deal with Indians-he said it dealt with septic tanks-but it deals with individuals who may or may not be Indians. It deals with Indians who are not on reserves and, therefore, not covered by the Indian Act. The minister contends that the bill already satisfies the aim of the amendment. I wish to point out to Your Honour that the bill does not specifically provide for construction outside the confines of municipal boundaries or Indian reserves. Since this is the case, I suggest that the boundaries be extended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair is facing several difficulties regarding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. One of those difficulties he has just stated in the concluding part of his contribution to the discussion of the point of order. In my opinion, the first part of the proposed amendment, which incorporates words now found in the measure we are considering, and the latter part are quite different. If I were not making a ruling on a question of legalistic purity, I would have to ask myself whether the purport of what is set forth in the proposed section 59(b) is actually to be found within the royal recommendation.
I gather that the hon. member is trying to improve the opportunities of people living in rural Canada to obtain certain benefits under the National Housing Act. Commendable though this may be, having read through the royal recommendation I cannot find what is set forth in

June 12, 1973
National Housing Act
his proposed amendment. For this rather narrow reason, I respectfully regret that the amendment cannot be put.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage of Bill C-133, an act to amend the National Housing Act. Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding with these divisions, the Chair should bring to the attention of the House the procedure which is proposed. First, the question on motion No. 2 would be put to the House, and then the question on the amendment to motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), to be followed by the question on motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11. If motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 carry, then I suggest that motions Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12 would become null and void, so that there would be no question that could be put on motions Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12. If there is no objection to this procedure, the House will now proceed with the question on motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
National Housing Act Messrs:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The House will now proceed to the division on motion No. 3. It is assumed that motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 will be before the House at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.		
Hon. Ron	Basford (Minister	of State for Urban
Affairs) moved that Bill C-133,		to amend the National
Housing Act,	as reported (with	amendments) from the
Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Finance-Sug-ested study of modification of branch banking system to ease burden of high interest rates on slow growth areas; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Energy- Capability of Energy Board to judge application to transport natural gas in other than vapour form; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Immigra-
June 12, 1973

tion-Impending deportation of Tara Singh Gill-Request for investigation by minister.
May we have order, please. I wonder if conversations could be carried on outside the House, because there are only about 30 minutes left for the consideration of private members' business, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
By agreement, I believe we are to consider public bills, and all public bills standing on the order paper prior to the one in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) are to stand.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: that Bill C-24, to amend the Supreme Court Act (judicial office) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the vote that has just taken place will assist this debate, because it will mean that we shall make much more succinct speeches on this bill. The purpose of Bill C-24 is to prohibit a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from acting as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, or under any other statute or law. The bill says that no judge shall have any occupation, perform any service or belong to any organization which might involve him in controversy of a political nature.
I presume that people who have fairly long memories- indeed, their memories need not be all that long-will remember the rather unfortunate incident in recent Canadian political history when a justice of the Supreme Court was used for the political purposes of the then government. This bill would prohibit such a callous use- or what I might call the ensnaring-of a justice for the purpose of getting him into the political arena. I suggest that judge should be insulated and isolated from political activity. That is the purpose of the bill and I would be grateful if hon. members who feel as I do would see to it that the bill moves along to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where it could receive some attention.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to section 7 is, in my view, of major importance, since it is aimed at protecting the independence and the integrity of the justices of the Supreme Court. This amendment is intended not only to prevent justices from receiving any additional emoluments for duties done or services performed, whether judicial, executive or administrative in nature, either for the government of Canada or for the
Supreme Court Act
provinces, but also to see that they no longer serve as commissioners, arbitrators, adjudicators, conciliators or mediators, in short, to abstain from any activity which clearly tends to distract them from their regular judicial duties, in order to perform other services for which they may be paid.
Judges are therefore being asked to devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties.
The practice of appointing judges to perform extra-judicial services has led to the payment of emoluments to some judges who have performed services for the provinces or who have acted as municipal arbitrators, usually being paid by the parties involved.
There are judges who have acted in the capacity of arbitrators in disputes derived from collective bargaining activities and have been paid by the parties involved. There have been judges who have acted as conciliators in labour disputes between the Department of Labour and its employees.
It will now be illegal for a judge to act as a commissioner or to perform services which are not in accordance with his mandate as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Let us see now, briefly, why it is important that judges not be mixed up in such activities in the future.
First of all, the most essential and fundamental characteristic of our courts of law must be their independence.
If we respect this independence, we will be safeguarding the right that people have to be protected from infringement by the state upon them as individuals, or as corporations. Not only should judges be independent, but it is imperative that the citizens should believe in their independence. When a judge is involved in activities for which he gets paid, he automatically loses part of that independence, and though he may not have lost it in point of fact, he gives the impression that he has lost it, which amounts to the same thing in terms of the trust that people should place in him.
When a judge has been paid by an individual or a corporation or, even, a government, he is placed in a difficult position if ever the opposing party appears before him, when the other party involved has already paid the judge for extrajudicial services.
Furthermore, the transgression of the fundamental concept of independence for the judges constitutes an injustice for other judges devoting their time and talents to their exclusively judicial duties without any consideration for the quite large payments they could earn were they engaged in extrajudicial activities.
A second characteristic is just as important as the first one, that protecting the integrity of courts of justice. Because of the importance of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, since they are last appeals, it is imperative that the judge did not have to give his opinion before rendering judgment, whether in previous writings, in extrajudicial activities or through participation in organizations with political ties.
The citizen's trust is based on his belief in the judge's integrity, namely that the latter was never directly involved in the affairs of the parties concerned and that the judgments will not be affected by the fact that he is

June 12, 1973
Supreme Court Act
acquainted with such or such individual or because he has been paid for services rendered by one of those parties.
I therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the judgments of the Court are dependent, as for their effects and their acceptance, on the fair-mindedness and the professional prestige of the judicial power.
In a federative system, the social policy is greatly influenced by legal decisions, as far as powers and responsibilities under federal jurisdiction are concerned. Therefore, our main concern is to uphold human rights and functions pertaining to Parliament and to the Court as well as their mutual duties.
Article 7 of the Declaration of Human Rights provides, and I quote:
The right to have ordinary courts presided over by an independent judge.
In introducing that amendment to Bill C-24 to amend the Supreme Court Act, we are therefore complying with that right.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated a little to take the floor because I thought that the matter was so interesting that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) would rise to speak on this, since he has been on the bench.
Mr. Speaker, the principle-


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Claude Wagner: I want to emphasize for the benefit of the clever member that the most eloquent remark I could make about that bill is that we should adopt it rapidly.


Albert Béchard: I cannot say that I disagree with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of the bill brought in by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and former attorney general himself (Mr. Fairweather) is to keep the Supreme Court judges as independent as possible. Judges, in general, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is going to confirm my statement, have been subject to constitutional requests, particularly since the Judges Act has been adopted; and the present Judges Act goes further, and is designed to protect the integrity and the objectivity of the judiciary power.
However, the Judges Act applies to every judge under federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the bill under study deals with Supreme Court judges for special considerations. We may wonder if political and judicial systems in Canada need such extensive legislative care to guarantee the objectivity and integrity of senior members of the Court. This is certainly not recognized under the present Judges Act.
Mr. Speaker, we wonder if legal temperament and qualities are not sometimes more necessary outside the Court

than inside. Clause 37 of the Judges Act partly recognizes this fact.
In England, legally trained members of the House of Lords and several members of the justice committee and privy council sit in parliament and sometimes get involved in debates of a very political nature which I am sure Canadian judges do not wish to happen here. Enquiries conducted by Lord Denning, Lord Pearson and Lord Wil-berforce-I did not know the latter-insist on the fact that a political system conscientiously independent of the judicial system did not find it necessary nor advisable, even during political or electoral crises, to ignore valuable services that can be rendered by those whom the public can respect because of their honesty and objectivity.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the primary basis of our judicial system is raised to its extreme limits by the bill proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
On the one hand, the last part of the proposed amendment formulates rules of ethics followed by all members of the judicial body who naturally do their utmost to avoid getting involved in political disputes, and we should not blame them for that. On the other hand, if the judge cannot anticipate the controversy his participation could arouse, it maybe asking him the impossible. Also, what will be the penalties if such circumstances arise? Will he immediately be subject to a resolution of the two Houses or to an inquiry conducted by the judicial council?
Although the proposal coincides with the Inquiries Act, it is to some extent incompatible with sections 30 and 32 of the Judges Act, which stipulate that the Chief Justice of Canada must act as chairman of the Judicial Council. In other words, here we have a member of the Supreme Court who is already a member of an organization and who has many of the powers of commissioner. Moreover, if the conduct of a member of a Senior Court (any court of appeal, including the Supreme Court itself) were being investigated, one could expect that a member of the Council, perhaps the presiding justice, would inevitably be called on to take part.
The proposal is at variance with the Judges Act, which makes no distinction between the Supreme Court and the other courts, as far as the conduct and the extra-judicial activities of their members are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude I would like to proclaim the great objectivity, honesty and integrity of the members of the Supreme Court and of all judges in Canada, and it is my belief that we would be doing them a disservice if we were to involve them in problems which might place them in the position of having to take political decisions. Our judges have so much work to do in the courts that in my opinion they should be given the opportunity of getting on with it rather than being asked to take charge of commissions or other agencies, however competent they may be. Indeed, I believe that we can find, right in our midst, prominent lawyers and businessmen capable of presiding over governmental commissions with flair and understanding.
June 12, 1973

[ English]


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-24. The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), set forth very clearly and succinctly the reason for the bill. If I correctly judge the content of the remarks of other speakers, they are in agreement with the principle set forth in this bill. The least we can do at this stage is to send the bill to committee for further study. The previous speaker related certain problems that may be experienced if the bill is passed. We would be able to deal with these problems in depth at the committee stage, so I hope members on the government side will see fit not to talk the bill out but will agree to it in principle and send it to committee for further study.
The explanatory note to the bill states that its purpose is to prohibit any justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from acting as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, and secondly, to prevent any such justice from undertaking any other service unrelated to his judicial duties as a result of which he might become involved in political controversy. I thought the hon. member for Fundy-Royal showed tact and decency in not referring to some of the cases that could be made against justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to incidents of the past. I will not relate any such cases; I will adopt the precedent set by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who, as I say, showed great tact and decency in not making any such reference himself.
I think we should support the principle of this bill and send it to committee for further study. I hope that members on the government side will agree to support the bill also.
[ Translation]


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, and I am a little distressed that all the opinions expressed were in favour of the bill. Even if certain elements of that bill are serious, of which the provisions concerning conflicts of interest on the part of judges, certain other aspects require a more detailed study and should be discussed with a great deal more fervour.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, considering this afternoon's votes, we did not have the opportunity to discuss the matter for an hour, as usual, and I suggest that Bill C-24 should be studied more thoroughly during the motion for second reading.
Therefore, I intend to take part in the debate as long as I will be allowed to.
In the present case, one will undoubtedly agree that, in constitutional terms, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada can act, when the Governor General is absent, as Governor General. Therefore, if the formulation of paragraph 27 of this bill is to be accepted, that would mean that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada would be deprived of his constitutional right to replace the Governor General.
One can object that this is not the case in reality, since only the remunerated functions are excluded by the
Supreme Court Act
amendment. Then, I suggest that the salary of a judge of the Supreme Court should include an amount in proportion to his services under the constitutional responsibilities of his position.
The second point on which I wish to call the attention of the House is the fact that there is among us an hon. member who, on two occasions,-if I remember correctly- carried out the duties of a judge and who, in the meantime, was able to take a very active part in activities not related to his position and this, to the greater benefit of the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole, which did not prevent him from performing with all the objectivity he is known for.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that in this case- [English]


Mr. Fairweather:: Are you on the right bill?
[ Translation]


Mr. Blais:: -it is essential-and I hope the interpretation is correct, for it appears that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has not understood what I have just said.

In any event, perhaps I should continue in English so the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) can understand what I am saying. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would render a considerable disservice to the accepted traditions of the British parliamentary system as well as to the British constitution. As the hon. gentleman opposite recognizes, the Canadian constitution does not consist only of the written constitution of the British North America Act but also includes all the traditions established since the institution of the constitutional monarchy in England. It has always been recognized that judges of the various courts were part of the constitutional entity, and they performed their functions separately from functions of the legislature and the executive.
The United States chose to.express that principle in very cogent and evident terms and put it into their constitution. In Canada we chose not to do that but there is still recognized, in our British tradition, the independence of our judiciary. There need not be any written legislation which imposes that independence on our judiciary, for indeed it has been understood and accepted. Therefore, I take very strong exception to the second part of the proposal which reads:
-no judge shall have any occupation, perform any service or belong to any organization which might involve him in controversy of a political nature.
That is what we refer in French as being "une verite de la police". There is no doubt that no judge since Canada was constituted has done other than recognize his obligation to remain completely independent of political wars. Indeed, their functions would be influenced at various times were judges not independent of those wars and were not to stay away from such involvements which might render their functions very difficult.

June 12, 1973
Supreme Court Act
[ Translation]
In any case, we have seen Canadian jurists take steps to preserve their independance so that they may carry out their duties objectively and competently.
Mr. Speaker, I see nothing contradictory with the office of a judge, whether from the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Ontario County Court or even the Provincial Court, if he accepts a request to act in a capacity which is not strictly that of a judge.
[ English]
I have had many occasions to appear before judges sitting as arbitrators of labour disputes and various other questions including landlord and tenant disputes. In all cases their services have been made necessary by the complexity of the society in which we live. We are heading into a situation where more and more there will arise conflicts between individuals which do not come strictly within judicial matters. We will require the intervention of experienced jurists to settle those disputes.
I am not saying, and would not like to leave the impression that judges being involved in other functions and receiving substantial emoluments for performing duties that would otherwise be left to a third party not a member of the Supreme Court is wrong. I am suggesting this bill requires a great deal of debate because it goes directly against accepted tradition. This bill attempts to declare a principle which has been recognized by the British constitutional system for centuries. I suggest that, notwithstanding recognition of the effectiveness of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal in drafting this bill, the drafting in my estimation is not satisfactory.


George Harris Hees: Four more minutes and you are through.


An hon. Member:: Keep it up. Drink lots of water.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I appreciate more than standing here and being coached by hon. members opposite who are the great professionals of all times. I was wondering what I would get from this debate, and I have received it now. I have received coaching and prompting from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) who is a parliamentarian of long standing. He has been here for years trying to teach the government and has now indicated how I should deal with this bill in order to achieve the end which I think ought to be achieved in respect of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I also realize that I have received assistance from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), but in this case I cannot vouch for his experience in the House of Commons because he has not been here very long. No doubt his experience in the provincial legislature, now called the national assembly, was etched in gold.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You might as well call it six o'clock if you are going to talk out this bill. This is nonsense. We will accept your calling it six o'clock.


George Harris Hees: We can do without this nonsense for two more minutes, so call it six o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Drink a lot of water.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, again I am concerned-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You are concerned about how you are going to waste another two minutes; we know that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just say "Mr. Speaker" again.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the attack that has been launched here in respect of the jurists, I would suggest-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: An attack on the jurists?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The drafting of this legislation is undoubtedly an attempt, by innuendo, to attack the impartiality of judges.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows that he cannot attack the judiciary or attack me by saying there is innuendo in my bill. This is probably one of the most straightforward bills ever put forward. I don't care if the hon. member talks it out, but he is not going to accuse me of innuendo against judges.


An hon. Member:: Just call it six o'clock and leave the innuendo to somebody else.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that remark and call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, the House stands recessed until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-135, to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in beginning the debate on Bill C-135 and moving second reading and reference to the committee, I do so with the assurance that all members of this House share a very deep concern about the problems within the country relating to housing, and a deep concern about the very real urgency in introducing new measures relating to housing and to the mortgage lending field. The
June 12, 1973

House certainly exhibited that concern and sense of urgency this afternoon in passing Bill C-133. I thank hon. members for their co-operation in putting that bill through this afternoon.
We are now dealing with a second bill which relates to housing. The events of the last day or so have surely highlighted the problems currently facing this vital area of national development. In this bill we have an opportunity to provide direction and relief as well as assurance that our future residential mortgage activity in this country will not be limited by a shortage of mortgage funds.
As recently as four or five years ago the total investment in new housing in Canada was in the order of $2.7 billion annually, representing funds provided by the financial institutions, by governments and by individuals including down payments on owner-occupied housing. We are aware that since then the construction of new dwellings in this country has accelerated rapidly. Dwelling starts last year reached a record 250,000 units, exceeding all suggested targets. We know at this point in 1973 that we can say with complete confidence that that number of 250,000 will be exceeded in 1973 and that we will be exceeding our targets in terms of construction. We know too that just to keep pace with new family and non family formation and the replacement of dwellings that are removed from the housing stock for one reason or another we have an estimated need for some 2,400,000 new housing units in the decade ending in 1981. A housing performance of this magnitude will require the investment of many billions of dollars. The prospect we face is an investment in housing in excess of $5 billion annually. If that level of investment is to be reached, we must encourage and facilitate the flow of more private capital into residential mortgages. It is for these reasons, to maintain and to enhance the flow of private capital into residential mortgages, that the bill before us is designed, that is, to contribute directly to the achievement of our housing requirements by stimulating the flow of private mortgage funds for housing.
Any increase in mortgage lending rates is of great concern to me as minister responsible for housing. In our discussions this afternoon with regard to Bill C-133, I believe I made it quite clear that the directions we are taking in meeting the housing requirements of low-income people will create a heavy demand for increased direct investment of government funds. These funds will be available and, where necessary, the use of subsidies to reduce interest rates will be utilized to bring financing costs within the capabilities of a much wider band of lower income Canadians. To carry out its intention with respect to lower income people under the National Housing Act, it is absolutely essential that government not be required to fill any gaps in the private lending field. The greater part of the middle-income market depends on private financing in the housing field, and if this area is not adequately served then the new initiatives proposed by the NHA amendments will not be capable of accomplishment.
In recent months the supply of private mortgage funds has been very buoyant, but unless action is taken now we will have no assurance of future funds for the housing market in the volume that will be required. The demand
Mortgage Financing Bill
for new housing is strong at all levels of income, and Bill C-135 is designed to provide the kind of support to ensure that new residential construction will continue to meet the need in one area while government funds can be directed to another that we approved this afternoon, such as assisted home ownership, repair and rehabilitation, land assembly, etc.
This is the problem to which we have addressed ourselves in bringing forward the residential mortgage financing bill. Its overriding purpose is to improve the flow of private mortgage investment, and to the extent that it is successful in meeting this objective, it will be an aid to residential construction in general by reducing the costs of financing which are so important in the budgets of those who invest in housing whether they be landlords or home owners.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that increased housing output financed privately has the double advantage of directly improving housing conditions and at the same time making it easier for the federal government, as a very important participant in the business of residential funding, to continue to direct its own capital to the benefit of those who are in the greatest need of help, namely, low income people.
The proposed legislation is intended to create institutions which will operate competitively on the private market and prompt a greater degree of private investment in mortgages and real estate. The over-all effect of these new institutions should be an increase in the supply of private mortgage funds from the capital market. In addition, some relative decrease in the level of mortgage interest rates is anticipated as compared to the yields on other types of financial instruments with which mortgages compete.
While it is very difficult to predict either the extent of yield shift that might take place or the net amount of investment that might be directed into the mortgage sector, even a modest relative shift toward mortgages would involve considerable amounts of money. Let us look, for example, at the trustee pension funds, where possibly the greatest potential lies, which represent savings of Canadian workers. More than $500 million would be made available for residential mortgages from a further 5 per cent of assets placed in residential mortgage investments by trustee pension funds.
This would still only mean a commitment of 15 per cent of assets compared to, for example, over 50 per cent for the life companies and nearly 60 per cent for the trust companies. The point I am making is that the trustee pension plans are investing about 9 per cent of their assets and are committed to real estate mortgages. If 9 per cent were increased to 15 per cent, which is still a very low figure, it would make available for residential mortgages a sum in excess of $500 million annually. In commending these measures to hon. members, I do so with the assurance that support exists within the investment community for the measures and that we can anticipate a substantial flow of private funds into residential development.
With respect to the idea of a residential mortgage exchange corporation, representatives of all classes of mortgage investors have expressed strong support for the creation of an active mortgage trading facility and the

June 12, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
additional liquidity which such a facility would provide for mortgage investments. Pension funds in particular, which I have already mentioned, have seen the need for increased liquidity, and they represent one of our greatest possibilities for increasing the flow of residential mortgage investment.
In summary, some of the problems we identified in the task force that studied this whole matter, in making recommendations to the government, in the interdepartmental committee that has worked on this matter, and in seeking ways to ensure additional new private funds for housing included, first, the lack of liquidity of mortgages which in comparison with stocks or bonds are not as easily purchased or sold on the market; second, the difficulty of dividing mortgages into shares to enable smaller investors to participate; third, the large sums of money required to achieve diversity in making mortgage investments; and, fourth, the unfamiliarity of potential investors, such as pension funds, with the mortgage market.
To help resolve these problems and to make residential mortgages competitive with other forms of investment and thereby attract private savings, the bill proposes the establishment of a federal mortgage exchange corporation and provides for new private institutions to be known as mortgage investment companies. The federal mortgage exchange corporation, which in common parlance has been called a mortgage bank, will be a Crown corporation responsible to the Minister of Finance. Since it will be subject to the Loan Companies Act it will come under the normal supervision of the Superintendent of Insurance.
The primary purpose of the corporation will be to buy and sell residential mortgages and thereby encourage increased investment by institutional investors in residential development. It will also be empowered to make loans to private mortgage institutions for terms up to one year on the security of residential mortgages. The development of an active secondary market for mortgages and provision for short-term loans should prove effective in attracting more institutional funds to housing.
The bill provides for the federal government to be the sole shareholder on incorporation of the federal mortgage exchange corporation, and for administration to be carried out by a board of ten directors appointed by the governor in council. The federal government will invest, as the bill provides, $100 million in shares of the corporation to provide it with operating capital, and may make loans to the corporation in the additional amount of $300 million. To establish a quick trading base on commencement of operations, approximately $200 million of the loans will be mortgages now held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
By amendments to the Loan Companies Act and the Income Tax Act, the bill also provides for a new form of Canadian financial institution, the mortgage investment company, which is intended to make investment in residential mortgages and real estate more accessible to the smaller investor. It is extremely difficult at the present time for smaller investors to make this kind of investment. Unlike investment in securities through mutual funds, mortgages and real estate investments are legally
[Mr. Basford.j
and administratively cumbersome to split in such a way that investors can become owners of separate, divided interests.
Backed by expert management service and the security of a diversified portfolio, mortgage investment companies will be able to provide opportunities for the smaller investor to participate in mortgage and real estate investments on much the same lines as the mutual funds, and in this way attract new savings into residential mortgages and real estate investments.
All investment of mortgage investment companies would be restricted to Canada, and at least 50 per cent of assets would have to be in the form of mortgages on residential real estate or cash. Exclusive of real estate acquired through foreclosure, investment in real property could not exceed 25 per cent of total assets. While the liabilities of the company will be limited to three times capital and surplus, the ratio may be increased to five times capital and surplus where at least two-thirds of the assets are in the form of residential mortgages or cash.
Subject to a large minimum housing component in the over-all distribution of assets, mortgage investment companies will be able to make both residential and non-residential real estate and equity investments, the non-residential component being permitted to provide investors with greater diversification and growth potential. Normally, a company would invest the majority of its assets in mortgages and rental properties.
The legislation, as hon. members opposite will realize, proposes tax conduit treatment for mortgage investment companies, permitting the income of the company to flow through for taxation in the hands of the shareholders. The tax conduit treatment will be available only for earnings passed to shareholders with undistributed income taxed at full corporate rates. Income would be distributed at least annually.
Hon. members may well ask why we need a federal mortgage exchange corporation and new types of mortgage investment companies when real estate investment trusts are already functioning in the Canadian investment market, operating under provincial trust laws and under rules of the stock exchanges. There are good reasons for this new federal approach to mortgage financing. Real estate investment trusts have been around in the United States for some time and, while they have generated a substantial private investment, the application of this form of financing to the Canadian market is relatively new. In fact, there are only four real estate investment trusts operating in Canada today and all four were formed after the introduction during the last parliament of Bill C-209, the predecessor of the present bill. I suggest that this is a measure of the importance that the financial community attaches to the significance of this current legislation.
I also believe that while Canadian real estate investment trusts will become an important vehicle for the generation of private investment, the mortgage investment companies contemplated by the bill will provide a substantially simpler corporate counterpart, and both will have the objective of trying to increase the flow of mortgage funds by attracting the smaller investors into the mortgage market.
June 12, 1973

There may be those in this House who say that this bill should not be proceeded with-


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and who will try to kill the bill in one way or another. For their benefit, may I just say that the four investment trusts operating in Canada now are T-D Realty Investments, equally controlled by the Toronto Dominion Bank and McLeod, Young, Weir and Co. Ltd.; BBC Realty, which is owned by the Bank of British Columbia; BM-RT Realty Investments, owned by the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Trust Company; and Heitman Canadian Realty Investments, which is owned by the Heitman Group Incorporated of Chicago, Illinois. They are operating in this country under provincial laws, without any federal corporate structure, and if this bill is not proceeded with they will of course continue to operate in the market without federal legislation covering their operations.
So while hon. members may say that we should not have mortgage investment companies, as I suspect some members of the NDP will, by stopping this bill they will not stop the real estate investment trusts from operating. By stopping this bill, Mr. Speaker, they will be preventing a very useful financial mechanism in the exchange corporation from encouraging trustee pension funds to enter more into the residential mortgage business and they will be preventing smaller investment companies from being incorporated under the provisions of Bill C-133.
I do not propose to make a lengthy statement on the provisions of Bill C-135 which I hope will be referred quickly to committee for examination. I believe that all hon. members share our concern with respect to the financing of future housing requirements and appreciate the need for greater participation by private capital in financing new housing construction.
The government will continue to direct its funds for housing into areas of greatest need, and this encompasses the whole range of housing for lower income families, the elderly, students, and disadvantaged groups. But housing must also be accessible to the middle-income, average Canadian if the over-all demand is to be met and it is here that the private market must be able to make an effective response. I suggest that the legislation before the House in the form of Bill C-135, providing for the establishment of the mortgage exchange corporation and mortgage investment companies, is a substantial effort to assist the functioning of the private market and to assure an additional flow of Canadian savings into residential mortgages.
It was with a sense of urgency that this afternoon we passed amendments to the National Housing Act. It is with an equal sense of urgency that I speak tonight, hoping we can add these two new financial mechanisms to the tools we have to attract money into housing in this country. It is a matter of urgency that this bill be referred to committee where the important issues raised by it can be discussed and examined in detail. I hope the bill will not be delayed by a general debate here on the floor of the House. I repeat that I hope it will be referred to committee as a matter of urgency so that the issue of assuring the flow of capital into residential mortgages can be tackled.
Mortgage Financing Bill
At the beginning of my speech I pointed out that we are going to need some $5 billion a year in investments in residential mortgages and residential construction if we are to meet the housing targets for Canadians. These two instruments, the exchange corporation and the mortgage investment companies, are essential tools in reaching that $5 billion. It is a matter of urgency that we achieve that goal of $5 billion worth of savings going into housing. These two new institutions will make a contribution to that end, so I hope the bill will be passed as a matter of urgency.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak for my party with respect to Bill C-135 I would first like to explain that I did not anticipate that hon. members to my left in the NDP would in fact oppose this bill. I presumed on reading the provisions of the bill, that they-and especially the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)-would have been the leading proponents of the bill knowing, as the hon. member does, of the extremely serious housing crisis that exists in the entire nation and particularly in the Toronto area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would remind the hon. member, if it is necessary to remind him, that housing in the fringe area around Toronto has jumped in price from the 1961 figure of $17,000 on average to close to $50,000 today. This means that a person who had a $5,000 a year income in 1961 could have bought an average home, but today he needs almost a $20,000 income to purchase a home. I refer to those gross figures, Mr. Speaker, because the largest increase that has been required through rising home prices has been in the mortgage component of the total purchase price. Not only have the mortgages gone up, but the interest rate has gone from 63A per cent to 9M per cent, and sometimes 10 per cent at the present time.
But before the bill is even brought on for second reading, before the minister has even had an opportunity to explain the bill on second reading, a press release is issued by the NDP stating: We will not support the bill. I feel that somebody has not done his homework, Mr. Speaker. For the hon. member seriously to suggest that somehow this is a tax rip-off shows that he clearly does not understand the concept behind the mortgage investment corporation or the REITs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that this is not a unique facility; it is a facility that has been used, for example, in certain mutual funds for some time. I am referring to the conduit taxation principle. It is used in certain unit trusts. In a different way, but I think in an interestingly parallel way, it is also used in the credit union system throughout this country. I believe that what the hon. member is perhaps inadvertently forgetting is that the important features about REITs or MICs is the fact that they allow the small business investor to help with his money in solving whatever the problem is, be it in the credit union sense, small loans, or in the sense that we are pursuing tonight, mortgages.

June 12, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
I believe it is essentially a self-help mechanism. It is totally wrong for those who claim to have concern for the lot of the would-be home owner in this country to be challenging this bill because, to use their words "it is a tax rip-off to enhance the attractiveness of mortgage investment for financial institutions and individuals". The truth of the matter is, the fact that this bill was not passed in previous parliaments has resulted in the small investor being deterred from coming into this field to a great extent.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred to four trusts that have actually been formed as this parliament has been lingering over the question of whether they will facilitate the incorporation of MICs. They are T-D Realty Investments, BBC Realty, BM-RT Realty Investments and Heitman Canadian Realty Investments. These trusts were brought public on September 20, 1972; December 4, 1972; February 15, 1973; and March 16, 1973, respectively. They have raised from the public $155 million.
I think it is unfortunate-in fact, the main thrust of my speech until I read the NDP press release was to deplore the fact that our government has not taken an earlier and more decisive lead to make Canada a pioneer in this field-that those trusts had to be set up without the benefit and the supervision that there would be under this act, and that it has cost them in the aggregate almost $1 million in legal fees and other expenses to bring their issues to market.
I believe that what the hon. member is totally choosing to ignore is that while he-I noticed this was his tone this afternoon-feels it is perfectly all right for the taxpayer in this country to be taxed to subsidize mortgage rates, on the other hand, judging from the tone of his press release, he thinks that the same taxpayer should not be given the privilege, if he is a small investor, of participating directly in the mortgage market. Let me be more specific. I cannot understand the rationale of an hon. member suggesting that it is perfectly all right to take taxation money from the public of Canada to relieve mortgage rates, but on the other hand it is totally wrong to create a vehicle that will give the individual the free choice to invest his funds in mortgage securities as he sees fit.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the concept is not a particularly unique thing. It is perhaps in Canada, but in the United States REITs were founded about 12 years ago. At the present time they have almost $10 billion of assets in the form of mortgages in that country. While we have been twiddling our thumbs, in effect, listening to the inane arguments that presumably prompted the press release I have referred to, the nation to the south of us has taken the initiative and created an innovative vehicle that is supplying mortgage funds for its people who wish housing accommodation.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us about the slums in every big city in the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members wish, I can certainly supply them with the various prospectuses and annual reports on these companies. I wish they would look at the rather outstanding success of some of these corporations in the United States which, unlike our hon. friends,

have had some experience in the field to which we are referring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Take, for example, the first and certainly now the largest mortgage investment company in the United States, Continental Mortgage Investors. From total assets in 1963 of $42 million, they have now gone well over the half billion level. Shareholders' equity has risen from $23 million to something over $120 million. The point I would make is that the corporation has literally tens of thousands of shareholders at the present time who are investing their savings through that vehicle into mortgages and other securities in the United States. But apparently it is the wish of members of the NDP to frustrate this bill.


John Gilbert: Right on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe one of those members just said, "Right on". I think that should go into the record.


John Gilbert: Certainly. Put it in.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think it is wise to review the points touched on by the minister with regard to the reasons this type of vehicle is desirable and attractive in Canada.


An hon. Member:: For the banks.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: First, I think we should bear in mind that mortgages and real estate equities as such are too large for the average small investor to participate in. A person with, say, $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or even $10,000 would certainly find it difficult to participate in a mortgage unless he could find others with whom he could form a syndicate and go into partnership. Also, as has been mentioned, in most instances in law it is difficult to make a division with respect to a mortgage. Mortgages tend to be illiquid, and I am pleased that one portion of this bill will attempt to relieve some of the lack of liquidity that mortgage holders face.
Perhaps one of the most important and attractive features of the REIT concept is that the small investor, instead of only getting one security, can obtain diversified security for his money. I will also mention the difficulties in connection with this matter. Only last weekend a lady told me that she would like to buy a mortgage but did not feel she had enough money to do so. She had only $5,000 and was at a loss, not knowing what to do. I am suggesting that that type of would-be mortgage investor will be helped by the type of institution that this legislation will permit to be created.


Mr. Baker:: The socialists might like that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, you can say that it would overcome the gap I have referred to between the small investor and the large investor. The hard fact is that, although they may not realize it, the NDP in frustrating this bill are playing into the hands of large financial institutions, the banks and similar corporations in this country. To the extent that their frustration of this bill will deny mort-
June 12, 1973

gage funds to the people of Canada, they should be held responsible for the higher interest rates which will be charged.
The simple fact is that this bill will provide a vehicle for the small investor. It will enable him to do indirectly that which the large investor can do at present but he is virtually incapable of doing. I believe that not only is the bill worth supporting but it should be amended in committee to ensure that it meets the purpose for which it is intended. I believe there is a danger that a few of its provisions will be found overly restrictive. If it is not properly structured, rather than performing the service that I believe both the government and my party think it can and should perform, the bill will be stillborn in practice.
In this connection perhaps I should make a general comment. My party and I are very disappointed with what we regard as the hesitant, faltering and non-cohesive approach taken by the government to the question of housing needs in Canada. We have mentioned on several occasions that we think more direct and decisive steps should be taken to increase the amount of serviced land available for house construction in Canada. We believe there should be wage and price controls, which in turn would help to curtail the rising cost of construction in the country. Having said that, I think it would be irresponsible for our party, and certainly irresponsible for the NDP, not to accept any worth-while step forward that the government may propose such as Bill C-135.
Let me refer to the amendments that might be considered when this bill reaches committee. First, let me deal with the leverage provisions in the bill. I do not believe there is any rationale for restricting leverage either to three-to-one or five-to-one. Possibly it might be argued that this is to protect investors. To that suggestion I would say that the Superintendent of Insurance has broad powers to scrutinize investments and an arbitrary limitation is not justified.
In addition, where the investment portfolio is secure, and this would include mortgages and real estate-especially if the mortgages are insured-the security risk is comparatively small. Thus we suggest that while a five-to-one ratio is a reasonable initial limitation, in the committee we should consider whether the superintendent should be given further discretion so that he can increase that limit to something closer to eight-to-one or ten-to-one. I think we ought to bear in mind that our trust companies generally operate on a fifteen-to-one or twenty-to-one ratio, and our banks utilize a ratio in excess of twenty-to-one with respect to their capital. Therefore, I think it should be left to the wisdom of the Superintendent of Insurance; it should be for him to see if there should be a greater degree of leverage with respect to these corporations than the bill now contemplates.
Again, the bill perhaps is overly restrictive in the amount of mortgage money that it says the MICs must lace in the housing field. We believe that this provision should be reviewed in committee. As has been indicated, there is a provision that at least 50 per cent of a MIC's assets must be in residential mortgages. Another provision is that 66-2/3 per cent shall be so invested. In both cases the governing factor is the amount of leverage that these
Mortgage Financing Bill
corporations may obtain. I suggest that in committee we could deal with this question and see if it is not possible to make these limitations more flexible. It may well be there would be varying reserve requirements, depending on where the mortgage funds are actually placed as, for instance, on a regional or local basis as opposed to some other area.
With regard to conduit taxation, if a MIC invests in shares of Canadian corporations there is no mechanism provided for flowing the dividend tax credit through to individual MIC shareholders resident in Canada. Again, I suggest that this provision should be looked at in committee. The non-resident investment provisions should be widened, I feel. It may well be that we can attract more mortgage funds from foreign sources, and to this end the committee should review the possibility of providing a tax adjustment so that the withholding tax of 15 per cent, which will be 25 per cent after 1975, will not apply to a MIC.
Thus, provision might be made for removal of this withholding tax by regulation should Canadian monetary requirements dictate the need for foreign funds. This approach would be particularly appropriate in view of the fact that there is no Canadian withholding tax at present on National Housing Act mortgages.
May I for a brief moment touch on the other institution to which the minister referred, the mortgage exchange corporation. That, too, we believe to be a step forward. We want to see such a corporation incorporated. But in this respect we feel it would be better to give greater encouragement to private investors to participate in the corporation.
I believe the committee should consider whether the provision that 50 per cent of the capital must be maintained by the federal government is desirable. I am suggesting it would be much easier to attract private investors to this type of vehicle if the government were to agree to take less than 50 per cent. Crown corporations are not noted for running successful business ventures. It may well be that a proper partnership arrangement between the government and the private sector would be a step toward ensuring that this vehicle would serve the mortgage industry well, and at the same time be run in a profitable way as distinct from so many Crown corporations. In fact, if it is not the intention of the government to include a large private sector component in this corporation, I find it hard to understand why such a corporation is being set up at all. Its function could be performed within CMHC. I am suggesting that the type of operation anticipated for the mortgage exchange could be handled by CMHC as it exists, if there is no wish to bring in the private sector.
Then again, the corporation is to be answerable in the bill to the Minister of Finance. I find it strange that we should be getting into such a jungle. Here we see a minister, the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), introducing a bill to create a Crown corporation which will be answerable to the Minister of Finance and which will, presumably, receive funds through the latter's department. We might take another look at this situation.

June 12, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
We in this party do not wish to delay second reading of the bill. We believe it should be passed in principle, though we would like to raise not only the questions I have indicated but certain other points concerning the bill in the committee. With this in mind, might I just summarize by saying that I feel a housing crisis does exist in Canada. Part of it is related to high mortgages and high interest rates. I believe no member of the House should be party to any type of filibuster which might in any way contribute to the problem faced by the average wage earner in this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Surprise of surprises, Mr. Speaker: the Conservative Party supports the investors. Early in the speech of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) I began counting how many times he used the words "home owner" and "investor". I gave up after about ten minutes because the word "investor" outnumbered the word "home owner" by ten to one. Nothing could be more characteristic of the party to my right than the speech we have just heard. I will return to the subject of the hon. member's brilliant and incisive comments in a few moments.
First of all, I should like to say something about the government. Earlier this afternoon we gave third and final reading to a housing bill in which everyone in this chamber can take real pride. Everyone in the House approved, finally, of that bill as I think they should have done. The government did, after many years' delay it is true, bring forward a measure which contains substantial provisions to deal with the problem of rehabilitating housing stocks, to encourage neighbourhood improvement, co-operative housing and land assembly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought the debate on Bill C-133 was over: it was given third reading. Maybe the hon. member who is now speaking misunderstands the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The point raised by the hon. member is a valid one, but I think that the hon. member who has the floor was preparing his argument; he was summing up the various policies of the government on which he intended to base his submissions.


John Edward Broadbent: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member's intervention has as much relevance to a point of order as his prescriptions on interest rates have to do with solutions to the housing crisis.
I was concluding my introductory comments on the government's bill by saying it contained a great many useful provisions, provisions which were supported by members on all sides. However, when it comes to the crunch in terms of dealing with housing, as with virtually all other serious issues facing Canada, it is the economic question and we find the government, in this bill which is essentially and exclusively a financial mechanism, thoroughly embedded in ideas which I would have thought outmoded in the eighteenth century, if not in the seventeenth century. They are still talking about incentives to

investors as a means of meeting the housing needs of the average income family. One would have thought they might have learned something from the history of the last 200 or 300 years or, at least, from the history of the last 12 years.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe told us that a house which could have been purchased in the Toronto area a few years ago by a man with an income of $5,000 now required someone with an income of $20,000. During that period the government placed complete reliance on the private investment sector. There have been changes in the Bank Act, changes in mortgage regulations, and so on, all intended to attract more investment to housing. It was said that by allowing the banks to raise interest rates, more money would be directed to housing, thus enabling Canadians to own their own homes. It has not worked. This evening, of course, we hear the Conservative Party outdoing the government. To judge from what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, the party on the opposite side is a veritable collection of socialists. He said they were not doing enough for the private investor, that more incentives should be provided.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Very good. I am glad he said so.


John Edward Broadbent: I say, in all seriousness, this argument is fallacious. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. I refer the hon. member to the experience in the United States to which he referred-to the slums of Chicago, Boston and New York. He had the nerve to say that through this technical kind of mechanism the United States has solved its housing problem. That is absolutely absurd. The hon. member also criticized the NDP for its approach to housing. The NDP government in the province of Manitoba did more for housing in 18 months than the previous Conservative government did in five years. The hon. member can check the record on that if he cares to.
I had hoped that the minority government that was elected on October 30, somewhat chastened and presumably more amenable to suggestions for progressive change, would have dropped this bill entirely. The government has moved in other areas of policy, such as taxation, family allowances, the foreign takeover legislation and other measures, in what most of us think of as a progressive way. But with this bill we are back with Adam Smith of the eighteenth century.
Let me now turn to a serious matter. As the hon. member has pointed out, the average man or woman in Canada who is working-I am not talking of the poor of Canada but of people with a reasonably good job, such as a fisherman in Nova Scotia, an autoworker in my constituency, a farmer in Saskatoon or a lumberman on the west coast-cannot afford to buy a house today. He cannot afford to buy a house because the government has relied on the market mechanism to put up the financing, and it just does not work. An unfettered market mechanism is yielding the highest profit in decades for banks and trust companies, but yielding no homes for the people of Canada. The present bill is simply a slight modification of the amendments that the previous government put before

the House over the past ten years, and I say that this approach just will not work.
I cannot forgo commenting on the insensitivity on this particular issue that was revealed yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). When he was asked about the mortgage situation and the availability of money, the Prime Minister said, in his candid, sympathetic way, "Well, there is lots of mortgage money available. The banks tell us it is there; what are you people complaining about?"
The obvious reply to the Prime Minister is that there are lots of Cadillacs available too, that there are lots of penthouses available-for those who can afford them. In Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver there are lots of homes available at $50,000 and $75,000. A person in the income bracket of the Prime Minister or of most members of parliament can afford to buy a house. But the average person in this country cannot afford to buy a house. The insensitivity shown by the Prime Minister when he says mortgage money is available for those who want it says a lot, it seems to me, about the attitude the government takes to the concerns of the average people of this country. Certainly this attitude is clearly revealed in the bill the government has put before the House.
Just what kind of nerve does it take, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that if the members of my party oppose further tax concessions to the rich corporations of this country we will be doing something to hamper housing construction? It takes just a little more nerve than that revealed by the Conservative Party, which also suggests that we will be holding back progress by blocking this abysmal bill.
Unlike the previous speaker, I should like to deal with the substance of the bill and to make some serious arguments illustrating why the New Democratic Party opposes Bill C-135. Firstly, Bill C-135 provides for the supply and control of mortgage funds for residential housing to be determined, in the minister's words, "by the free play of market forces." The proposed federal mortgage exchange corporation, as the minister pointed out tonight, will not attempt direct market intervention with the aim of stabilizing either the cost or the supply of mortgage funds. The New Democratic Party believes that the federal government must-I emphasize "must"-assume responsibility for ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage funds at low interest rates, and therefore rejects the basic premise of leaving the allocation of funds to the market mechanism and to the search for greater profit. We reject that basic principle as an approach to the housing situation in this country.
Secondly, the bill aims, by granting tax concessions, to enhance the attractiveness of mortgage investment for financial institutions and individuals. However, the purpose of the bill should be to reduce to a minimum the cost of mortgage financing for housing. The tax advantages given to shareholders in the proposed mortgage investment companies, together with the determination to enhance the attractiveness-to use the wonderfully euphemistic language of the minister-of mortgage investments will tend merely to enrich, in our view, the shareholders at the expense of the home buyer of Canada. This reminds me of another statistic. The hon. member speaking for the Conservative Party was concerned about all
Mortgage Financing Bill
these investors. May I remind him that the investors of Canada represent at most 5 per cent of the population; 95 per cent own a share in nothing. I should like to hear him deny that.
With regard to the second point I have made, the New Democratic Party believes that mortgages sponsored by the government of Canada are virtually 100 per cent secure. There is no risk at all in this kind of investment as there is to some extent in oil exploration or petrochemicals or certain manufacturing enterprises. There is no risk at all in government guaranteed mortgages; profits for those who invest their money are virtually guaranteed. Therefore, we believe that the profit margin of a 100 per cent secure investment must be kept to the absolute minimum; any other proposal is completely unjustified.
Thirdly, the mortgage investment companies will be authorized by this bill to make residential and non-residential real estate debt and equity investments; for example, in office buildings. This, in our view, may result in mortgage investment companies favouring non-residential real estate rather than residential real estate because of the higher investment return in non-residential real estate.
I ask, how are the people of Canada going to benefit if most of the investment funds that are channelled through these new entities that are to be established under this bill are directed into shopping plazas, construction of office buildings and all kinds of facilities other than residential houses? The New Democratic Party believes that the federal government, in assisting the financing of housing in Canada, must ensure that the funds available are allocated on a priority basis to residential housing in Canada and not to other kinds of construction.
Fourth, the setting up of mortgage investment companies under this bill will not ensure that adequate mortgage funds will be available either for new or existing dwellings in rural areas. We know, for example, in past practice in Canada, with the free flow of mortgage moneys, the urban areas have tended to get more because the banks and the trust companies are there, and the rural parts of Canada, whether on the Prairies or elsewhere, have tended to get less. We think that is wrong and that the federal government has a basic responsibility; indeed, the minister's Department of Urban Affairs has a basic responsibility to look at things as they are, to see where the needs are greatest and to make sure funds get where they are needed, whether at times that means urban areas and at other times rural areas.
Fifth, mortgage investment companies will not meet the housing needs in poorer regions of the country. I just made a distinction between rural and urban communities and I would make this further distinction between entire regions of Canada, the Atlantic provinces on the one hand and British Columbia on the other, if you like. There has to be a national policy and a national concern about regional distribution of investment money in housing as well. In other words, guidelines and directions from the federal government are required. We must not depend on the whims of the market system in respect of allocation of funds for housing.

June 12, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
In summary, this bill in our view will do little or nothing to help the man who cannot now afford to buy his own home even though he is working in a steady and reasonably well paid job. This bill will do nothing in terms of ensuring a reasonable distribution of funds between rural and urban Canada. It will do nothing in terms of ensuring a reasonable distribution of funds among provinces in Canada. The only thing it will do is inflate the already absurdly high profit margin of banks, trust companies and other investors in Canada.
I want now to give the NDP proposals that have been worked out with some care in the past few months. We put them forward in the most serious kind of way. We believe that if they are acted upon they will not overnight provide homes for every Canadian, but we do say that if the kind of proposals I will now outline are implemented by this government, by the end of a decade we could overcome the problems we are now confronted with in terms of the average person not being able to purchase his own home. It took some time to get medicare in all parts of Canada and a similar period at one point in our history to have education made available for everyone at the secondary level.
What are these proposals? First of all, we recommend that the government establish a central mortgage fund section in the Department of Urban Affairs which would direct federally-chartered lending institutions to allocate capital at rates not exceeding the prime bank rate, plus a slight administration fee about 2 'A per cent below present NHA rates. I should have liked the Conservative Party to come forward with a constructive suggestion on this matter. They have been ranting and raving for days about high interest rates but at no time did they say we should take determined action to ensure that financial institutions put aside a certain percentage of their investment money, at reasonable interest rates, for housing. Hon. members of that party have merely ranted and raved, suggesting the government has been misbehaving.
Secondly, in our view these funds should be directed according to housing priorities established by the Department of Urban Affairs. If the approved lenders, for example the banks and trust companies, did not fully allocate the housing investment money according to the priorities established by the government, at the end of the fiscal year the balance would be transferred to the central mortgage fund in the Department of Urban Affairs. These funds would then be allocated by the government to implement the established housing priorities. The approved lenders, of course, the banks and the trust companies, would be paid the prime interest rate for these funds.
Thirdly, although all Canadians would be entitled to obtain NHA mortgages, under an NDP government priority attention in the allocation of funds would go to those of average and below average family income. Fourthly, the level of requisition for each lending institution would be related to its annual investment and to the national housing requirements for a given period. The percentage contributions required from each category of lending institution would also be influenced by the liquidity requirements of the lending institution; that is to say, some institutions, such as banks, have higher cash require-

ments than others so the level of investment for each lending institution in Canada would differ.
That is the four-point program of the NDP in terms of dealing with the mortgage situation in Canada. We do not pretend-I want to emphasize this-that this program would deal with the problems of low-income Canadians. There are other programs embodied in the bill we passed earlier today which need to be well funded by this government to deal with the situation. Our proposal on this bill is intended for average income Canadians. We believe that by this kind of check on the market system and by this kind of direction of investment-it is the people's money which is in the banks and the trust companies-we could make sure a good portion of the annual investment of these institutions went into housing and within a few years we could overcome once and for all, just as we did in respect of medicare and education, that housing was not a social problem and from one coast to the other we would have decent accommodation for all.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-135 presently before us and entitled "An Act to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada".
Mr. Speaker, I shall state right away that, as far as I am concerned, properties are quite mortgaged enough just now.
I think that this bill, which aims at increasing mortgages on the properties of Canadians, thereby dispossessing them through a legislation of Parliament, is going somewhat too far. This will be another institution which will enable some financiers to make tax free investments and capital gains. I believe that the purpose of this bill is to increase the opportunities for certain institutions and certain financiers.
I agree with those who say that we have quite enough of this kind of institutions in Canada. If the government were to submit, for example, a bill to abolish the 11 per cent tax on building materials, I would say that we were making progress, that we were accomplishing something, that we were moving ahead, because we would be giving the people means they do not have today, advantages that they would need and which they do not have.
This bill will not lower the interest rates; this bill will not make it possible for more citizens to become property owners. This bill will deprive many people of the right to own property, and it is the government which, in the final analysis, will be the guarantor of these mortgages. When the government sticks its nose into private business, it takes over, and private businesses disappear, private initiative disappears. I believe that we have reached quite a point in this respect, and that the government has already stick its nose too far into private enterprise.
Private enterprise, which should be sacred above all else, is not a monopoly, but government enterprise is. It is for this reason that we should stand firm against the intrusion by government into private business, for in so doing it takes away the rights and prerogatives of citizens
June 12, 1973

to make something of themselves, it deprives them of their right to make their way in society, it dampens their initiative, and through these various methods of control, increasingly dispossesses private enterprise.
I therefore ask the hon. minister what more this type of mortgage loan company will do to give citizens the opportunity to obtain their very o\yn homes. As a matter of fact, 97 per cent of the homes being bought at this time, Mr. Speaker, are acquired through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. With new types of mortgages granted by mortgage investment companies, we want to reach a 100 per cent mark.
Will taxpayers receive more assistance from these mortgage investment companies than they are getting now? Will the housing problem be solved this way? Is it a way of solving the housing problem? The problem will not be solved anymore than it is today. We will have more trouble than at present, and taxpayers will not have any other alternative but to go deeper into debt, to mortgage themselves, to increase their private debts while increasing the public debt. There is no other solution with the kind of governments we have now. No other solution can be presented to the Canadian people. They do not find any and when some people advocate solutions, they find that funny and they laugh.
How magnificent, Mr. Speaker, the economic conditions today! How magnificent the federal, provincial and municipal government deficits, not to mention deficits as well! How magnificent the $125 to $130 billion debts of all governments and of all Canadians bearing interest at 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 20 or 24 per cent! What a splendid kind of administration!
That is what they wish to keep on offering the people; that is what they call reforms. Mr. Speaker, they are shameful reforms that should never have seen the light in this country, because human beings will be more and more dispossessed, while they should on the contrary get the upper hand. Power, Mr. Speaker, should be in the hands of the citizens, not in the hands of a usurping state that has no respect for citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there is one problem to solve, namely the housing problem. To solve it, the minister should have introduced a bill by saying: Beginning today, those who will provide mortgage loans on houses or property will not get more than a 3 per cent interest. Mr. Speaker, property is as important as bread and butter, because citizens must live in houses, because that is a part of the family life and of the life of the individual.
The great house of our Lord, Mr. Speaker, is beautiful, it is great, it is good, but houses must be built by citizens in this country, and those houses must be the property of those citizens. Now they want to give that to the state because citizens, according to the government, according to the minister, are not intelligent enough to build houses for themselves and pay for them.
The current system denies any intelligence to our fellow citizens. When an 11 per cent tax is charged on building materials, when houses are mortgaged for 25, 30 or 40 years, when owners have to pay a house seven or eight times over, this is called progress, this is called sound administration and a just society. It is a just society for
Mortgage Financing Bill
the richest taxpayers and their friends but "just" for them. But it is not just for the people. It is injustice for most of them.
And it is justice that should prevail. We are here to speak about justice and not simply to adopt laws dispossessing everyone. We have had in the past too many of those restrictive laws and this will have to end some day or else we shall have what other countries have had: revolution. This is what we shall have and we know it.
But nobody cares; it is much preferred to protect the money capital rather than the human capital. The money capital is all-important whereas the human capital does not matter. The human capital is forgotten and replaced by the money capital. This is where we failed and where we do not take our responsibilities. We shall take our responsibilities when the human capital is given first priority and when the laws are used to meet people's needs and allow them to enjoy their country instead of giving it up to two, three or four big businessmen who have taken over the laws and have made a valet out of the government.
The government is no longer the master of the situation it has become a valet and this must not be allowed to last. This is why power should be regained by the government provided it is loyal and social spirit prevails rather than a spirit of bestiality and exploitation.
We would have much to say on this point, but we want to defend especially the private sector. As a matter of fact, we are its defender because it is thanks to private enterprise and not only to public enterprise that we will develop a strong country.
The state should have control only over big things, only over large and important institutions which are too expensive or too big for private enterprise. And the government should protect private enterprise in all its efforts by reducing interest rates, removing taxes on building materials, giving the citizens the right and the ability to pay a house within at least ten years.
It is not logical that our legislation prevent Canadians from having something of their own, especially suitable housing. They get a mortgage for 20, 30 or 40 years. And it seems normal to have a mortgage on life. This is not normal and if a Canadian pays too many taxes and is unable to purchase a house within ten years, it is not logical to mortgage him for 40 years. And after 40 years, this house will have to be re-built. Their heirs will not be able to use these old houses; new ones will have to be built while the old ones will not even be paid for.
Therefore, what should be done to protect private enterprise? That is a question I ask the minister. I ask him as well what gave him the idea of establishing that kind of mortgage investment companies and what he intends to protect. I ask him to be frank, to tell us who is going to take advantage of these mortgages. Should these mortgages not be left to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to other existing institutions?
Since a few banks are allowed at present to make loans on mortgages, let us help them. This government has no right to interfere with this, and it will have to stop doing

June 12, 1973
Mortgage Financing Bill
it; private interprise will then exist. There is no need for us to set up new mortgage loans companies as we have all that is required.
The minister was saying that there exists in Canada four important institutions which are authorized to make loans on mortgages. Such a situation will not be corrected by setting up a fifth one because people or capitalists lending money nowadays are doing it with big publicity.
The caisses populaires are overflowing with credit and urging people to build houses; they are ready to finance them. Then, we do not need that new mortgage corporation which would be just like the others. Mr. Speaker, that corporation will need other taxpayers, will hire more civil servants and will incur new expenses. It may become another department which will eat up more taxes to pay the civil servants salaries when we already have everything without needing to spend any more money without investing more capital, without hiring more civil servants at high salaries paid with taxpayers taxes to operate a new mortgage corporation.
Mr. Speaker, that corporation is nothing new, it is as old as the hills. It should never have existed. It exists, but that does not mean it is a good thing, for if Canadians are all "mortgaged" it is because of this kind of mortgage corporation.
If today we are all in debt and if we can no longer manage without deficit, Mr. Speaker, it means that something is not working. Once all taxes are paid and taking into account the rising cost of living which also increases government revenues by the billions, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer will be told that taxes are not being increased. "The taxpayer is protected". That is what they say, Mr. Speaker, and the cost of living is skyrocketing. When the cost of living rises so much, government revenues increase correspondingly.
When a product sells for $100, Mr. Speaker, the federal government gets $12 through his 12 p. 100 tax. If the price of that product rises to $200, government revenues amount to $24 instead of $12. The government therefore makes twice as much money, thanks to the increase in the cost of living. To my mind, that is one of the reasons that explains why the old parties do not want to keep the cost of living from going up. As times goes by, Mr. Speaker, the deeper the citizens sink into debt, the higher the cost of living goes and the more difficult it becomes to make ends meet.
Are we here to compound the problems, or are we here to ease the burden inflicted upon the citizens by taxes of all sorts, of which the new taxes levied to make up the government deficits, federal, provincial, municipal as well as educational? All of them have deficits. Canadians can no longer meet their needs. The government is asked to help at every turn: subsidies for this, subsidies for that, because the citizens have been stripped of their money.
A way must be found, Mr. Speaker, of returning this power to the citizens. The money should belong to the citizens; it should be in their hands. These mortgage loan companies will act as the government now does: they will sell bonds, they will seek out all the people's savings, and when private institutions can no longer find anything they will be obliged to appeal to the government. That is what the old parties want, that is what the socialists want,

that the people should all come running to the government for a living that they submit, that they give up everything they hold dear, even down to their freedom.
In this regard I will say to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) that he would be better advised to withdraw his bill, since, in my opinion, it is unacceptable. It seems to me that it is not appropriate under the present circumstances, for there are so many other institutions, Mr. Speaker, capable of doing the job, and savings bonds must remain in the taxpayers' hands as much as possible, instead of remaining in the hands of the government, which corners all the wealth by means of selling bonds.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, housing in this country is now becoming a problem for those in the middle-income groups. I think this is the real indicator that should tell us, as legislators, what has happened. If you go back only a few years you will remember that we were talking about low income housing, about housing for people in our society who had a limited earning capacity. But now we find ourselves concerned not only about those groups but also about those in the middle-income brackets who cannot adequately provide themselves with shelter.
Anyone who wants proof of this has only to read the latest copy of Time magazine. Of course, we as Canadians do not say any more, "Read the latest copy of Maclean's" or, "Read the latest copy of Saturday Night'. We say, "Read the latest copy of Time," which is an American magazine, subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, and has been granted certain relief from taxes in the typical, good Canadian fashion so that we can find out what is happening in the Canadian society. Time magazine tells us that what is happening in Canadian society is that people in the middle-income bracket can no longer afford to buy the shelter they need. An hon. member across the way says, "Let us leave it to free enterprise." We did, Mr. Speaker, with the result that we have these consequences. It is not that we attack free enterprise; it is that free enterprise has failed us.
[DOT] <2140)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are a free enterpriser; you are a farmer.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Here we have the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-am I correct?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Correct.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -a refugee from Saskatchewan, who had an opportunity to start off right. I have for him the greatest sympathy. He has fallen into evil ways. It is too bad. On top of that, one of my colleagues says he came from a good locale. In fact, if he had stayed there I would be his representative, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is where you underestimate me.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: During the last several days we have listened during the question period to what I would call a debate on increasing interest rates. We who sit here know
June 12, 1973

that if the regular bank rate goes up a half of 1 per cent this will be reflected in increased interest rates for housing.
The people who really need housing today, and for whom I have the greatest sympathy, are the younger couples who are raising families. They are like the child who walks past a candy store; he sees the candy in the store, presses his face against the window pane and thinks how nice it would be if he could have the candy. It is the same with the people who need housing. They think of it with longing, but it is beyond their reach. They do not have the several thousand dollars needed for a down payment on their own shelter. This is the problem that the bill does not tackle. There is not much use thinking that the bill will deal with that situation simply by leaving it to the profit motive to solve the problem. It will not. If we want to use the profit motive we will have to control interest rates and see they are not above a certain level. If we want to solve the problem by what has been referred to as the private enterprise method, then we will have to control land development, which will mean that land developers cannot charge over a certain amount. But these are the things we do not do.
Not long ago the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) put on the record of this House the fact that a group of developers in the Toronto area control all the land for development in the area. One of my colleagues says that most of them are Tories. This group can decide how much rake-off they want from development in the area and whoever wants housing there will pay the price. We are all aware of these facts. Anyone who reads, anyone who looks, anyone who studies must 1 aware of these facts. I know that in the city of Saskatoon students have told me that certain low cost developments in that city are closed to them. I have received letters from churches that were trying to provide senior citizens' homes in the city of Saskatoon. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a good record in the city of Saskatoon. In many cases we have provided adequate housing for the citizens, but now we face the problem of having to pay interest rates and development costs which make the provision of senior housing very expensive.
Bill C-133 which we passed this afternoon dealt with that problem to some extent. But we must move past that to an over-all approach. The bill which we are now debating fails utterly to reduce to a minimum the cost of mortgage financing for housing. Perhaps we should develop one or two new approaches to housing in Canada. We have a mobile population, composed in the main of younger families. As they advance from one job to another they move freely from one part of Canada to another. We should develop some type of housing that will meet their needs. I do not think we should expect them to have to buy and sell their house every time they move.
Maybe we should consider the provision of rental housing at rents that would be decided on the basis of taxes and interest rates, housing not primarily for low-income people but for people with ordinary incomes so that each time they moved they would not be put to the expense of paying real estate fees and lawyers' fees for the transfer of houses, all of which add to the cost of housing and to inflation.
Mortgage Financing Bill
We should think of a new method. In Saskatchewan we are moving toward the transfer of farmland through the land bank method because we have found that the cost of transferring land from one generation to another is becoming prohibitive and is interfering with the efficient production of food. We have sought new methods so that the cost of living for our farm families will not be prohibitive. Mr. Speaker, we should also be thinking of means of ensuring that the cost of shelter will not become prohibitive. We should have comfortable homes for all our citizens. This should be possible in our society without the people who live in such homes being the victims of speculators.
We should not permit high interest rates, high rents and these types of charges which are visited on that part of our population least able to protect itself. Fair costs should be the objective of this government if they want to serve the needs of the Canadian people. This in the main, Mr. Speaker, is what I wanted to say this evening.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on this bill tonight until I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). I am simply amazed that the New Democratic Party has such complete lack of financial understanding as to oppose this bill. It is totally amazing that we hear the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar talking about problems of people finding a home, although I agree with him that the problem of a person looking for a place to live is like a child pressing his nose against the candy store window.
It might be quite right that the minister should introduce a bill that has something to do with supplying serviced land and bringing down the cost of housing, but such is not the nature of the bill before us. This bill is to expedite financing arrangements in the mortgage field. It is cleqr from the comments of hon. friends to my left that they have no understanding of this bill. It reminds me of the famous corporate rip-off theme in the election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: These corporations had vast amounts of money on the balance sheets. I heard the hon. member from York South (Mr. Lewis) say that there was no problem; all you had to do was take some of that tax surplus. Great stuff, Mr. Speaker-the corporations with money in their pockets, keeping it away from the people! It must be quite clear to the country that the party to my left could not manage anything. The results of their management in some provinces of this country indicate that, and their talk tonight indicates it. They have no comprehension of the banking system, the mortgage system or anything else. I am surprised they would even talk on this bill tonight. This bill should go through, Mr. Speaker. The comments from that party clearly indicate that they are just not with it.
I was amazed, too, at the position taken by the hon. member for Compton of the Social Credit party. I remember as a young lawyer travelling to Sudbury and Capreol at the request of people in the area to see if I could help
4696

June 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
them find mortgage funds. I remember going into those communities and finding that the local supply of money was at 18, 24 and 28 per cent per annum, with sometimes a penalty of 10 per cent per annum on top. This is the kind of situation that is faced in many areas.
One of the objectives of this bill should be to try to move capital from areas of the country where there is mortgage money to areas where there is no mortgage money. If my friends to the left understood one of the principles of the Fanny May corporation in the United States-which is to some extent, I presume, what the minister is attempting to create in this residential mortgage financing act-they would know that it is to move capital around.
One of the problems of the person in the mortgage market is that money has to be collected from small depositors and small investors. Mortgages are placed in this country, by and large, by life insurance companies and trust companies. One of the problems is that these companies are in the marketplace and are confined by the present banking system, so that when money is loose, as was the case two or three months ago before we had another round of "Tight Money Turner" who took over from "Tight Money Benson," there is huge competition for mortgages amongst the mortgage companies, and consequently interest rates soar.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. An hon. member has pointed out that it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 I put the following question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner):
With the minister consider instituting a study of modifications of the branch banking system designed to ease the burden of universal high interest rates on areas of slow economic growth?
The minister's answer was not responsive to the intent of my question, but on April 19 he was kind enough to send me further information. The information is helpful and I appreciate it, but I did want to see a study convened so that we would have an opportunity to make some suggestions. Tonigh.t I shall make some of those suggestions. I trust they will clarify the intent of my question and identify some problem areas, and I hope the minister will find them as constructive as they are intended to be.

We should develop regional banking policies and restructure the branch banking system to provide, among other things, Bank of Canada offices in different regions of Canada, to secure more policy input through different interests. Banks, although formidable institutions, are subject to government policy and are readily influenced by the Bank of Canada. Regional banking policies should be feasible when tight money is in vogue, to protect the interests of slow-growth regions. I believe the so-called Winnipeg agreement tacitly recognizes this need. Due to the nature of our economy, our population dispersement and seasonal employment problems with slow-growth areas, regional answers to monetary problems must be sought.
As long as we have one central bank, one common currency and the branch banking system in Canada all regions are influenced by national monetary conditions, including interest rate levels and the availability of credit. The executive vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, speaking at the Canadian Club, Winnipeg, on April 5 of this year, had this to say:
Clearly, if the chartered banks were permitted to include provincial treasury bills or similar securities in their statutory or even conventional liquid assets, a prerequisite would be that the central bank itself would have to own and deal in the same classes of provincial securities.
He further said:
Likewise, the chartered banks could be permitted to include provincial treasury bills in their statutory secondary reserves, and short-term provincial bonds in their major liquid asset calculation. The market for provincial debt issues would be much improved and the over-all borrowing rate of the provinces would fall, while the federal government's debt servicing costs would probably rise. A side benefit would be that the federal government's issue of treasury bills would become meaningful, which is not the case when about 95 per cent of the treasury bills are held by the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks, as at present.
It is always possible to pose difficulties in the way of new structural arrangements, but I believe that the changes suggested above are feasible and would materially improve the financial markets of the provinces. And that is something more than is likely to emerge from the generalizations in the Speech from the Throne.
It is to me a matter of settled national policy that the government will depress the economy and create unemployment in order to contain inflation. The province of New Brunswick, being a part of Canada, cannot escape the consequences of national policy. When the federal government wants to depress the economy, when it wants to trade off unemployment to contain inflation the economy of New Brunswick suffers, unemployment in New Brunswick increases and we get inflation in the bargain.
The grim fact of life is that those of us who live in the less prosperous regions of Canada are the first to be hit, the hardest hit and the last to recover from such a lag in national economic performance. I am unhappy with the fact that so many people in New Brunswick continued to suffer poverty and unemployment last year, a year in which there was an increase in the labour force itself and in which federal policy persisted in restricting economic expansion.
New Brunswick has no reason to feel gratitude that its ocean ports have been neglected, its transportation serv-
June 12, 1973

ices have deteriorated, its markets lost through national tariff policy and its trade diminished by years of economic centralization. We are not satisfied to see hundreds of millions of dollars spent in developing airports in central Canada while our own regional transportation facilities are losing the ability to handle freight and other services. We are not satisfied that the rail rates imposed by our own railways and sanctioned by the federal transport authority are two to three times as great as those prevailing in competing areas such as the state of Maine. We are not satisfied that when monetary demands in central Canada require the imposition of tight money under an antiquated economic doctrine, the same castor oil treatment is accorded slow-growth areas where the need does not exist.
It is time this government sought modern remedies to modern-day problems. I asked the Minister of Finance to consider a study of this problem. He did not answer the question. The day will come when he will answer, if not to me, to the people.
[ Translation]


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly add anything further to the reply given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in answer to the question asked by my hon. colleague.
Indeed, the bank credit expansion rate continues to be very high, and one can hardly expect the government to move towards a restrictive monetary policy. The monetary policy continues to be expansionist, and the credit supply meets the real needs of the economy. Moreover, the Minister of Finance has made a firm commitment to maintain an adequate rate of expansion of the money in circulation, that is, a rate compatible with strong and sustained growth in the production and employment sectors. From this viewpoint, the recent increases in interest rates have been a necessary response to the marked increase in foreign interest rates. Moreover, the heavy demand for credit resulting from a very rapid economic growth has, of course, exerted pressures on interest rates. We may note, however, that short-term rates of interest in Canada fell, early in the year, to much lower levels than comparable rates abroad, and that the Canadian rates are still low when compared with those abroad. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the recent hike in interest rates reflects a move towards a restrictive monetary policy.
The monetary policy as reflected in the growth of the total amount of money in circulation and in credit conditions in general, is intended to contain any excessive increase in bank credit. The rate of expansion of this bank credit is still high. Bank loans in general have gone up by more than 20 per cent over the twelve-month period ending in May of this year. Since January, these loans have increased at a real rate of approximately 35 per cent. Consumer loans have increased somewhat more rapidly than loans to enterprises, but it is still true that, whatever measure is passed, the expansion of bank credit has been very strong.
It is clear that this very rapid expansion of bank loans must be adjusted downward, at a bearable rate. In Canada as in other countries, slowing down the rate of increase in bank credit sometimes tends to affect more particularly the small enterprises or the less favoured regions of a
Adjournment Debate
country. Now, as the Minister of Finance noted in his answer to my hon. colleague, measures have been adopted to ensure that this adjustment does not lay an undue burden on unfavoured regions or small enterprises in general.
Indeed, the minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada asked chartered banks to pay particular attention to the needs of small enterprises and poorer regions, and the minister has declared himself satisfied with the favourable reaction of the banks. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is in close communication with chartered banks concerning their practice in granting loans, and the situation is being controlled each day. For the time being, the government is convinced that the chartered banks are doing everything possible to ensure an adequate money supply in those sectors.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will say that it is clearly in the interest of Canadians of all areas of the country to avoid an excessive credit increase. An expansion of credit beyond what is necessary to sustain a strong economic growth would contribute to the inflationary pressures and risk to end in a situation where everyone would be a loser.


ENERGY-CAPABILITY OF ENERGY BOARD TO JUDGE APPLICATION TO TRANSPORT NATURAL GAS IN OTHER THAN VAPOUR FORM
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: June 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
A second related question that I should like to put to the minister is: Where will the National Energy Board acquire the competence to make the kind of judgments which, in essence, have more to do with the national economy and with the environment in the sense of ecological values than it has to do with energy? Will the studies into the rail line, the liquid natural gas line, the effects on the economy and on the ecology that are now being undertaken by interdepartmental task forces, so I am informed in answer to order paper questions, be made available to the National Energy Board for study in advance of undertaking any hearing of an application for a gas pipeline? If such information is supplied to the National Energy Board by the government, will the National Energy Board take official notice of the information obtained from such studies and cite it as evidence in support of its conclusions?
A third related question is this: If, indeed, such information is to be made available to the National Energy Board by the government, without which I fail to see how the Energy Board can be considered to have the competence to make the kind of decision the minister attributes to it, then will the information also be made available to parliament so that the elected representatives of the people of Canada will be able to pass judgment upon the decision of the National Energy Board, which in the final analysis is responsible to parliament?
My final remark is more in the way of a statement of conviction than a question. Even if we are assured that all the information and all the powers, which my questions of this evening have implied are necessary in order for the National Energy Board to make a competent decision with respect to a northern pipeline, are placed at the board's disposal, I would deny that it is right and proper that a non-elective body such as the National Energy Board, rather than parliament, should make a decision of such magnitude.
Just listen, Mr. Speaker, to what the draft report on the Evaluation of the Impact on the National Economy of a Northern Canadian Gas Pipe Line says about the economic effect of the demand for $4.5 to $5 billion of capital. At page 13 the report reads:
The construction and operation of a northern gas pipeline, even if it were to carry a substantial proportion of Canadian gas, would likely prove to be a mixed blessing to Canada.
On the following page the report reads:
During pipeline operations, the maximum benefits to Canada would be additional Canadian incomes of $366 million per year, of which government revenues would comprise $73 million, and 150 to 200 permanent jobs.
The potential costs of pipeline operations include:
(a)	a continuous upward pressure of up to $183 million per year
on the Canadian dollar, making it more difficult for other, more
labour-intensive, exports to be sold abroad; and
(b)	a potentially serious upward pressure on the level of the
Canadian energy prices.
I am not willing to have an appointed board make a decision involving implications of that magnitude. I would insist that that is a job for the representatives of the people, for the Parliament of Canada. If I may, in the few seconds remaining to me, be permitted an aside, I find it passing strange, if indeed the economic effects that I have

just put on the record do result from a huge demand for capital for the construction of a vapour state gas pipeline, that the government is not doing something to reduce the costs involved in constructing such a line. For example, I find it difficult to understand why the government feels it is not necessary to finance a test loop for a liquid natural gas pipeline in order to discover whether the potential saving of up to 50 per cent claimed for such a system is indeed realizable.
Instead of doing that, the government has said that is the responsibility of the industry. Private industry is not interested in doing that because right now gas has a seller's market and the constructing of test loops would mean a delay. Customers will absorb the additional costs in any case. If there is a saving to be made, it must first come from government action.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made clear what he had in mind in his rather shotgun question of several days ago. May I just deal with his last point first, which, with all respect, I suggest is absurd. I refer to the suggestion that private industry, if it found it infinitely cheaper to ship natural gas in liquid state rather than in vapour state, would not do so. Obviously, if a pipeline could be made more economic by shipping natural gas in that way, then no doubt it would be done.
The hon. gentleman has expressed indignation at the fact that parliament will not consider this matter. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that the process followed by parliament in respect of pipelining is ordination by parliament. Parliament decided after the experience of pipeline applications in the 1950s and after the Borden commission to specifically pass a law by which these applications would go before a fully qualified and independent economic tribunal, namely, the National Energy Board, for consideration and, if approved by the board, would go on to the governor in council for approval or rejection at that point, or for judgment at the political level.
For the last several years we have made available to the House, to the hon. member and his colleagues, a great deal of information with regard to the possibilities of a northern pipeline. We now have a reference before the committee. In spite of this, it is strange that there has not been the slightest interest on the part of the hon. member and his colleagues elsewhere. If he is so interested in having parliament discuss pipelining, why have he and his colleagues not gone to work on this committee? I personally would be glad to discuss this very interesting issue with them as I have been discussing it.
The hon. member says the board has no competence in economics and ecology. Where has he been for the last 12 years? I suspect he has not read a single decision of the Energy Board. The economics of pipelining and the physical problems created for the environment by the construction of a pipeline have been the very essence of the business of the National Energy Board for the last 12 years.
I go back to my statement which was unequivocal. I said the board has competence and has exercised that competence for the last 12 years under the direction of parlia-
June 12, 1973

ment which decided at the time that this kind of difficult, technical question should be dealt with at the initial level by a qualified, independent, economic tribunal which could hear the evidence of various sides, make its own judgment as to whether the pipeline should be proceeded with and in due course this judgment, if favourable, would go to the political level for decision.
I will renew, as I have renewed several times, my offer to the hon. member, if he is interested. I hope he will, with other members on the standing committee, work out a timetable so not only can government studies, all of which have been made available, be discussed but I can go back to the committee-


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


IMMIGRATION-IMPENDING DEPORTATION OF TARA SINGH GILL-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY MINISTER
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28 I raised in the House of Commons the case of Tara Singh Gill of India. I urged the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to rule this man become eligible for landed immigrant status. A principle of justice is at stake here and that is why I will pursue this matter until justice is obtained.
It is impossible to adequately summarize this case in the time available to me, but here are the main points. Mr. Gill, a 26-year old technical school graduate from Punjab, is one of the thousands of visitors who came to Canada from many countries on tourist visas. Under the 1967 Canada Immigration Act, visitors had the right to apply for landed immigrant status from within Canada until that right was suddenly withdrawn by the government on November 3, 1972.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration told the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on April 5 that certain cases of individuals in the country before November 3 would be reviewed to determine if landed immigrant status could be granted. He said:
We will also look favourably at cases of persons where there is acceptable evidence that they had called at an immigration office on or before the day of the announcement, but were unable to be dealt with for one reason or another.
At the hearing conducted by the special inquiry officer in Edmonton, a statutory declaration was entered in evidence, signed by Maghar S. Dhaliwal, which reads in paragraph 4:
That on the third day of November 1972, at approximately 4.20 p.m., I, on behalf of Tara Singh Gill, telephoned the immigration office in Edmonton and spoke with Mr. Hampton for the purpose of arranging an appointment for Tara Singh Gill, who wished to apply for immigrant status in Canada.
Mr. Dhaliwal was told that since time was running short for the day, Mr. Gill should come to the immigration office on Monday, November 6. He was there at 8.30 a.m. the following Monday. He was refused application forms for landed immigrant status, whereupon he received immigration form 1010 so that his brother Gurdial Singh Gill could nominate him for landed immigrant status.
Adjournment Debate
In his review of the evidence the minister has drawn the conclusion that it was only on March 20, 1973, that Tara Singh Gill indicated his desire to become a landed immigrant. From the confused presentation at several hearings I can understand how the minister might have drawn this conclusion, but I ask him to deepen his review of this case. Tara Singh Gill arrived in Canada on October 26. He was in the midst of looking around to determine his future, as he was permitted to by law, when lightning struck in the form of the government announcement. There followed the quick action by Mr. Dhaliwal, on Mr. Gill's behalf, on November 3. On November 10, Mr. Empson, the district administrator, acknowledged Mr. Gill's desire for permanent residence.
On January 9, Mr. Gill was admitted to Grant MacEwan Community College in Edmonton to take a course as a biomedical equipment technician. How, then, can there be any doubt that Tara Singh Gill wanted to stay in Canada? On what ground is Mr. Dhaliwal's statutory declaration doubted? Mr. Dhaliwal is a Canadian citizen and an officer with the federal Department of Agriculture in Edmonton, and there is nothing to put his credibility in question.
I do not doubt the minister's sincerity when he speaks of acceptable evidence of an attempt being made to start landed immigrant proceedings on or before November 3. What has happened is that Tara Singh Gill has been caught in a maze of bureaucracy. He has been ordered deported. He has appealed the deportation order, and to make matters worse he has been refused a work permit by the Department of Manpower and Immigration while this appeal is pending. He does not want to be dependent upon his brother. He has been offered a job with Vanguard Concrete Products, and I verified today that the job is still open to him. But he is being discriminated against. He has been abused by the bureaucracy and denied a chance to work. This is not the spirit of the Canada of which we are proud. An injustice has been committed against a young man who shows every sign of being a good Canadian citizen if we give him the chance.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the minister that I support the step taken to prohibit applications for landed immigrant status from within Canada. Whatever the merits of the 1967 law, this section became open to abuse. But the law should not have been changed retroactively. I protest the retroactivity and I challenge its moral correctness, whatever the legal niceties. Even with retroactivity, the minister opened the door to people like Tara Singh Gill, but then his officials shut it.
Mr. Speaker, I see opposite me the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacGuigan). I want to say to him that I hope he will not give me a "canned" answer prepared by the department. The personal reputation for integrity and justice of the parliamentary secretary is well known in this country and he is greatly respected by me. I want him to be able to study this case in the detail I have before he gives a definitive answer, especially an answer in the negative.
I say, for the sake of justice, for Canada's good name, for a true welcome to India's Prime Minister, Madam Gandhi, who will grace this chamber with her presence in a few days, open the door to Tara Singh Gill.

June 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that when this case was originally raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) the person concerned had not at that time been ordered deported. Since then an immigration inquiry has been held and Mr. Gill's deportation ordered. Since an appeal has been lodged with the Immigration Appeal Board against that order, it would be inappropriate to discuss the merits of the case at this time. Now that this matter is before the board, it alone has the responsibility for assessing, not only the legality of the order made at the inquiry but also whether there are compassionate or humanitarian considerations on which the order should be set aside.
When the decision was taken to remove the right of visitors to apply to remain permanently, it was not intended that wholesale exemptions would be made to this policy. I emphasize the word "visitors". The previous provision which allowed a person to adjust his status was not established as an alternate method of immigrating to the traditional and accepted procedure of applying abroad.
Obviously, the minister cannot nor would he wish to review the decisions of staff in every case. I can assure the House, however, that all immigration field staff in Canada know of the minister's desire for a compassionate approach to problems of this kind. Indeed, as an indication of the field staff's approach, there have been many recommendations to the minister for exemption from the revocation of regulation 34 on compassionate grounds. Although I do not have any statistics immediately available, literally hundreds of these requests have gone forward for governor in council approval in the six months since the revocation of regulation 34. Those who like Mr. Gill are not satisfied with the decision of the department have recourse to the full process of the law through the special inquiry and appeal procedures. Mr. Gill has taken advantage of this process.
One matter which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona mentioned and which concerns me is the denial of the right to an employment visa to Mr. Gill. On the basis of further facts which might be presented by the hon. member, I know the minister would wish to review this very important question to be sure that either justice has been done already to Mr. Gill or that an employment visa should be granted to him.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, June 13, 1973