1973-09-19

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege dealing with a matter which has now been made public through the media and as a result my integrity in debating and voting on matters concerning the public business that comes before this chamber may be questioned by a portion of the public.
The facts are that during the oral question period on Monday, September 17, I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning television coverage of the Olympic games. The question and answer are to be found on page 6626 of Hansard. At about 4.30 that afternoon I received a telephone call in my parliamentary office. The caller identified himself as an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He refused to give his name. He stated he wanted to do me a favour, namely, to warn me to cease asking further questions on the subject I had raised that afternoon in the oral question period. Otherwise, he continued, it would be publicly alleged that I had a contract with CTV and therefore a conflict of interest.
The following day, yesterday, I attempted to be recognized during the oral question period without success. However, upon going into the opposition lobby when the question period ended I received another telephone call. This time, in less courteous terms, I was told that for my own good I had better lay off my inquiries into the television coverage of the Olympic games. Again, the caller did not identify himself by name.
I need not cite to you, Mr. Speaker, the precedents which establish how seriously the House regards any attempt to intimidate a member in the performance of his duties. I also need not point out to all hon. members how difficult it can be for a member to refute allegations made against him of conflict of interest. It is extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, for him to do this by himself. When the accuser is nameless, the member cannot have recourse to the courts to clear his name. I therefore take this opportunity to assure the House that in no way am I involved in a conflict of interest in this matter or in any other. Should any member feel disposed to call me before a standing committee of the House to investigate this matter, I would be more than willing to comply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Order. Since receiving the notice I have had an
opportunity to consider all aspects of the matter raised by the hon. member.
The House will appreciate that there is some difficulty in finding a prima facie case of privilege in circumstances where no charge has been made and there has been no suggestion in the House of any irregularity or impropriety. There is really nothing for the House or one of its committees to consider under the heading of privilege. Indeed, we have no motion before us to this effect. At the same time, I have no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.
The hon. member has made his position clear. In view of all circumstances, I would think no further action by the House should be required at this time.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. I just want to say, in view of the absence of the minister responsible for the CBC, that I can say without any danger that any person alleging to be speaking on behalf of the CBC would obviously be lying. I do not believe there was any indication in the hon. member's statement that he was impugning the CBC for acting in this way. I just want to assure him that it is inconceivable to me, and I am sure to the House, that the CBC would approach a member of parliament in that way.


Mr. Baldwin:: If the Prime Minister wants to wait until the minister returns to defend the action of the CBC, then I think we should have a debate on the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I would assume it is not the wish of hon. members that this matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am sure hon. members are not serious in making that suggestion. I am sure the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley does not suggest that his conduct should be sent to the committee for consideration or investigation by it.
My suggestion is that the situation is very clear, very simple and uncomplicated. The hon. member has indicated what the facts of the situation are. We have to accept his statement that these are the facts, and in the circumstances I suggest that nothing at all would be gained by having a debate, either in the House or in a committee, on the matter raised by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point and despite what you have said, I point out to Your Honour that the hon. member who raised the point of privilege informed the House that someone who would not give his name, and who represented himself to be an employee of the CBC,
6710

September 19, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Jelinek
said certain things. I rise because the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), on the basis of that kind of statement, said that the CBC had to be defended. I think that is shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: There is not a title of evidence that it was an employee of the CBC, and even less evidence that the CBC had anything to do with it. For the hon. member for Peace River to take this opportunity to show his prejudice against this publicly owned company is shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By this time perhaps hon. members will agree that there was some wisdom in the suggestion of the Chair that the matter should not be pursued.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) suggested that my conduct was shameful. I had the opportunity to hear what the hon. member who raised the question of privilege had to say. While there may be some doubt about the evidence, in my opinion he made a very strong case and I think I was entitled to say what I did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: If these babblers over yonder want to go on record as saying that if the CBC did these things it should be defended, let them do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. It seems to me that we are getting away from the point raised originally by the member for High Park-Humber Valley. There is now a debate over alleged conduct of the CBC. I doubt whether we should get involved in debate on this point.


David Lewis: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the last words of the hon. member for Peace River are even more shameful. If there were the slighest evidence that the CBC had anything to do with this, of course I would be condemning it as much as anyone else. The hon. member had no right to say what he did.


Gerald William Baldwin: I said it, and I am damned glad I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might move to the next item of business. Possibly it will be less contentious than this one.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious problems with respect to the transportation of goods, etc., from the Canadian mainland to the province of Newfoundland and the Minister of Transport's obvious attempt to ignore the constitutional rights of Newfoundlanders, as agreed to in the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada in 1949, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to ensure that the constitutional rights of the province of Newfoundland as agreed to under Term 32 in the Terms of Union shall be upheld.
And I further move:
That this House disassociate itself from the derogatory remark made by the Minister of Transport, as cited on page 6670 of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request unanimous consent to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I hope, in the interests of a Canadian in distress abroad, that the House will consider unanimous consent.
In view of the statement made yesterday morning in Gander, Newfoundland, by Prime Minister Fidel Castro ot Cuba that he is willing to examine the case of Canadian citizen, Ronald Patrick Lippert, imprisoned in Cuba for the past ten years, this House respectfully requests the Prime Minister of Canada to personally take up with Premier Castro the matter of possible release for Mr. Lippert as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 this motion also requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
September 19, 1973


BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES ACCORDED NEW DEMOCRATS AS OPPOSITION PARTY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might refer to a small incident which happened yesterday when the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 which had reference to the position of the New Democratic Party in the House. I was looking at the hon. member and he was looking in the direction of the Chair as he proposed this motion, and I think we agreed that his motion was perhaps actually made with tongue in cheek. The Chair took it that this was so, and in conversation the hon. member has confirmed to me that he really did not expect that the Chair would put the motion. It was on this basis and in the same vein that I said the matter would be taken under advisement. I regret very much if either the motion of the hon. member or the comment of the Chair was taken too seriously.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to proceed with this motion today if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to proceed with the motion. As he knows, a point of order was raised previously. I would be pleased to hear him on the point of order, and this time the matter would be taken under advisement seriously. In view of the importance of the point of order which was raised before and debated in the House I would be prepared to make a ruling, and I am sure this is what the hon. member has in mind.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the motion relates to endorsement of the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which made some recommendations to the House on the subject matter of aboriginal rights. It asks the House to endorse the concept of aboriginal rights. A preceding motion dealing with the same report and the same subject matter was introduced and moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) some months ago. It was debated for one whole day and, as I understand the procedure and rules, was subsequently transferred to government orders. Therefore it is lost to the House and cannot be revived unless the government should think it worth while to do so.
There is a rule in Beauchesne called the anticipation rule. It is Citation 131, and I should like to read the first paragraph:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the
Indian Affairs
probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
I think my motion can only be ruled out of order on the ground of anticipation, because the preceding debate was held to be in order. It is the question of the determination by Mr. Speaker of the probability of the subject matter of the motion, namely, aboriginal rights, and the report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development being brought before the House within a reasonable period of time that should be settled. It is some five months since the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for concurrence in the second report of the committee was brought before the House, debated and then moved from motions to government orders.
The anticipation rule has been in the rules of procedure of the House for many years prior to 1968-69 when the House embarked upon a new structure and concept regarding the operation of the standing committees. The rules at that time were revised to give the standing committees of the House a much larger role than they had had previously. For example, estimates are automatically referred to committees. The practice of referring annual reports of departments or agencies of government is now commonplace. The practice of establishing special committees such as the Food Prices Committee is more commonplace now than prior to 1969. Therefore, I think the anticipation rule must be read in conjunction with what parliament has conceived shall be the function and role of committees.
This House referred a certain subject matter to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That committee saw fit to make a recommendation to the House on April 3 or 4 on the subject matter of aboriginal rights. I believe that not only is the House entitled to expect reports from committees to which it refers subject matters, but if a committee of the House, which is a committee of all the House and not just one part of it, makes recommendations the House of Commons which set up the committee and referred the subject matter to it is entitled also to be able to approve or disapprove of the recommendations. It should be able to respond by vote to the particular recommendations of any committee.
I submit that the government is abusing the principal concept of the rule of anticipation with respect to the House making a decision about a subject matter referred to a committee, about which the committee has made a recommendation. The government has virtually swept aside the question of aboriginal rights and has virtually denied the House the opportunity to pass judgment on the recommendations of that committee. At no time since April, when the subject matter was debated, has the leader of the House once indicated that the motion under government orders standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee would be listed as an item to be brought forward for debate in the House. At no time in the discussions between House leaders has there been any indication that the subject matter to which I have referred is to be entered on the agenda for debate.

September 19, 1973
Indian Affairs
There is no expectation whatsoever that the subject matter of aboriginal rights, under the heading of the motion moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be brought forward again by the government.
I submit, therefore, that Your Honour must look at this matter in light of the probability of the matter anticipated, the second report of the Indian affairs committee, being brought before the House within a reasonable time. That is not a valid expectation. The government has declared that it has no intention of letting that subject matter come to a vote. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has said he is not going to permit parliament to vote upon the report of that committee because he disagrees with it. In a parliamentary democracy such as we operate under, no one man should be able to deny the will of the majority to vote upon a matter. That is what is involved.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The Minister rises on a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member will allow the Chair to hear the minister, after which I will continue to hear the hon. member.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said that I denied or refused something or said that this matter will never be debated. I never said that and I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really do not think that the hon. member for Skeena has to withdraw the allegation. This is debate between the hon. member and the minister. We are on a point of order. The minister can take part in the debate on the point of order. We have until five or six o'clock this afternoon, so that we have ample time to hear the hon. member, the minister, and others who may want to take part in this interesting discussion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that was a very wise decision you made. Even though there was not a question of privilege, and the minister knew it, if the minister is now saying that he is prepared to bring that item before the House again for debate and vote, I will gladly sit down and withdraw my motion. Will the minister say that? No, he will not. That indicates that Your Honour must ask yourself about the probability of the matter anticipated,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development relating to aboriginal rights, being brought before the House within a reasonable time. I think one must conclude it will not be brought before the House within a reasonable time. As far as the government is concerned, it will not be brought forward at all during this session. Therefore this motion should be held to be in order so that the House can proceed to debate the issue and vote on whether the House endorses the concept of aboriginal rights rather than one man denying the House that opportunity as is the case at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate what was indicated to him earlier in the debate, that perhaps the Chair should take the matter under advisement. The objection of the Chair, of course, is not to the regularity of the motion in the sense that it can be allowed to stay on the order paper. The question is whether it can be debated at this or another time while the other motion is still before the House under government orders. That is the difficulty of the Chair. The hon. member has presented an interesting argument which will be considered in due course.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What was the cost of the Prime Minister's residence to the government in 1962, 1965, 1969, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many employees, paid by the government, were on the staff of the Prime Minister's residence in the above years?
3.	How much money was paid by the government for entertainment at the Prime Minister's residence in the above years?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as PMO/PCO is concerned:


[Stage Direction]
**$ 2,647
1962-63	1965-66
1. Total cost* **	$22,205	$34,018
2. Man-years provided 7	7
3. Entertainment*	$ 2,044	$ 6,144
(included in 1 above)
[Stage Direction]
*The Prime Minister's personal payment of $5,000 per annum for food and lodging (credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund during the period April 1st, 1962 to October 31, 1972) has not been deducted from 1 above.
** Forecast expenditure.
Note: Expenditures given in 1 reflect the cost of maintaining the Prime Minister's residence in accordance with the Official Residences Act and includes staff salaries, utilities, materials, supplies, entertainment and sundry expenses.

September 19, 1973
[Stage Direction]
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. 1962-63, $8,016; 1965-66, $15,418; 1969-70, $23,174; 1971-72, $41,602; 1972-73, $37,751.
2.	Two.
3.	N/A.
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With respect to answer to Question No. 1,720 as recorded at page 4,373 of Hansard, June 4, 1973, did any government agency or Crown Corporation make such loan of $26 million to Light-Servi-cos De Electricidade SA?
2.	Will the government undertake to provide the following information (a) is Light-Servicos De Electricidade SA, Rio de Janeiro owned in any part by Brascan and, if so, for what percentage (b) was Brascan formerly called Brazilian Traction Light and Power Company and were Messrs. Mitchell Sharp, Robert Winters and Jack Nicholson at one time officers in this company (c) does the government plan to acquire a share in Brascan similar to the negotiations of the British Columbia government to purchase interest in a Brascan coal venture (Sukunica, in the Peace River vicinity)?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1. On December 15, 1972 it signed an agreement for the provision of financing in the amount of $26.5 million to Light-Servicos de Electricidade S.A., to support an export sale of Canadian goods and services.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 2. (a) This information is not available, (b) This information is not available, (c) No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is the government considering banning a substance called Amaranth Red No. 2 or simply, Red 2, currently used in a large variety of foods, drinks and cosmetics?
2.	What research has the Food and Drug Directorate made into Red 2 and the reported harmful effects it is having on human reproduction?
3.	What input has the Canadian Food and Drug Directorate had towards the FDA in the United States on Red 2 and what feedback from the FDA have we received?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Amaranth (or FD and C Red No. 2, as it is called in the United States) has been the subject of intensive international investigation since 1970, yet results are still inconclusive. As recently as 1972, a sub-committee of the National Academy of Sciences recommended that there was insufficient reason to take measures to reduce the extent of human exposure to this food colour. Based upon all currently available scientific information regarding the levels of use and toxicological data on amaranth, the Department is of the opinion that no restrictive action is warranted at this time.
2.	The Health Protection Branch maintains close contact with scientists engaged in this work in the United States and in other parts of the world.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Results of international investigation have been inconclusive, although tests presently being conducted by the United States' Food and Drug Administration are expected to provide more conclusive data. Correspondence and direct communication is continuing between Health Protection Branch scientists and their U.S. counterparts to ensure that action appropriate to the findings may be quickly taken.


Mr. Forrestall: Do all heavy icebreakers, as listed in answer to Question No. 1,900, conform with internationally accepted standards as laid down by "Janes Fighting Ships" and, if not, whose description of heavy icebreaker do they meet?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: "Janes Fighting Ships" is not a regulatory society and does not prescribe standards for ships. The term "heavy icebreaker" describes an icebreaker with a minimum of 9,000 shaft horsepower capable of operating in the continuous mode through first year sea ice up to three feet thick and is a Canadian Coast Guard designation.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Is Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky employed or retained by the government for (a) services to the Banff Advisory Council (b) any other purpose and, if so, in each case, what is (i) the nature of his responsibility (ii) the rate of remuneration (iii) the date of commencement of the association (iv) the projected date of termination of the association?
2.	In each case (a) what are the specific qualifications or other reasons that cause Mr. Sulatycky to be employed or retained (b) was any other lawyer or person considered for that employment or retention?
3.	Was Mr. Sulatycky a Liberal Member of Parliament for Rocky Mountain constituency prior to the election of October 30, 1972?
4.	Is Mr. Sulatycky a member of the Board of Panarctic Oils Limited and, if so (a) on what date was he appointed (b) for what reason was he appointed?
5.	If Mr. Sulatycky is a member of the Board of Panarctic Oils Limited, is he a representative on that Board of (a) the government (b) the petroleum industry (c) the public?
6.	If Mr. Sulatycky is a member of the Board of Panarctic Oils representing anyone other than the government, does a conflict of interest arise because he is employed or retained by the government for any other purpose?
7.	Does Mr. Sulatycky now serve or has he ever served as counsel for groups or persons in their dealings with (a) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) any other government department?
8.	If Mr. Sulatycky does serve, or has served as counsel in such circumstances, does a conflict of interest arise because he is employed or retained by the government for any other purpose?
9.	Did Mr. Sulatycky ever serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so (a) during what period (b) with what specific responsibilities?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. (a) No; (b) No.
2.	(a) and (b) Not applicable.
3.	Yes.

September 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	Yes, (a) March 23, 1972; (b) Mr. Sulatycky's past experience and knowledge appear to the government to be relevant to his appointment as Crown representative on the Panarctic board.
5.	As a Crown nominee, Mr. Sulatycky is a representative of the Government.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	(a) Mr. Sulatycky has been retained as a Counsel by the Banff Advisory Council, (b) No.
8.	No.
9.	Yes. (a) February 3, 1972-October 30, 1972; (b) regular responsibilities as assigned to all Parliamentary Secretaries.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Region Transportation finalized recommendations for selective increases in westbound freight rate subsidies to aid Atlantic Region shippers in reaching central Canadian markets?
2.	What is the general basis of eligibility under selectivity criteria developed?
3.	Have shippers submitted to their respective provincial governments the names of the commodities which they wish to have considered and, if so, what are they?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Federal-Provincial Committee on Altantic Region Transportation is in the process of receiving suggestions from companies in the region for commodities to which an additional westbound subsidy might apply. Response to an advertisement seeking this input run by provincial governments in the regional press at the end of July is not yet complete.
2.	The general guidelines for eligibility were outlined in the advertisement as follows: (a) Eligibility will be determined on a selective basis for manufactured commodities using as a selection basis the degree of economic activity in the region associated with their manufacturer, (b) Most agricultural and fisheries products will be eligible, (c) Movements of import and export commodities will not be eligible, (d) The additional subsidies shall be paid initially directly to carriers by the Federal Government on the basis of waybills submitted. It is the intention to pay the additional subsidies only to those carriers whose filed rates reflect reductions corresponding to the increased amount of subsidy, (e) Individual shipments having a total freight cost of less than $100 will not be eligible, (f) Industries producing commodities not considered to be eligible, and industries producing new commodities not moving westbound from the select territory at the time of the initial commodity review will be able to apply for a reassessment of their eligibility.
3.	Response to question 1 covers this item.


Mr. Godin: 1.	What organization regulates the level of rents on Indian reservations?
2.	On Indian reservations, are tenants exempted from paying school and municipal taxes on single-family or apartment dwellings?
3.	What is the average rental cost, per square foot, on Indian reservations in (a) Manitoba (b) Ontario (c) Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Individual home owners set the rental rate of individually owned houses on reserves. Similarly, Band Councils set the rental rate of Band owned units on reserves. There are instances where government-owned housing units are located on Indian Reserve land and the rental for these are established by Federal Government regulations. There are no other agencies which regulate the levels of rent for houses on Indian Reserves.
2.	Indians living on reservations do not pay school and municipal taxes. However, the interests of a non-Indian in leased reserve lands, including buildings thereon, pursuant to provincial legislation is liable for local realty assessment and taxation in all provinces except Alberta and Saskatchewan. In these latter two provinces although the provinces may retain this right, it is not utilized. There are instances where Indian Bands sometimes charge "user fees" to Indian occupants of single family dwellings for the purpose of off-setting costs of repair, maintenance and perhaps reconstruction of utility service lines. However, such user fees are not considered taxes.
3.	As the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs does not control rents charged for housing on Indian Reserves, it does not have any information regarding the average rental costs per square foot on Indian Reserves in (a) Manitoba, (b) Ontario or (c) Quebec.


Mr. Olaussen: In each year 1962 to 1972 (a) what was the average cost to taxpayers for each prisoner (b) what were the total prison costs and prisoner maintenance (c) what was the number of (i) people executed for capital murder (ii) capital murders?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General (a) and (b):
Fiscal Year	Average per Inmate	Total Penitentiary Costs*	Inmate Maintenance$	$	$1962-63	3,380	23,964,504	19,523,6111963-64	3,543	26,370,974	20,419,2911964-65	4,837	37,434,193	23,792,2781965-66	7,063	54,775,096	26,601,4301966-67	7,915	57,304,867	37,114,8401967-68	8,882	63,229,000	40,151,0001968-69	8,646	61,172,328	47,402,4871969-70	9,289	67,063,199	51,121,6231970-71	9,720	70,496,390	56,477,0721971-72	9,325	79,815,206	65,677,968
^Includes inmate maintenance.

September 19, 1973

(c) (i) 1962, two, 1963 through 1972, nil. (ii) 1962, 11; 1963, 9; 1964, 5; 1965, 14; 1966, 10; 1967, 9; 1968, 1; 1969 0 1970, 3; 1971, 0; 1972, 2 (still under appeal).
Note: Calendar year shown is that in which conviction occurred.


Mr. McCain: 1.	What major developments are planned for improvements and repairs to the St. Lawrence Seaway system over the next ten years?
2.	(a) What is the Canadian share of the estimated cost of these future additions and developments (b) at what times is construction estimated to begin?


Jean Marchand: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. (i) The installation of a ship alignment and mooring system at Lock 7 of the Welland Canal. This is an installation of mechanical devices, designed to guide vessels into and out of a lock chamber and to provide an independent means of holding a vessel in a predetermined position during the lockage operation, (ii) A study programme which will indicate the technical feasibility, environmental acceptability and economic justification for extending the navigation season, (iii) The following three developments and improvements related to computerized traffic control in the Seaway: An integrated marine traffic information and control system, which is a computerized system to enhance marine safety, increase the efficiency of moving cargo through the Seaway and so extend the capacity and life of the present facilities. An automated vessel location and identification system. This is a sub-system of the traffic control system described above to automatically identify and track vessels to further enhance safety and scheduling by continuously monitoring vessel positions using the input of transponder signals from the ships into the computers. A Seaway information service. This system is a revenue-producing by-product of the above traffic control system whereby information concerning vessel movements will be available to industry upon subscription.
2. (a) (i) 100 per cent Canadian, (ii) The Canadian study program will be paid for entirely by Canada. In the same manner, U.S. study programs are paid entirely by the U.S. (iii) Integrated Marine Traffic Information and Control System, 86 per cent. Automatic Vessel Location and Identification System-cost sharing agreements not yet completed. Seaway Information System, 100 per cent. (b)(i) 1974. (ii) Study program to begin in 1974. (iii) Integrated Marine Traffic Information and Control System, 1973. Automatic Vessel Location and Identification System, 1974. Seaway Information System, 1973.
Order Paper Questions ROUYN AIRPORT


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Has the Department of Transport completed any studies of the airport at Rouyn in view of (a) making repairs (b) lengthening the landing strip in order to facilitate the landing of DC-9 jetliners and, if so (i) on what date is the work scheduled to start (ii) what amount of money will be attributed to these alterations?


Jean Marchand: On June 6 a contract for an economic study was arranged with Mr. Jean-Pierre Brassard, Bureau of Management Consulting, Place Canada, Montreal. This Economic study includes not only the Rouyn Airport but also Val-d'Or Airport and the D.N.D. requirements for that location. This Economic study is forecast to be completed by September 20, 1973. The Ministry will not be making any decision on major improvements to the Rouyn Airport until this study is complete.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,229 (2), what specific usefulness in Canada's Arctic Archipelago will the proposed R-Class icebreakers, with a capability for continuous progress through only 3 foot ice have, in light of the fact that new ice normally attains a thickness of five to six feet in the first year, and grows to eight or nine feet in its second year of accumulation, in terms of length of operation, in areas of operation as defined by the Arctic Shipping Safety Control Zones (a) during the short summer shipping season (b) outside the short summer shipping season?
2.	Does the government intend to employ any of the proposed R-Class icebreakers in Canada's Arctic Archipelago and, if so, at what approximate dates will such deployment be made?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Based on a short summer shipping season of July 23-Octo-ber 25 for Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay and Lower Arctic and of August 1-October 15 for Lancaster Sound and the eastern High Arctic, the R-Class Icebreakers will be able to operate in these areas without restriction throughout the short summer shipping season in the Arctic, (b) The R-Class Icebreakers will be capable of effective operations, outside the short summer shipping season, in areas and for periods of operation as follows:
Zone	Extended Operations Season
3	July 25-August 1
4	July 20-July 23 and October 25-November 5
6	October 15-November 20
7	July	20-July	23	and	October	25-December 158	July	20-July	23	and	October	25-December 319	July	20-July	23	and	October	25-January 2010	July	15-July	23	and	October	25-January 25
September 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions Zone Extended Operations Season
11	July 5-July 23 and October 25-December 15
12	June 10-July 23 and October 25-December 31
13	June	10-August	1 and October 15-December 3114	June	20-July	23	and	October	25-January	1615	June	20-July	23	and	October	25-January	3116	June	5-July	23	and	October	25-January	10
2. Yes. The Ministry of Transport intends to employ the R-Class Icebreakers in the Arctic from approximately July 1 to October 31 each year during which period of time commercial shipping, with its limited icebreaking capability, is operating in the Arctic Archipelago.


Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,229 (2), does the government intend in any way to employ the proposed R-Class icebreakers as a substitute for a large, truly polar-class icebreaker with capability for virtual twelve-month operations in assist to extractive and other operations in Canada's Arctic Archipelago?


Jean Marchand: No, but
depending on conditions, they may well be used to supplement the operations of any larger class icebreaker.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What maximum speed, and what minimum speed will the proposed R-Class icebreakers be able to maintain in the continuous progress made in, for example, search and rescue operations, for each of the Zones as outlined in the Arctic Shipping Safety Control Zones, for each of the months from July to February?
2.	What alternative icebreaker facilities will be available from the Canadian Coast Guard to assist in search and rescue operations, and particularly rescue functions, for the months in which the proposed R-Class icebreakers are of absolutely no use in specific Zones as outlined in Part 1?


Jean Marchand: 1. Depending upon the existing ice conditions found in the Zones between July and February which vary greatly from open water to multi-year ice of up to 9 foot thickness, the continuous progress mode speed of the R-Class Icebreaker will likewise vary from a maximum of 16 knots to a minimum of zero knots.
2. Bearing in mind that commercial traffic is not presently in the north prior to July 1 or after October 31 each year, and that no marine search and rescue incidents are normally to be expected outside this period, the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent and the CCGS John A. Macdonald would be made available to assist in any search and rescue operations that may occur beyond the seasonal operating period of the R-Class Icebreakers in the north.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Has Saunders Aircraft Corporation of Gimli, Manitoba applied for a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	Has such a grant, subject to the usual conditions, been approved and, if so, for what amount?
3.	Has the amount agreed upon been paid to Saunders Aircraft Corporation and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, $996,000-based upon estimated capital costs of $1,550,000 and an estimated 405 jobs to be created.
3.	Although the full amount has not been paid, the company has received an initial payment of $257,424 on the basis of the eligible capital costs incurred and an estimated 146 jobs created in respect of Phase I of the project.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did representatives of the community at Coral Harbour in the Northwest Territories meet with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in June, 1973, to discuss proposed seismic tests to be carried out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	Did spokesmen for the community make clear to the officials present that they opposed any tests which might harm the land and waters before a settlement of their land claims was reached?
3.	Was the request transmitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Energy, Mines and Resources?
4.	(a) Were the proposed experiments carried out in the vicinity of Coral Harbour and, if so, for what reason (b) were further discussions held with the representatives of the local people to explain the reasons why their requests had been ignored?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) No; (b) not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	On what date does the Minister of Finance plan to reinstate the recent 2V2 per cent reduction in import duties on mobile homes?
2.	Does this policy adversely affect Canadian manufacturers to the benefit of United States manufacturers?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. The
legislation which implemented the tariff reduction on mobile homes provides that the reduced tariff rate will remain in effect for one year from February 19, 1973. The legislation also provides authority for the restoration of the pre-Budget rates by Order in Council in instances where, in the view of the Government, the tariff reduc-
September 19, 1973

tions have caused or are causing genuine hardship for Canadian producers and their employees.
2. Members of the industry have alleged that they are facing hardships as a result of the tariff reduction. As indicated on pages 5724 and 5725 of Hansard of July 17, 1973, officials of the Department of Finance wrote to the Canadian Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Association in May asking that a date be set for a meeting to discuss the industry's representations. The Association was also asked to provide further information in support of the representations. To date there has only been an acknowledgment from the Association.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Matte: 1.	What amounts were granted in aid to bilingualism in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 in (a) the Province of Quebec (b) the other provinces?
2.	How many of the bills introduced during the 4th Session of the 28th Parliament were originally drafted in French?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not quite two weeks ago today Your Honour ruled me out of order when I attempted to ask an oral question relating to a matter about which we are actually in special session, namely, the estimated cost of the Food Prices Review Board. Your Honour indicated that it should be placed on the order paper. I immediately placed the question on the order paper. The answer must be within the immediate knowledge of the government, and if there is to be an honest attempt on both sides of the House to sharpen up the question period I certainly think some of these urgent questions should be answered more quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to questions 2271 to 2280 inclusive requesting the names of lawyers whose services are being used by the government in the various provinces to carry out legal work. This is the sixth time I have raised a similar point of order. On the last occasion, one week ago today, the parliamentary secretary told the House he had not yet obtained definite information from the Department of Justice as to when answers would be forthcoming. I would think that by now some definite information should be available. I might add that I have been seeking this information since last April. Possibly, the Minister of Justice can enlighten the House as to when this information will be supplied. May I say that because the disclosure of certain information would be embarrassing to the government is a darn poor excuse for withholding it from the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order with respect to a question I put down two months ago, No. 2414, an impor-
Order for Return
tant question dealing with the Opportunities for Youth program. I think members of the House are entitled to the information which is being sought.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order to say that certain questions which I placed on the order paper last February and March have remained unanswered. I can well appreciate that the information, which I am sure is known to the government, might be embarrasing to the Prime Minister and to members of the cabinet if it were disclosed, but it would certainly be useful to the public. I would welcome an answer to these questions at a very early date.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order respecting questions placed on the order paper. I bring this matter to your attention because of the strange things that are happening between the government and the Cape Breton Development Corporation, including the fact that the senior partner of the law firm representing the miners suddenly found himself on the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. My point of order refers specifically to question No. 2581. In order to make it clear that something has gone wrong, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the terms of that question, which are as follows:
1.	How many business enterprises has the Cape Breton Development Corporation invested in since it began operations?
2.	(a) How many such businesses are still in operation (b) what is the nature of these operations (c) who are the responsible persons managing them?
3.	(a) How many are no longer operating (b) what was the nature of such oeprations (c) for what reason did they cease operations?
4.	Did the Corporation recover its investments?
5.	In each instance (a) what was the investment (b) how much of the investment was in the form of (i) grants (ii) loans and, of the amount in loans, how much has been recovered to date?
Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that the answer provided to this question by the Department of Regional Econnomic Expansion was as follows: "101 business enterprises." That is not an answer in any way, shape or form to question 2581 which has since disappeared from the order paper. I would hate to think that Mr. Tom Kent has enough influence to reach into Ottawa and pluck from the order paper a question with regard to which he is responsible for providing parliament with information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: How did
this question disappear from the order paper? Why is it that the partial answer provided does not in any way conform with an answer given by Tom Kent before the Standing Committee on Regional Development? For six years I have been prodding and trying to get from the government a reasonable settlement, but when questions disappear from the order paper then somebody on the government side has quite a bit of explaining to do, including the placing on the board of directors of the corporation of the senior partner of the law firm employed to fight the case on behalf of the miners. It smells.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 19, 1973
Order for Return


Donald MacInnis: What we need here is not only the FBI and the CIA-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to assure hon. members that I will look into the matters they have raised. I also wish to inform the House that a total of 87 per cent of all questions which have appeared on the order paper have been answered as of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The quality of the answers counts, too. We are objecting to the quality.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Scarborough East will be patient the Chair will recognize him in due course. Hon. members will note that we have been sitting for 30 minutes and have had a number of points of order and questions of privilege. I would hope we would try to straighten out these difficulties and get on with the business of the House. The Chair, of course, will hear the hon. member and others, I gather, who have points of order or questions of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the attempt at an answer made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who seems to have a greater vocabulary than the word "no". What has 87 per cent of the questions being answered to do with the removal of my question from the order paper? The hon. member seems to take it on himself to apologize for the government. If it comes to a choice, he is the last I would pick from that side of the House to give an answer to anything.


Mr. Nielsen:: I should like to speak, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to the serious and important question raised by my hon. friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond. The House of Commons is an institution within which the government is supposed to account to the people of Canada. One of the reasons we place written questions on the order paper is to obtain such an accounting from the government. My hon. friend put down a series of questions numbering a dozen or so directed to the operations of a corporation coming under the jurisdiction of the government, and the government has made no attempt at all to answer those questions.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River rose to say that the government had answered 87 per cent of the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If the kind of answer my hon. friend received is any indication of the quality of that 87 per cent, then the answers given fall far short of recognizing the principle of accountability to which I have referred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Surely the government can make a more serious effort not only to answer the questions which are put to them in a specific way, as did my hon. friend, but to answer them within a reasonable time and not carry them over for months and months. If this were done, members could get answers to their questions and the government could perhaps convey some semblance of an image in terms of accountability to the House.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the parliamentary secretary informing the House that answers have been given to 87 per cent of the questions asked, but I say to him we should be equally concerned about the 13 per cent that have not been answered, many of which, I suspect, involve information which the government is covering up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would hope that when written questions are called we would not become involved in a debate about statistics as to the number of questions answered and remaining unanswered. I feel that legitimate points of order can be raised by some members who believe their questions have remained unanswered for too long, but I think that to go further is to invite fruitless debate at this point. If there is a claim that a large proportion of the questions have been answered and if, in response, there is an equally legitimate claim that a number of questions remain unanswered, I suggest that this is a subject for debate.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to bring out statistics on answers or nonanswers to our questions. One thing is certain, they are slow to answer the questions listed on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, I can very well understand the complaints of the Progressive Conservatives, but I will say that when they were in power, answers were no quicker than they are today.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 227.



FORMULAS OF HAIR SPRAYS SOLD IN CANADA AVAILABLE TO HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 227-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the formulas of hair sprays being sold in Canada and available to the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable to the government in that the material requested was submitted in confidence, and consent to
September 19, 1973

table this information has not been obtained from the other parties concerned.


Mr. Marshall:: Then I ask that it be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Laprise:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege refers to motions for production of papers. On April 18, 1973, the government agreed to produce the papers related to the notice of motion for production of papers No. 203. But, these papers have not yet been produced. I therefore ask the government when it intends to fulfil the agreement of April 18, 1973?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi has raised a point which affects him and all other hon. members who have had motions accepted by the government. The problem we are having in preparing these papers is that they must be translated into the two official languages. We have got into bottlenecks in some departments in getting this material out, but I can assure the hon. member that this matter has been a considerable concern of mine as well as of the departments. We hope to have the translations completed as soon as possible once the new system is in line.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who I know is very fleet of foot. It concerns a report that West Coast Transmission will be cutting back on the supply of gas to British Columbia customers by 10 per cent on peak demand this winter as a result of some difficulty with one of the suppliers to West Coast Transmission. Has the minister been in touch with the National Energy Board and is he satisfied that this cutback is necessary or whether the cutback could not be made in the gas exported by West Coast Transmission in order to give British Columbia customers priority?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the president of that company yesterday afternoon and he informed me of the facts referred to in the news report this morning. I have indeed been in touch with the board along the lines suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and I shall be seeking the board's advice on handling this problem. It is related to a structural fault in one of the supplying fields.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Despite the very substantial reserves of natural gas in western Canada, is the supply system as authorized and approved by the National Energy Board so precarious that some difficulty developing with one supplier of gas creates this threatened shortage for British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to canvass that question with the board. I would remind the hon. gentleman that this difficulty relates to the West Coast system as opposed to the Trans-Canada system which is hooked into very much larger reserves, but I think it is a valid question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the minister has referred the matter to the National Energy Board, has he any explanation why the board now consists of five members when the statute provides that the government shall appoint seven, and why the board has been without a chairman for more than two months in a situation of great difficulty and importance in the energy field?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make some announcement in this regard in the relatively near future.


ASSURANCE TO BRITISH COLUMBIA OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS THIS WINTER
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the request of the British Columbia government for some assurance from the minister that they will have an adequate supply of natural gas this winter and that British Columbia customers will be given priority over exports, has the minister been able to give that assurance to the British Columbia government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, upon my return this morning I immediately put the question to the National Energy Board. I received, of course, a telegram to the same effect from the Attorney General of British Columbia. I hope to be able to respond both to the House and to that gentleman at an early date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the National Energy Board gave export licences to West Coast Transmission, would the minister undertake to find out why, before giving such export licences, the National Energy Board did not assure itself that West Coast Transmission had adequate reserves to meet a contingency such as that which has arisen?

September 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to find that out.


OIL-METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS   MANPOWER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONSTITUENCY ADVISORY GROUPS ON SELECTION OF PROJECTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the situation which now applies to natural gas may in the not too distant future apply to oil, may I ask the minister whether the government is contemplating making any offers to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for some public participation in the development of the tar sands in those two provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may know that the government of Alberta made a new and interesting proposal last night with regard to state participation in the oil industry. I expect to be meeting with representatives of that province in the near future to discuss the possible further development of the oil sands, and development in Saskatchewan as well.


EXEMPTION OF TAR SANDS OIL FROM SURTAX
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he cell the House if the decisions of the constituency advisory committees which will be established under the LIP program will have a determining influence in the choice of projects to be approved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in letters to all hon. members, they certainly will have an influence on the decision but I retain the responsibility and authority for the final approval or disapproval of projects.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Could the minister tell us if he will necessarily accept the suggestions made voluntarily by members of the House or by members of these advisory committees?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of his answer, has the government now established a policy, in view of the proposed sharing of the development of the Athabasca tar sands by business and the people, that will ensure that crude petroleum produced from this particular development will be exempted from the surtax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the questions that has been discussed but no conclusion has been reached yet. There is some question whether specific exemption would be necessary in light of anticipated price levels.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I follow that up. The minister said that there is some question. Would he enlighten the House and people interested throughout the country as to what is the question that concerns him in this regard and why he cannot categorically say now whether the crude petroleum produced by that development will be exempt from the surtax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to have very full consultations with the government of Alberta before making that statement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that the minister has already answered this question.


OIL EXPORT TAX-POSSIBILITY OF SUBSTITUTION OF DIFFERENTIAL APPROACH ADMINISTERED BY INDUSTRY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about his conversation with the representatives of the oil industry in Calgary yesterday. In view of the fact there is no quarrel over the 40 cents price differential, did the minister propose to the oil industry that he would consider the traditional differential approach administered by the industry as opposed to this awkward export tax he has proposed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir, I did not make that proposal.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it true that the minister allows the National Energy Board 24 hours to make national energy decisions and that the minister dictates their policies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appear to be a number of supplementaries on this question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Champlain and then return to supplementaries by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and others.


FUEL OIL AND GASOLINE RETAIL PRICES-GOVERNMENT REQUEST FOR FREEZE-ACTION TO ENFORCE
Mr. Cyril  Syrnes@Sault Ste. Marie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and
September 19, 1973

Resources. With regard to the minister's September 13 request to oil and gas retailers not to increase prices, has the minister set up some monitoring agency to check prices of automobile and heating fuels and have any retailers increased prices since September 4?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that I did not see, under the present arrangements or those contemplated, any way in which the government could monitor prices at the retail level. Except through the efforts of the major producers through wholly owned chains, at the retail gas level this largely concerns independently owned organizations and there are no general monitoring arrangements to cover individual decisions.


Mr. Symes:: In view of the fact that gasoline prices have been raised since September 4 by two companies in the Sudbury region and other gasoline retailers are threatening to follow suit because the majors are not giving them a fair share of recent price increases, what action does the minister propose to ensure that retailers and distributors comply with the minister's request?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We would propose no legislative action. If the hon. member has a specific case which he thinks may be in violation of the law, I would be delighted to hear from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will attempt to make some headway. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


OIL SURTAX-INTRODUCTION OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to follow proper parliamentary practice and introduce a ways and means motion with regard to the proposed surtax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be the correct practice.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the government's anti-inflation program generally. In view of the Prime Minister's own statement in the House two weeks ago yesterday during the special session that part of the government's anti-inflation policy was the new stringent restrictions under the Combines Investigation Act, and in view of the fact his minister said they had passed through cabinet and had been drafted, I think we are
Oral Questions
entitled to ask the Prime Minister when we will have the details of this part of the government's program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as we introduce it for first reading, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the purpose, of course, in my asking that question was to then ask when will first reading take place? I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement elsewhere yesterday that government action is required at both the Canadian and United States federal levels to ban speculation in futures of food commodities, could the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering taking any action along that line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer that question now, Mr. Speaker.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that milk is over $1 a quart, potatoes are 40 cents a pound and eggs are at $1.12 a dozen in certain areas of northern Saskatchewan and since similar situations exist in other areas of Canada's north to a lesser or greater degree, for example, eggs at $1.90-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question. He is not supposed to use a preamble to convey information to hon. members. Would he kindly come to the question.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Is the government considering transportation subsidies for food products moving into northern areas so that northerners can have the benefit of food prices paid by Canadian people living in the more populous areas of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take that by way of representation. I hope the representation will be made to the government of Saskatchewan which is more directly concerned with this matter.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: In view of the fact that the recently announced subsidies are of infinitesimally less benefit to Canada's northerners, and there is much of the north not in Saskatchewan, what measures does the government intend to take to alleviate this situation so that northerners can enjoy the benefits of reasonable food prices which they certainly have not had in the last 20 years or so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely the question of prices within a province comes under provincial jurisdiction.

September 19, 1973
Oral Questions


BREAD AND MILK SUBSIDIES-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the action announced by the Prime Minister two weeks ago yesterday with regard to subsidies on bread and milk and the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the cost of milk to residents of the province of Quebec, reducing milk to 34 cents a quart in that province by reason of his announcement, the minister will recall that I drew his attention to the fact that there were no marketing boards in either the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories and that he replied that his department had that matter under consideration. Can he now inform the House, in respect of northerners above the 60th parallel, whether he who has direct responsibility in these areas will pass along the same kind of benefits to these residents as have been provided for the residents of the province of Quebec by measures such as those announced by the Minister of Agriculture?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already contacted my colleague the Minister of Agriculture in this regard. Of course, this is a very complex matter, as there is no marketing board in the Yukon nor in the Northwest Territories, but the consumers in these regions will derive the same benefits as those who live in the southern provinces, where farm products come from.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the circumstances at North Sydney where the shipment of goods and produce to supply Newfoundland will be delayed until after Christmas and also involving orders now being placed for the spring of 1974, now that the minister has had time to study the situation at North Sydney can he indicate what plans he has in mind and what contingency plan he has devised in order to alleviate that situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this situation is being studied by the department. Are you talking about the backlog there is now at Sydney?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes.


Jean Marchand: May I say that since yesterday I have received a full report from Canadian National. I think it is unjust for the CNR to leave the public under the impression that nothing was done when I know now for sure that, since July, 11 vessels have been chartered by CN to cut down the backlog. There is no backlog of

perishable goods and by two weeks we think everything will be in normal shape.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is in order in the House to accuse the CN of lying. I cannot accuse the minister of lying, but somebody obviously is telling a bloody lie. In view of the fact that for over a month prior to the CN strike there was no produce moving into the province of Newfoundland from Montreal by way of the private enterprise system, in view of the fact that since the first day of the rotating strikes the province, to all intents and purposes, was in the grip of a total strike because of the strikes centred in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region, and in view of the admission of Canadian National Railways yesterday that over 600 cars are at present sitting in North Sydney, as well as the indications from the general public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question. It seems to me that his preamble is a little extensive.


John Howard Lundrigan: And in view of indications from the general public that there are firms on the northeastern coast of the province that have not received-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Howard Lundrigan: Listen to what I am saying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am inviting the hon. member to ask his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would have asked my question by now if there had not been so many interruptions. I would have been finished long ago-and in view of the fact there are firms that have not received goods that were ordered two months ago, goods that have been in place in North Sydney for two months, can the minister give an assurance that extra vessels will be placed in position immediately in order to clear up the backlog and, further, that he will study the constitutional responsibilities under Term 32 of the Terms of Union?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's lengthy question.


Jean Marchand: I know that you will not allow me to prove it, Mr. Speaker, but when the hon. member says that it is a bunch of lies I want to tell him that I have all the names of the vessels here and I can give them to the House. If the hon. member knows a charter that can be rented in order to speed up the movement of goods, we will be pleased to rent the vessel any time. A real effort has been made.


An hon. Member:: What about Jack Davis?


Jean Marchand: Some of the goods that are delayed are not perishable. There have been delays at Sydney before and that is why we have ordered a new
September 19, 1973

vessel. It will be in service in a few days' time, and we might have another one some time later in the fall.


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


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe rises on a point of order. I will recognize him first and then, in fairness, the hon. member for Rimouski and return to the hon. members who have supplementary questions they are anxious to ask.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, just so that a wrong impression is not left by what the minister said, may I point out that an official communique has been issued by Frank Petten, public relations officer of CNR. He said in St. John's yesterday or the day before that while things are moving smoothly, there will be a backlog until after the Christmas-New Year period.


Jean Marchand: I rise on the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have inquired from CNR and was told that nobody can say that is so at this moment. There is no such indication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order but his point of order is being interrupted by a question of privilege which the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate wishes to raise at present. I would hope that this matter can be resolved quickly because I am anxious to give other hon. members an opportunity to ask their questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, the impression was left by the hon. gentleman who represents the Department of Transport in the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: He is a minister.


John Howard Lundrigan: -that wrong information was given to the House of Commons. As my colleague from the west coast of the province indicated, yesterday a press release was put out officially by the CNR indicating exactly what the hon. member stated today. I am under the impression that either the Minister of Transport is totally unaware of what is going on in his department or is being fed a bunch of stuff by the CNR that is not in accordance with the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please. That, of course, is not a point of order. The hon. member is debating an issue with the minister during the question period. There should be other opportunities to raise points of order or questions of privilege or to make statements which are entirely irregular at this time, are certainly against the traditions of the House of Commons and are unfair to other hon. members who want to ask questions and participate in the question period. The Minister of Transport rises on a question of privilege.
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. There is only one way in which I can be made aware of what the CN is doing there at present and that is to get in touch with their officials and get a report. This is what I have done and I have communicated that to the House. I have been told by the CN on the same occasion that the effort they are making will mean an additional deficit this year of $8 million over last year, that is $52 million-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate sought and got the floor on a question of privilege. The minister was allowed to reply, which he did briefly. I request the co-operation of hon. members and we will get back to supplementary questions in due course. Certainly we are not achieving much in a practical way by these alleged questions of privilege and points of order which, in my opinion, are entirely disorderly.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not think members of this House of Commons should be as concerned with parliamentary niceties as with what goes on in the country. I am not an expert in the rules, as are several hon. members over there, but I do know that we have some freedom of speech. If we do not have the right to stand up in the House and bring these matters before the people of Canada through the medium of the House of Commons, then it is a waste of time for us to be here. That is my right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: It is very difficult during the question period, unless one has a degree in navigation of some sort, to raise a question and put all the points across in the proper manner. We put the question to the minister today and the minister referred to the CNR. We are not talking about the CNR; we are talking about the constitutional responsibility of the government of Canada to the province of Newfoundland under the Terms of Union which were implemented in 1949. We are not asking the minister to obtain reports from the CNR. We are asking him to assume full responsibility as the spokesman on transportation for the government and to make sure that our goods are moved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will certainly not rule on this alleged question of privilege. The hon. member claims his right to free speech. I have the impression that if there is one member who has not been denied this right, it is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is a parliamentary institution which operates according to rules that are applicable to all hon. members. I will say nothing further and will recognize now the hon. member for Rimouski. He is a humble

September 19, 1973
Oral Questions
member sitting at the other end of the chamber who perhaps has rights, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will put my question to the Prime Minister.
The government of Canada launched yesterday a $425 million bond issue hearing interest at 7 3A per cent for five years, and that may be exchanged against bonds at 8 per cent for seven years. This was announced in all papers dated September 18.
Here is my question: Does the government consider looking for less expensive methods of raising funds, despite the substantial national production of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the government of Canada would much rather borrow at lower rates if in fact citizens wanted to lend to the government of Canada at lower rates. The hon. member knows that the bank borrows from Canadians on their savings at rates determined by the market, and it is because Canadians themselves do not want to lend at cheaper rates to the government that we have those rates.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that over 200 seamen employed by a Canadian shipping company, namely, the CPR, are being forced by American law to pay over 10 per cent of their net income into the American railroad retirement fund and the U.S. social security fund, and in view of the fact that these seamen have practically no chance of drawing either a pension or social security benefits, will the minister take this matter up with the appropriate Canadian government department with a view to meeting with its American counterpart in an attempt to negotiate an agreement that would allow these Canadian seamen exoneration from this onerous foreign tax?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: In view of the fact that this agreement has been in effect for nearly 40 years, and

in view of the fact that the railroad retirement plan now controls millions upon millions of dollars belonging to Canadian workers, would the minister also attempt to negotiate for the return of these moneys to their rightful owners?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I will inquire into all this. I think the hon. gentleman knows what is implied in it. You have labour agreements which apply at the same time in Canada and the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: O.K. Let us say that I will get the details and reply later.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the political morality of a government is tested by its appointments to the bench, can the Prime Minister tell the House what legal background and experience justify the appointment of Mr. Patrick Mahoney to the Federal Court of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without really getting into a specific case I could say that the practice which I followed as minister of justice has been followed ever since by succeeding ministers of justice, and that practice is to consult with the Canadian Bar as to the suitability of candidates.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the Prime Minister got to the last part of his answer. Before the appointment was made, were there any consultations with any law society or the Canadian Bar Association about Mr. Mahoney's elevation to the bench, and was the government advised that there would be no endorsement of that elevation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have just outlined the type of consultation that takes place and which I am sure took place in the case of the hon. gentleman who has been named.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's clearly defined responsibility to the province of Newfoundland to maintain a ferry service between that province and the mainland, and in view of the fact that the government's own ferry operating agency was allowed to disrupt that service, albeit by a strike, may I ask what the Prime Minister is going to do in line with that constitutional responsibility to ensure that the back-
September 19, 1973

log of freight is moved in time to prevent shortages, and what steps will he take to make sure that there is no further disruption in that service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer given a moment ago by the Minister of Transport indicates that the government viewed this interruption of service with great concern and impressed upon the company the necessity to bring in supplementary vessels, as it did, to the extent the minister indicated, that the company took all it could.
On the constitutional question, I am sure the hon. member realizes that the freedom of people to work or not to work applies even to Newfoundlanders, and that when the CNR itself reached an agreement with the heads of the union that this work would not be interrupted it was something the government pressed for and obtained. If some people in the Maritimes refused to obey the understanding of their leaders, then surely the fight of the hon. member should be with his fellow Newfoundlanders and Maritimers who refused to deliver this service which the government had arranged.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the government's constitutional responsibility in this matter clearly supersedes any other consideration


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -and in view of the fact that this service is a vital lifeline between the province of Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada, the disruption of which causes food shortages and all other kinds of inconveniences, is it the intention of the government to take this important service out of the hands of the CN and operate it directly by the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that the minister himself indicated that this was one of the courses he was considering, but the hon. member will have to realize also that if this is done we will have to have men to work those ferries, and if the people of that area refuse to work them, perhaps against the desires and even the benefits of their fellow islanders and Maritimers-


An hon. Member:: Blame the workers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I am not blaming the workers.


Jean Marchand: Who stopped the ferries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like the hon. member who interrupted me to realize that the government made every arrangement for the ferries to continue and that it did not stop the service. It was the workers at that place who stopped the service.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. The hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate rises on a question of privilege.
Oral Questions


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not enjoy taking extra time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. There are just five minutes before the end of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, no one enjoys taking extra time of the House but the Prime Minister today, I am sure very inadvertently, misled the House with respect to the workers of the CNR on the east coast. He had a little bit of information fed to him by his office which is partly wrong and partly true. What he said applies to the operation of ferries carrying passengers. At no time did CNR workers or the government make arrangements that produce and freight would be carried during the strike. The Prime Minister today gave the impression that the government had an agreement with CNR workers to carry produce and other freight to the island. He also gave the impression that it was the workers who reneged on this. It was the CNR that inspired the workers to discontinue the ferry passenger service.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Prime Minister has had some difficult questions to answer. I have a very easy one for him now if he could only answer it.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker-


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


Alfred Pullen Gleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A great part of this question period has been taken up by a series of points of order and questions of privilege. My point of privilege is that we at this end of the House have not been able to ask the government questions which are important to us, simply because of the behavior of the members to my right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.



BROADCASTING


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this time I will be able to finish my question to the Prime Minister and get an answer. Can the Prime Minister advise the House if the government is prepared to reconsider CTV's offer to participate in the telecasting of the 1976 Olympic Games by utilizing their

September 19, 1973
Oral Questions
equipment, facilities and personnel as well as assuring the acceptance of their offer to purchase the television rights, thus reducing the over-all cost by millions of dollars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday or the day before.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was afraid the Prime Minister would say that. He did not answered my previous question of last Monday. In fact, he advised me that he was sure I had received answers while the Olympic bill was before the House. For the record, I did not receive any answers. I should like to ask the Prime Minister once again if he can confirm that a contract has been signed by the CBC dealing with the coverage of the Olympic Games, and by what means is the CBC going to receive the $25 million which the government has pledged toward the $50 million budget?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question which he has asked previously. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the reply-


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley was entirely different from previous questions and requires an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Leave the Prime Minister alone. He has no answers.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order and his point may be legitimate. There is no point in getting emotionally involved. There is no reason why the point of order should not be recognized if the question is a different question. If the Prime Minister or a minister of the government wishes to reply, of course, they will be recognized for that purpose, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Erik Nielsen: Let's have the answer.


An hon. Member:: Answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's reply to the hon. member for Greenwood on the question of recognition of the guerrilla junta in Chile-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -that precipitous recognition would not be given, can the minister assure this House that precipitous recognition of this regime will be the same as was accorded the Peoples' Republic of China?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I could not make that promise. It was my view that we should have recognized Peking as the legitimate government of China, as the hon. member's party had advocated, some time before we did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the matter of the supplementary question posed by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has been resolved. Assuming no answer is forthcoming, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for South Western Nova.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, not having the degree of navigation alluded to by my hon. friend, it is sometimes difficult to get the message across. There have been a number of questions referring to ferries but no reference to one serving Nova Scotia. While swimming may be a reasonable alternative in some other areas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not swimming very well at this point. I think he has been affected by a well-known disease.


Charles E. Haliburton: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I have been infected by the people around me. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he yet received any official representation from the government of the province of Nova Scotia regarding the Bay of Fundy service and, if so, what was the tenor of his reply and what action does he propose to take to ensure continuation of a viable ferry service?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is the ferry between Digby and Saint John and we are looking into this. I know that the CPR cut the service in half. We are considering now how we can restore the service and if it should be operated by the CPR, by the department or by a new agency.


Charles E. Haliburton: Have any discussions been scheduled with the management of CPR in relation to this problem?
September 19, 1973


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those discussions have already taken place.



NOISE PROBLEM CREATED BY RAILWAY HUMPYARD IN EDMONTON-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALLEVIATE

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary as it has to do with the railroads. In view of the fact that the railroads are now running and that the triple shifting and shunting of boxcars has brought back the problem of squealing and squeaking in the Calder humpyard, which is now harming the health of the worthy citizens of Edmonton Centre, what does the minister intend to do about this harmful noise problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly and then we will try to get on.


Jean Marchand: We are going to buy some oil, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I was hoping the hon. member would not raise a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I have not received an answer to the two letters I have written to the minister and as I have also pursued this matter in the House on two occasions, would the minister please tell me what I have to do to get a concrete answer from him?


An hon. Member:: Buy some grease.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making more noise than any train I know of. I honestly thought that the way he put his question was to get a good laugh from the House, and he got it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I will recognize him and then call orders of the day. Obviously, we will not get much further this afternoon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I hate to feel that this minister believes that every time I get up to ask a question on something it is an occasion for him to amuse himself. I am very sincere because this is a very serious problem in my constituency. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what the minister intends to do before somebody ends up in the nuthouse in that area. I want to tell him that if somebody does, it may well be he who will end up in the nut house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rises on a point of order.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS



CONGRATULATIONS TO RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON SEVENTY-EIGHTH BIRTHDAY

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment to raise a question of privilege which is in a vein slightly different from those that have been raised in the last little while.
Last evening the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Prud'homme) and I had the privilege of attending an important event in Winnipeg, the focus of which soon became the fact that it was a significant day in the life of one of the esteemed members of this House of Commons. That member responded with his usual vigour and in the style that we in this House always enjoy. I am sure all of us would have enjoyed being there and even though today is the day after the event, I ask the House to give a round of applause for the 78th birthday of the distinguished and right hon. member for Saint Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to indicate the approval of this side of the House which has been evidenced by the applause which has just been heard but I would enjoin the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Knowles) not to correct the Hansard when he reads it and sees that he has beatified the right hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the applause all over the House has indicated the way in which the compliments offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have been received by the House. It certainly was a splendid day, and we would all have liked to have been present but I know we will all have an opportunity to pay our respects to the right hon. gentleman during the afternoon.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to extend my best wishes to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the occasion of his birthday.
I had the good fortune of knowing the right hon. member as early as 1946 when he was very active in his party and today at his age, an age that probably very few among us will ever reach, he is alert and vigorous. In fact, he is still an example for all members of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I did not intend to canonize the right hon. gentleman-not yet. It has been predicted that he will live to 120. However, I want to make it clear that when I referred to the right hon. member for Saint Albert, I

September 19, 1973
Oral Questions
meant the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I say a very simple thank you. I am glad the hon. member did not refer to me as a saint, because I doubt whether there would have been that degree of applause that there was. This is deeply appreciated by me. I recall that Sir John A. Macdonald on one occasion, when his birthday was mentioned in the House, and it was his birthday, said that because of his interest in Canada as a whole, Saint Jean Baptiste Day was his day. It is the same with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the business of the House and I do so, if I may say this by way of explanation to Your Honour and the House, to press home the gravity of the questions that were raised in the House by my colleagues and myself today and yesterday. This matter can be resolved very quickly if the government would agree, as it has failed to do in the past two years, to refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the annual report of CN. The government has not done this. We have not had in this House in the past two years, an opportunity to examine the management and officials of CN. Consequently, we are not in a position to get the kinds of answers we would normally be able to get if those people were before the standing committee.
To underline the gravity of this matter, may I cite briefly Term 32 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. It reads:
Canada will maintain in accordance with traffic offering a freight and passenger steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques-
We consider this to be a matter of the most urgent gravity. If the government would agree immediately to refer the current report of CN to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and I might say that report was tabled in the House last March, the members on this side of the House could get on with their constitutional responsibilities and examine CN in committee.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think the hon. gentleman read the report. There is no relationship at all between it and the constitutional responsibilities of the government. This responsibility, if it exists, is that of the government and not that of CN.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, September 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-135, to provide additional financial 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.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-135 respecting residential mortgage financing. The NDP opposes this bill because it perpetuates the basic view, espoused by the Liberal party and the Conservative party, that the private financial market place can best meet the housing needs of Canadians. I reject that assumption for the following reasons. First, one has only to look at the present housing situation in Canada and the crisis which it is in to realize that this assumption is false. Second, on looking at the provisions of Bill C-135, I conclude that it will perpetuate rather than solve the problems to do with mortgage financing in this country.
Let us first look at the housing situation today in Canada. I refer to the Dennis report of 1972, which was an exhaustive study of housing in this country. That report concluded that there were 750,000 housing units in Canada which were not safe, decent or sanitary. In other words, there are about 3 million Canadians living in substandard housing. In addition, there were at least a half million units that were in need of substantial repairs, which meant that another 1 million Canadian were living in substandard housing. About 20 per cent of Canada's population is inadequately housed. That is our present situation because Liberal and Conservative governments have relied primarily on the private mortgage and lending institutions to meet housing needs in Canada.
My second reason for rejecting this bill is this: On examining the present situation in Canada, one can see that the majority of Canadians who want to buy a home cannot afford one. The cost of the house itself is too high, as is the cost of financing that purchase. In Canada the cost of housing has risen by 90 per cent in the past decade. In my constituency, Sault Ste. Marie, it is now predicted that the cost of the average house will rise by between $2,000 and $3,000 in the next two years. The President of the Toronto Real Estate Board has predicted that the average price of a house in Toronto will increase by around $10,000 in the same period. The difference between the two areas is attributable mainly to differences in land cost.
One has only to look at Central Mortgage and Housing figures for Canada to note that the cost of serviced land has risen some 19.2 per cent in the last 214 years and 36 per cent since 1967. Clearly, land costs in 1971 represented almost 40 per cent of the cost of all houses in Toronto and about 17 per cent of the cost of all houses in Sault Ste.
September 19, 1973

Marie. Moreover, throughout the country the shortage of residential land is driving prices up.
Let me give some examples. In Calgary, a house which sold for $23,000 two years ago is now selling for $33,000. It is true that construction costs have gone up; labour costs have gone up, but none of these costs have risen to the degree that land costs have risen. It is the failure of this government to outlaw land speculation and its reluctance to help in municipal land banking that has been the cause of this horrendous increase in land prices. Bill C-133, which was recently debated, moved somewhat in the direction of helping with respect to land banking, but that measure falls far short of requirements. This misguided faith in the ability of a free market economy to fulfil justly and adequately social needs can no longer be tolerated, in my view.
Next, iet me deal with the cost of financing a house. On examining the mortgage picture we shall see an equally desperate picture. At one time mortgage interest rates in this country were fixed at 6 Vi per cent by the government. Then, in 1967, the Liberal government, acting on the advice of the then housing minister who has since joined the Conservative party and now sits as the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), removed that ceiling and let market forces determine what the mortgage rate would be.
As a result, residential mortgages are at an all-time high of 10 per cent, and it is predicted they will rise to 11 per cent in the next few months. This is quite understandable. To leave mortgage rates free of any kind of regulation, free to work in the market economy, means that profit motivated companies will develop, build and concentrate on high-cost housing where returns are the greatest. There will be less building of moderate and low income homes. This is what has happened. It has happened as a result of the Liberal and Conservative faith in the private sector to meet the housing needs in this country. We now have a crisis bordering on catastrophe. Public pressure has forced this government to do something about the cost of housing. Bill C-133 has been passed. It will help middle and lower income families to some degree with regard to buying houses. Bill C-135, which is before us, is supposed to help them in financing mortgages. I feel it is a weak bill and does not meet the needs of Canadians.
Why are we opposed to this bill? First, it still allows for the supply and control of mortgage funds to be determined by the free play of market forces. I hope I have already demonstrated that to allow that to happen would only worsen the situation of Canadian home buyers. There has been no attempt by this government to stabilize the price or supply of mortgage funds. There has been no attempt by this government to fix the mortgage rate at 6 per cent so that the majority of Canadians can afford to buy a new home.
Second, this bill gives tax concessions to mortgage companies, banks and their shareholders to attract more funds into the mortgage market. I am afraid this will only perpetuate high interest rates on mortgages and high priced housing because in that way, return or profit for investors is the greatest. How will this bill solve the dilemma of the average income Canadian wanting to buy a
Mortgage Financing
house with no guarantee that the mortgage rate will be held at one level? Why do banks need further incentives? Bank profits have increased by 20 per cent each year since 1967. They have had a higher return than any other sector of our economy. Mortgages are 100 per cent guaranteed by the Canadian government. Why do they need concessions? Where is the risk in this kind of financing? The government is perpetuating its corporate rip-off and this time it is affecting home buyers.
The third reason my party is opposed to this bill is that mortgage companies will not only be allowed to finance residential development, but non-residential real estate. I can foresee such companies putting money into office buildings, shopping plazas and so on where profits are much higher than on low and middle income homes. How will that help the average Canadian buy a house? This bill should provide that the priority be for housing, not nonresidential development.
Fourth, this bill does not ensure adequate mortgage funds are available for the rural and poorer areas of the country. I know of a man who wanted to build on the outskirts of Sault Ste. Marie. There were no sewage facilities. As a result, he did not qualify for an NHA mortgage. The only way he could arrange financing was to seek a small company that would give him a mortgage at an interest rate of 15 per cent. This is an outrage. This bill is an outrage because of its weakness in this area. The New Democratic Party opposes this bill in principle because it will not solve the problem of financing home building. It will only exacerbate the situation.
For the past few weeks, the members of the Conservative party have been arguing on behalf of the consumer for controls. However, on this bill they are supporting the government. Here is a chance for them to support a control which will benefit the consumer, a control on the mortgage rate, yet they intend to vote with the Liberals. The Canadian public is aware that when it comes to financial matters that affect large companies or financial institutions, the Liberals and the Tories are still the same old gang. They will not jeopardize, restrict or curb any of the financial activities of these companies which are exploiting the consumer.
If the NDP proposal were implemented, it would bring down interest rates. What is our proposal? We would direct the federal government to instruct the banks and other federally chartered financial institutions to allocate a substantial portion of their annual investment in residential mortgages at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent. This would represent an annual saving of approximately $1,000 for the average family on their mortgage payments. I know all the arguments about the banks not being able to allocate more of their funds to the mortgage market. Their mortgage holdings today represent only 8 per cent of their total assets. A 6 per cent mortgage rate would only reduce their profits to a minor degree. The banks can certainly afford to do this because their profits have risen by 85 per cent since 1966. The proposal I have outlined is a realistic approach to mortgage financing.
This bill would perpetuate a financial corporate rip-off of the Canadian home buyer. There is no guarantee that interest rates will go down or even hold the line because of

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing
this bill. For that reason, my party is utterly opposed to this bill being passed by the House.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, two of my colleagues took part yesterday in the debate on Bill C-135 during which some objection was raised against the excessive interest rates on mortgages granted for the construction of single family dwellings and the same will soon apply to the construction of public buildings.
Mr. Speaker, there is a cause to effect relationship which has prompted the government to move Bill C-135 dealing with the establishment of a new finance company which would lend on mortgage. At the present time, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could be used. We could somewhat extend its powers enabling to grant loans directly without having to resort to a new bureaucracy or a new finance company which would set the rates at its own will.
All this, Mr. Speaker, is due to the credit line allowing the financing of these buildings. A couple of days ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, advised us that the bank was increasing its prime rate to 7.25 per cent. Could any one name only one member of Parliament, one province, one municipality or one school board that went to the Bank of Canada to borrow money at an interest rate of 7.25 per cent? This statement made by Mr. Bouey allows all finance companies to increase their interest rates when they don't need to do it at all, because none of them borrows from the Bank of Canada. Even our chartered banks do not do it.
When a banker tells you: the interest rate is higher because the Bank of Canada raised its prime rate by .5 per cent, he is telling a lie. This is not at all why the interest rate is being increased.
Earlier this week, a member of my staff was to borrow a certain amount to buy a single family dwelling. She was informed by the company manager that she will be able to obtain the required $12,500 at an interest rate of 10 !4 per cent. She even signed a form. Two days later, she was called by the manager who told her: The loan is accepted but at a 13 per cent interest rate. How can you explain this 23A per cent increase within two days?
As for the Bank of Canada which makes no loan to a nobody, it only receives the reserves used by chartered banks to control the credit of the nation. The finance companies get their "supply" from the banks. Decisions are made by the banks.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is always afraid he might run short of funds to increase family allowances or to pay old age security pensions at 60. If the government of Canada were to float an issue and ask the Bank of Canada for a $1 billion credit, which provision of the law could prevent it from doing so to finance the program of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Absolutely nothing. The danger is that if the Bank of Canada were to buy the government issue for the nominal amount of $1 billion, under the Bank Act the banks would be entitled to create $16 billion, 16 times more than the government issue which is the reserve for

the Canadian banking system. If the minister is not convinced I invite him to my office and I will show him the evidence. This is the problem.
Here we are, complaining, planning to create new finance companies that will get funds from the chartered banks and not the Bank of Canada. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says: We must increase the bank rate. He has applied no controls and still does not control anything. The Bank of Canada has become the handmaiden of the Canadian chartered banks. What the banking system told him, Mr. Bouey has just repeated to us, and the dimwits believe him; but we don't, and haven't for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is wrong, for the Bank of Canada issues an absolutely useless statement, except that it does allow some to increase their interest rates to 10, 11 and even 12 per cent. Then, in addition to interest, we have to pay the government sales tax on building materials. Then people are told: Build houses, funds will be easier to get. Go ahead, build, because the more you build the more money the government will make through the 11 per cent sales tax on bulidling materials. In addition, the provincial government will get 8 per cent. We have reached the point where taxes are being taxed. In fact, the small homeowner pays 11 per cent on the material required to build his small home. And the provincial government adds another 8 per cent to that. Joe Blow is really a good guy: he puts up with all that without complaining and keeps on paying.
I was reading in a paper yesterday that a Canadian can have a small $25,000 house built at 10-and not 15-per cent interest rate over 40 years. And they claim that this is reasonable. Do you realize that in the next 40 years, this citizen will have paid $75,000 for a $25,000 home? And they say: He will be a homeowner, and we talk of inflation, they want to fight it. After 40 years, he will have paid the price of three houses; he will have only one if he still lives, but he will not.
Most people who borrow nowadays to have a small house built do so for 40 years; if a 40 year old man borrows $20,000 or $22,000 for a period of 40 years, when he is through paying, Mr. Speaker, he will be 80 and retired for 15 years. His old age security pension will not be sufficient to make the payments; which means that by the age of 50 or 55 he may lose his property. This is exactly what is happening and they think that they are helping people to become homeowners! Owners of what? Owners of debts, taxes, interest rates; the house belongs to the finance company, it does not belong to them.
This is the way the system operates which the government, introducing Bill C-135, wants us to accept and which will mean more debts serving Canadians. While our "nincompoops" will be getting deeper into debt, the government will continue to say: We can't.
This afternoon, as the government is about to issue $425 million in bonds yielding TVt per cent interest, one of my colleague asked the right hon. Prime Minister about the possibility of finding something else at a lower cost. The government leader replied: This is the prevailing rate, the finance people will not lend us money; we have to pay more because the institutions can obtain better deals elsewhere. So, the government is following the trend instead
September 19, 1973

of going against it; it should manage the Canadian economy by putting to proper use the financial means, at our disposal, namely the Bank of Canada. If Governor Bouey is not aware of it, I tell him so. He is not there to tell us what to do but to act upon what we, as parliamentarians, decide.
Mr. Speaker, everybody is complaining. Earlier my NDP friend from Sault-Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) was talking about outrageous rates of interest which should be reduced to 6 per cent but when these were at 6 per cent three years ago, the NDP was protesting that they should be lowered at 3 per cent. Today they would be willing to reduce them to 6 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, 6 per cent is not better than 10 per cent. Does anyone know that for a loan at 5 per cent over a 20-year period the interest paid will equal the capital borrowed? For instance, $1,000 at 5 per cent during 20 years will yield $1,000 interest and the capital is still owing. All provinces and municipalities are endorsing such programs, and the government introduces Bill C-135, saying: Here's more.
Mr. Speaker, the day when the system will break, someone will be hurt. People are revolting everywhere in the world, people are marching in the streets. Why? Because of food shortages? No. Because of limited building opportunities? No. But because there is not enough purchasing power to live decently. Then, some people try to have the poor rise against the rich, saying for example: If you live in a shack, it is because somebody else lives in a castle; so, let us rise against the one who owns a castle. There is a revolt, the occupant of the castle is thrown out and, next morning, the aggressor realizes that he still lives in the same shack, that his circumstances are not better.
This does not constitute a solution. The solution would be to ask ourselves if we can build more castles in Canada. Can we improve the situation and provide more help for all Canadians so that they may own their own property, not the Household Finance Co. Ltd., the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Ross Finance Company Ltd., or the Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.
Recently, I saw in the lower St. Lawrence valley people who have lived on the same farm for eight or nine generations. They made improvements to the house, the barn, and the stables, thanks to mortgages. After eight generations of work, these people are mortgaged at 100 percent. While 200 or 300 years ago, the farmer could say: I own my farm, nowadays he says: My farm belongs to the Farm Credit Corporation, it belongs to a finance company. Nowadays, man has to resort to finance the moment he comes into this world.
One can read in Eaton's and Simpson's trade catalogues: Buy through a budget plan, open an account. The baby will soon be born, therefore people get ready, they resort to credit at Eaton's or Simpson's. When the child is six years old and ready to go to school, people order clothing, again through the budget plan.
People get married, they have no money, they borrow from Household Finance. In order to buy a car, they get into debt with the Traders' Finance Co. Ltd., the Niagara
Mortgage Financing
Finance Co. Ltd. or the IAC for three years and thus they are being mortgaged throughout their life. Towards the end of their life, funeral directors tell them: die now, pay later.
Mr. Speaker, quite often people tell us about such problems; they say: Listen, we cannot pay. Could you help us? It is on account of all those systems that throw us into debt that we have to lead such a life.
Economists tell us that we live beyond our means. Yes, they are intelligent people. We live beyond our means. What are the financing or productive means in Canada? What are the ways of building houses? Are we short of lumber to build houses? Short of nails? Short of manpower? Short of machines?
Mr. Speaker, we are short of nothing except credit, to build a house. It is strange but once a house is built, there is not a single dollar bill nailed to it, not a single one. Credit is a way of exchange to enable people to buy a house. But we attach more importance to credit than to the house.
Bill C-135 aims at giving additional credit to sink deeper into debt those who need a house. Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of space however. I was looking on the outskirts of Montreal, in Abitibi, in Temiscamingue: there is plenty of space; along La Verendrye park, there are magnificent lakes, where we could build, establish villages, and so on. There is no lack of space. The province of Quebec has a population of six or seven million people whereas it could contain 60 or 70 million people. So, it is not a matter of space, but it is the system which prevents people from getting adequate accommodation.
Good accommodation is not the exclusive prerogative of those who can pay $200 or $300 a month; the workers of E.B. Eddy, of the CIP, of Noranda Mines, of the Canadian National or of the Canadian Pacific have a right to have their own houses too, and not a house they will be asked to pay four times. This can be done through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a government institution which does not need another parallel corporation to accept mortgages or make mortgage loans.
This is why Bill C-135 is creation of new bureaucrats; it imposes a still tighter control on the economic life of people, in the area of housing. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept this. We want that loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation be granted by the Bank of Canada, and that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lend to those who have to build the money necessary and at the administrative cost. This would be a reasonable interest rate.
You can say: But we already have private companies and finance companies. I will answer that they can always finance something else. Will we always let the Canadian people be caught in the claws of these vultures, these leeches of the Canadian people, or will we manage to pass laws favouring man? We are always passing laws favouring the financial establishment, as is the case for Bill C-135.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, these loans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, without creating new corporations, would allow Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to enlarge its operation, to reach all levels of
6732

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing
the population, without creating, as I said before, a parallel corporation.
If the government really intends and wishes to help middle Canadians to become homeowners, it should act differently than at present. Let it act in a way that will free the middle Canadian from the claws of finance, by allowing him to have access to credit through a federal body which is called Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which will lend him at an interest rate covering administrative costs. This will allow more Canadians to own their own home.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join my colleagues in speaking against the bill that is before us today, Bill C-135, that Frankenstein monster dreamed up by this government presumably to make more funds available for mortgages in Canada. It is a bill which may be very comforting to large lending institutions, but it is extremely cold comfort to anyone who is faced with the problem of buying a house. This bill is, of course, supported both by the government and that humane, socialistically inclined group of great Canadians, the official opposition. This is the opposition group that has been shouting "wage and price controls, fight inflation". We already have wage controls, as any worker will tell you.
I started work at the age of 13 and this job is the first one for which I did not have to negotiate a wage or a salary. My wages have been controlled as the wages of most workers are. This is the opposition group that poses as the champion of the people in the battle against rising costs, but it does not want to control interest rates. Wages, yes, but not interest. This is the same opposition group, moreover, that supported tax reductions for corporations and now supports inflated interest rates which would benefit mainly the private sector by providing $400 million of the taxpayers' money, $100 million of it in share capital and a maximum of $300 million as loans to the corporation that will be set up to create a gambling pool for speculators in housing. It will, as I understand it, be a private corporation. It is the people of Canada who will suffer be being forced to pay exorbitant interest rates for whatever sort of shelter they might try to buy.
The people who will be hit hardest, of course, are those who are in the low income bracket. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) covered this aspect of the problem last night when he graphically described the plight of our native population and that of low income groups in some of the have-not provinces. Next week, Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing the toast at the wedding of a young couple in Vancouver. I cannot help but wonder what chance this couple will have of ever owning their own home. Certainly, they cannot buy one at today's inflated prices. Their only alternative is to move into a high-rise apartment and spend the rest of their married life in these modern, ugly filing cabinets that are so rapidly replacing single home dwellings, or they might be lucky and find a dingy basement suite.
Mr. Speaker, 28 years ago I made a down payment of $1,500 on a small home, a payment that was made possible

only because I had been left a legacy in that amount. I wanted to pay more, but when I went to the bank at which I had been dealing for ten years-I needed $500 more and for security I had a job appointment slip for my first job of teaching-the bank would not lend me a cent without security amounting to at least $500. Well, if I had had the $500 I would not have had to borrow it. It was tough enough then to borrow money even at 4 per cent, let alone now at 10 per cent. Later, I bought a house with $15,000 down and a mortgage of 5 Vi per cent. Twenty years later that mortgage is still not paid off even at 5 Vi per cent. And I am trapped in an area, which has become noisy with heavy traffic and crowded with residential congestion, because in order to move I would have to obtain a mortgage at 10 per cent or cash to escape the usurers.
I mention my own experience to illustrate the extent to which our residential population has become immobile simply because people cannot afford to move out of the houses in which they are living. This heartless and cynical bill treats housing as a commodity to be treated in the market place for profit. It ignores the government's social responsibility to provide every Canadian citizen with a decent roof over his head at a reasonable cost. Like the hon. member for Skeena, I wish that the authors of this bill and its supporters would knock at the doors of the people in this country who are forced to live in substandard housing because of the inflated prices caused by greedy speculators. They would not even have to go as far north as my hon. friend has suggested. They could come to my riding to feast their eyes on the results of their philosophy in some of the poorer sections of the riding. I have lived, worked and travelled in the north country and I can vouch for the validity of the description given by the hon. member for Skeena of housing conditions that are to be found there, but I am also aware of conditions in every large city in this country.
There is no doubt about the position of our constituents, if my own riding of Burnaby-Seymour is any criteria and I think it is since it contains a good cross-section of people both economically and politically. On the basis of 752 responses to the question, "Do you think that the interest rates on mortgage money for housing should be strictly controlled by a government agency?", 571 replied with a resounding "yes" as compared to 182 who said "no". Asked if they thought that mortgage interest rates should be determined by "the free play of market forces"-that favourite phrase of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his Tory bedmates-512 respondents said "no" and only 201 said "yes". The public, Mr. Speaker, is not stupid. People recognize simple, social justice. They recognize also a rip-off when there is one and perhaps that is why, in the same questionnaire-summarized only yesterday-they replied to the question, "Which party has done the best job in the House so far?" in this way: NDP 322, Liberal 159, Tory 53.
If they were aware of the profit figures for real estate institutions for the first half of 1973 they would no doubt be even more definite in their replies. Here are some of those profit increases from the corresponding period the previous year: Cadillac Development Corporation 45 per cent, Campeau 65 per cent; Monarch Investment 110 per cent, Marlborough Properties Limited 284 per cent-and this was a bad year for Marlborough Properties-Canadi-
September 19, 1973

an Interurban Properties 182 per cent. There is obviously a gold mine here for real estate speculators.
Our party feels strongly on this issue and that is why so many NDP speakers have been on their feet in this debate in direct contrast to the reticence of the usually vocal Tory group which now finds itself in a financial Valhalla. We want to see Canadians properly housed. We want to force financial institutions to make a portion of their huge funds available as mortgage money. We want interest rates for mortgages held at 6 per cent, or, with the permission of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) at 3 per cent.
What we really want, Mr. Speaker, is a little compassion from the government and its allies to my right in order to alleviate the deplorable shortage of housing and the equally deplorable types of accommodation in which so many of our citizens are forced to live. Mr. Speaker, I shall oppose passage of this bill.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I shall say only a word or two because much of what I might otherwise have said has already been said. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by repeating what has been said already. My principal difficulty in respect of this bill is that for the life of me I cannot see how it will accomplish the objective of producing more residential mortgage funds, presumably at a lower rate of interest. It seems to me the mechanicism to be established inevitably will only produce additional mortgage funds-if indeed they are produced-at an interest rate equivalent to or higher than that which now prevails. Otherwise, why would investment funds enter into the residential mortgage market on a voluntary basis unless there is the incentive of increased interest rates. The logic of the government's position seems to be that if it brings more funds into the residential mortgage market that will force the rate down. However, it seems to me one must look at the proposition the other way around. How will more funds become available for residential mortgages if, in fact, the rates go down? They won't.
I do not, for the life of me, see how this bill will succeed in accomplishing the objective of producing residential mortgages at rates that are acceptable to the great majority of Canadians and to people who live in the constituency of Toronto-Lakeshore. As I understand it, the problem today is not a shortage of residential mortgage funds but a shortage of residential mortgage funds at interest rates which make the eventual payment a conceivable proposition. The problem is not mortgage money but rather what one must pay for that mortgage money, the cost that goes into the purchase of the home which puts it well beyond the range of most ordinary Canadians. You can borrow money any day of the week if you are prepared to pay the interest rates. There is no difficulty in finding mortgages and I do not see why we must go through the process of establishing a mechanism to channel more mortgage money into the market if we are not prepared at the same time to take very concrete steps to ensure that the interest rates at which that mortgage money will be lent are at a reasonable level.
Mortgage Financing
I recognize the fact that the government made some moves earlier this year in an attempt to provide assistance to those who desire to own a home through AHOP, which we supported and which we succeeded in having amended in certain important respects. I can see that that is a step in the direction of making it easier for ordinary working Canadians to own a house. But I wonder how many Canadians today really are aware of the benefits that may be available under that program. I wonder how extensively and assiduously that program is being advertised. Second, how many people will be able to qualify given the relationship between the cost of houses in a city like Toronto and the income of the applicants. I must recognize, as indeed the government must recognize, that the interest rate being envisaged under that program, although lower than the prevailing rates, is still in the range of 8 per cent and above.
In a riding like my own, if I may be parochial for a moment, the matter of mortgages at reasonable interest rates is the very key to the survival and maintenance of the sense of community which has prevailed in that part of Toronto for many years. There is almost no land for new housing in Toronto-Lakeshore. What housing changes hands is older housing, and I welcomed and supported AHOP because I hoped it would make it easier for younger families who have grown up in the community to buy a house in that community, to stay there and to provide the next generation of leadership which every community requires if it is to prosper.
But AHOP is not enough, and the kind of proposal that was put forward last week by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) which calls on the government to impose upon the chartered banks-and let us not back away from that term-a regimen which should see them allocating a certain amount of funds each year toward mortgages at an interest rate not to exceed 6 per cent, is essential for the preservation of many of the older communities in our urban areas. I have no doubt that it has equal benefits in other parts of the country, but to my riding its benefit lies in the fact that it would enable us to preserve what is good and to avoid what all too often appears to be the inexorable tendency of these communities to go to high-rise, to concrete filing cabinets, as they were referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson).
I cannot find any basis in this bill that would warrant my support for it. For these two reasons, first, that it will not succeed in any significant degree in making mortgages with reasonable interest rates available to Canada, and second, that the absence of that kind of provision gives little or no benefit to the kind of constituency I represent and that many other members in this chamber represent, I feel it is largely a hoax. The bill is an elaborate paper mechanism which, I am quite certain, will succeed in providing little or no benefit to ordinary Canadians in the housing market.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat reluctantly to discuss the subject of this bill, because I do not happen to know too much about housing. However, that does not seem to have prevented many members from speaking so I thought I had better make some kind of contribution.
26454-61}

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing


Mr. Basford:: They are all members of your party.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That includes members of all parties in the House. Somebody has made a reference to abortion. I want to say that that describes perfectly both the policies that have been advocated by the Liberal benches and those that have been advocated by the Conservatives. Their policies have really been an abortion in terms of finding a way of providing money to solve this serious social problem.
I must say that in dealing with this problem in Bill C-133, the government came up with something that I did not think was too bad. They did provide a neighbourhood improvement program, items on co-operative housing, something in terms of land assembly, and something in terms of improvement to existing housing. But when it came to the problem of providing money for new housing, their logic has failed. They have gone again to the free market forces to solve a problem that the free market forces have not solved over the past ten years and will not solve over the next ten years.
You will recall that this government decided to appoint the Dennis task force to report on housing. That task force pointed out that about 50 per cent of Canadians cannot afford decent housing. Those groups on welfare and those earning up to about $6,500 were unable to afford any kind of decent housing. What kind of an answer is this bill to the Dennis report? Admittedly, Bill C-133 went some distance in meeting the recommendations in that report, but in terms of providing money, the key to the housing program, the government has fallen down completely. What has been shown over the past 10 years is that the free market forces cannot solve this problem. However it is appropriate to interfere with the free market when we have a national crisis such as the railway strike, and it is appropriate to force the railway workers back to work at unacceptable terms to them when there is a crisis. I say that what we have is a national crisis in housing and this government has failed to understand that fact. They are much too chickenhearted, and so are my friends to the right, to interfere with their friends, the financial institutions of this country. As I said, the private market forces have failed to solve the problem.
The Dennis Report pointed out that half the people in this country cannot get decent housing. This is the response which the minister made back on June 12, when he introduced this bill. He said:
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-
I emphasize the words "relative decrease". What is it going to be? Will it be one per cent or two per cent? One of the major problems has been not that there is not enough money for housing for lower income people, but rather the excessive interest rates charged on that money.
Free market forces are not going to drag down the rates of interest. We need the nerve and the guts to interfere with those forces, and require that interest rates for low income and middle income people be fixed by the banks at 6 per cent. Recently when he appeared on television, the

minister criticized this proposal. At a quick glance I thought this criticism had some validity. The minister argued that if you require banks to lend a certain proportion of their money at 6 per cent for housing, there was no knowing what this would do to other interest rates. He said it would drive up interest rates on the purchase of cars and other consumer goods. This only indicated where his social priorities really are. The social priority we need now is in housing. If the effect of the NDP policy would be to drive up interest rates temporarily on the purchase of these other products, so be it. We have a national housing crisis and this bill will not solve it.
I am not surprised that hon. members to my right-some of them around me are really of the far right-support this bill. This attitude is in tune with their free enterprise philosophy. It will not solve the problem, but neither will it upset their friends in the banking institutions. It is really part of the Tory catechism that we should not interfere with the play of free market forces or we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In terms of low income people there are a lot of eggs being laid around this country, but they are not golden. In fact, they are starting to go rotten.
I am surprised at the reluctance of Conservatives to support us on this bill because here is another golden opportunity for them to demonstrate their concern about the cost of living and the cost of housing. Here is a party which advocates a 90 day freeze on wages and prices. But how much can we believe in that party when it supports a bill like this? How would Conservatives administer the incomes policy they talk about? How would they fix wages and prices in terms of equity to low income people? That is a political rather than an economic decision, and I believe their political decision would be to penalize low income people and reward the rich. That is why this party does not trust in the policy advocated by hon. members to my right. Their position on this bill is philosophically consistent with their policies for years. That is why I cannot support either the Liberals or the Conservatives on this legislation. I extend a welcome to any free thinking Tories who wish to re-examine their position on the bill. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is one who has contributed much to debates on housing.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it takes a little nerve to tackle the major financial institutions in Canada, but there is a logic to doing it. If we would only treat housing the way we treat railway workers we would solve the housing problem. We would interfere with the free market. We would have the nerve and the guts to require financial institutions to put a certain percentage of their lending capacity into mortgages at reasonable interest rates. In that way, we would solve the problem.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments before the minister rises to reply to say that a society motivated only by a desire for profit is basically immoral. I did not originate that phrase. It is a quotation from the CCF Winnipeg Declaration of 1956, and I thought it a most appropriate one to use in debate on a bill such as this.
I have listened to a number of Conservative members repeatedly talking about inflation and the cost of living, repeatedly talking about controls on wages and prices. I
September 19, 1973

have yet to hear, however, any of them say anything about controls on interest rates, profits, real estate speculators and the like. Yet they wonder why we choose not to trust the economy to their hands, when all they talk about is controls on wages and prices. In my opinion any person earning less than $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year in this kind of economy is entitled to all the wage increases he can get, particularly if he is trying to support a wife and children and to pay off a mortgage, and more particularly if he is trying to pay off a mortgage at the kind of interest rates that this or a Conservative government allows.
There are a number of areas in any civilized society where profit making should be ruled out. In fact over the last hundred years there have been a number of areas in our society in which profit making has been ruled out. It has been ruled out with respect to streets and sidewalks, sewer and water systems, public schools and universities. Surely, such a basic human right as having a decent place to live is another area where profit making should be put aside, at least for those on low incomes, for those who live in slums and in substandard housing.
The introduction of the bill is the fourth or fifth time since 1966 that this method has been tried. Its purpose allegedly is to ensure that more money is made available for mortgages for housing. Available to whom? Available to the poor? Available to the people on low wages? Available to people on fixed incomes? No, Mr. Speaker. Each time parliament has dealt with a similar piece of legislation more mortgage money has been made available all right, but available at interest rates that only those with middle and high incomes can afford. It has not made more mortgage money available for those who need housing the most. I hope members of the official opposition will reconsider their position on this legislation. I beg them to reconsider. I beg them to join us in calling on the government to introduce legislation providing interest rates in the nature of 6 per cent for people earning less than $10,000 or $12,000 a year.
Some time ago I spoke to a group of young ladies at a school. I advised them that when they left school they should plan on going through two or three husbands during the rest of their lives, because it was unlikely that the first one would live long enough to pay for the home they would buy. It seems to me insensible and unjust that a home valued at $15,000 or $20,000 should cost a total of $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 by the time the mortgage has been paid off. I am not opposed to all profits and I am not opposed to a reasonable or fair profit in many areas of our society. But surely, Mr. Speaker, this kind of profit is immoral and surely the motive of profit in the area of decent homes for those who do not have decent homes, is immoral.
If the government wants to ensure that there is a lot more money available in the mortgate market for housing, and particularly to make sure it is available for those who can afford to pay, then this bill must be defeated. The government must bring in legislation to accomplish the purpose that I am sure it wants as sincerely as we do. To suggest that people on incomes of $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 a year can afford mortgages at a 10 per cent interest rate is an illusion. We all know that families with two, three or
Mortgage Financing
four children living on $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 a year find that a greater and greater share of that income goes for shelter than for food. With each rise in interest rates, a greater portion of the low income goes to paying off a mortgage that will last for 25 or 40 years. Surely even the profit makers, in all conscience, do not want to make profit at that kind of social cost and that kind of indecency to their fellow citizens.
I will be very happy to oppose this legislation and I hope my colleagues in other corners of the House will do the same thing. It will not be a disaster for the minister in charge of housing. He can bring in another bill in two or three weeks or tomorrow or whenever we are here, to do some of the things that we have been advocating for many years to make a greater volume of money available for people on low and fixed incomes.
I have heard the minister refer many times to the number of homes that have been built in the last few years in this country, and there is no doubt that tens of thousands of homes were constructed each year. But they were not for the people who needed them most; they were for the people who could afford them. Imagine what a sufficient supply of mortgage money at rates of 5 per cent or 6 per cent would do for the economy-what it would do for the lumber industry, the furniture industry, the fabricating industry, the appliance industry. Imagine how it would help employment and keep down the cost of living for ordinary families on low incomes. I am sure that is the kind of objective that every member of this House has in his own mind. But to suggest that such an objective can be reached by requiring people on low incomes to pay an interst rate of up to 10 per cent, is not realistic.
When the minister replies I hope that he will have something constructive to put forward on the proposals we have made and that the government can accomplish, as soon as possible, what we have been advocating in the area of housing for people on low incomes.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I understand that my name has been mentioned two or three times and consequently I have decided to participate briefly.
This bill does not, of course, guarantee that mortgage rates will come down. Even the minister in his wildest dreams would not suggest that would be the result. But he did indicate that if there is a tendency, it would be to exert downward pressure on interest rates to the extent that it channels additional funds into residential mortgages. For that reason, and because this is a useful instrument which will enable mortgages to become more liquid and more attractive to some investors, I think the bill is worthy of the support of the House.
The NDP is quite right when they suggest that the bill is not going to solve the housing problem in Canada. Housing costs are too high, interest rates are too high and something must be done about the situation, but unfortunately the solutions put forward by the NDP are not the right solutions. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons the economy is in such a mess at the present time is that we have followed for too long policies advocated by the NDP and because they refuse to face the basic economic facts of life.

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing


An hon. Member:: They do not know them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that mention was made of the fact that I was responsible for taking off the fixed interest rates on NHA mortgages. This is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker, and there were good reasons for it. Unfortunately, these gentlemen in the far corner, because they are totally unacquainted with the building business, would not understand why that was absolutely necessary.
Previously, Mr. Speaker, the NHA interest rate was set by order in council at 2!4 points above the long term Government of Canada bond yield. If that formula were still in effect today, the interest rate on NHA loans would be just about what it is. As a matter of fact, for most of the period since the fixed rate was taken off, mortgage money was available under the National Housing Act at rates lower than would have been the case if the rate had been set by order in council. Anyone who has had the least bit of experience with the building business knows that for the decades rates were set by order in council, the rate was either too high or too low 90 per cent of the time.


Some hon. Members:: Too high.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The academic know-it-alls in that corner of the House, Mr. Speaker, have all the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought they would applaud that statement, but the second sentence is: like many of their kind they are unfamiliar with the problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The reason was obvious to anyone who know anything about the business. When the mortgage rate was higher than the market, too much money flowed into housing and when it was lower than the market, no money flowed in. Consequently, there was this boom and bust cycle that everyone has been objecting to, and even the NDP have been saying that housing should not be used as a countervailing economic force in Canada but should be consistently operated in accordance with the needs of the people.
That is precisely the reason the limit was taken off. Having fixed interest rates under the National Housing Act put dozens of the best builders in this country out of' business, just because some other academic know-it-alls in Central Mortgage and Housing thought they knew better than the market at all times what the interest rate should be. It did not work. I can cite chapter and verse where subdivisions were begun, model houses were built and sales were made in advance but no money was available to build the houses people required, even though the houses had been sold in advance, because of the rigidity of a system which did not take market forces into account.
My hon. friends have suggested that the present rate of 10 per cent is ridiculously high and I must say that I agree with them completely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They also give the impression, and I think this is an impression, that this is the rate in real terms. Mr. Speaker, if we are to learn about our economic situation, we must begin talking in real terms and not in money terms, as has been the case during most of this debate. An interest rate of 10 per cent on mortgages sounds like a great deal. When you consider the inflation rate of 8.3 per cent, which you must deduct from that 10 per cent, and then deduct about three quarters of 1 per cent which is required for administering a mortgage, you will find that the total cost of inflation and of administering the mortgage amounts to about 9 per cent. That leaves an effective, real rate of return of l per cent on a 1 per cant mortgage. That is a pretty low rate of interest in real terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friends should listen, because there are lots of things about this business that they do not understand. There are lots of things which they do not teach you at school, professor, believe me.	,
Not only is that one per cent rate of real return minimal, but the whole profit, so to speak, is subject to income tax. If you pay income tax at a rate of 30 per cent or 40 per cent, you will be in the hole from day one. Any person who puts personal investments in NHA mortgages at 10 per cent today will be in a negative position so far as the real rate of return is concerned. In these circumstances, there is not much incentive for ordinary investors to put their money into mortgages.
Would my hon. friends to my left, who try to leave the impression that they believe in fairness and honesty, honestly say to any Canadian today, "It would be a good idea if you put your personal savings into NHA mortgages at 10 per cent. That would be a good investment." Would they say that when there is an 8.3 per cent inflation rate and when the whole profit, so to speak, is subject to income tax at progressive rates? I do not think they would.
The real problem is the economy itself, and here is where hon. members to my left refuse to face facts. You have high interest rates because of inflation. They are a sympton of inflation and, so long as you have inflation at present levels, you will have high interest rates. There is no way under heaven in which you can get away from this fact. When will the NDP wake up to this fact? When will they wake up to the factors that cause inflation?


An hon. Member:: What is your solution, 1929 all over again?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Listen. Then hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and others have tried to tell you, but you have a blind side, because so much of your money comes from a source which refuses to let you listen to the solution. You should keep that in mind.


An hon. Member:: Bullshit.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope that is on the record.


An hon. Member:: I hope it is, too.
September 19, 1973


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Labour Congress said, "Let us have no wage or price controls."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) should remember that he is really addressing the Chair and the "You" previously referred to would not appear to be the Chair. I realize that he is directing his remarks to the party in the far left corner, but I think he should follow the more traditional method of debate and perhaps we could avoid some of the unfortunate expressions which are getting on the record.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think Your Honour ought to call the hon. member who has the floor to order. It is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who ought to be called to order. Is Your Honour afraid?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not afraid. The Chair heard an unfortunate expression, knew from which direction it came, but did not know from which corner it came.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue with you but I had, I thought, paid all the usual respects to the Chair. My remarks to that corner of the House were directed through you, Sir, and if from time to time I seemed to turn my back on the Chair, that was simply inadvertence on my part. I wanted to get as best I could the attention of the NDP who have, I feel, done this country a great disservice in not coming to grips with the basic fundamentals of the problem which apparently concerns them.
That problem is this: So long as wages and prices are rising faster than productivity, you will have inflation. It is difficult to separate at present the proportion of inflation caused by international commodities from that proportion which is caused by the cost-push cycle. If one wanted to make a reasonable guess, one could say that perhaps, of the total inflation in Canada today, about 25 per cent, if you could isolate it, is due to international commodity prices and demand pressures from outside this country. The rest of it, Mr. Speaker, is made in Canada, is made here. Fifty six per cent of our Gross National Product last year was in wages and salaries, including military pay. If that 56 per cent increases at three to four times the average rate of increase of productivity, there is no way that you can avoid inflation. It is just simple arithmetic. If 56 per cent of the GNP goes up at three to four times the average rate of increase of productivity in real terms, you have to print a lot more money to provide any kind of reasonably full employment. If you have to print more and more money in order to provide a reasonably satisfactory level of employment, you will have the kind of inflation which we have today. We must face the facts.
My hon. friends know that these wages and salaries are part of costs. If, for any business in the country, costs go up, the mark-up, which is usually in percentage terms, is applied to the increased costs as well. So, increased costs are reflected in increased prices. Thus one sees the cycle of increased costs leading to increased prices. It is really futile to argue whether increasing prices cause increasing wages or whether increasing wages cause increasing prices, as the two are interrelated. We must accept that fact, or we will continue to experience the kind of infla-
Mortgage Financing
tion that we are seeing today as far ahead into the future as one can visualize.
The other contributing factor to inflation in Canada is the level of government expenditures. My friends of the NDP-and they are not the only ones who are guilty, as I will be the first to admit-have been pushing for more government expenditures. They have been pushing for new programs, for readjustments of all kinds, and in many cases these are justified. Again, let us return to the facts, Mr. Speaker.
If the average increase in productivity per person in Canada in real terms is of the order of 2 or 3 per cent, and if all governments in Canada increase their take of the Gross National Product by 1 per cent per year each year, as they have been doing for the last seven or eight years, there will be less left for the workers in this country, in real terms, to spend for themselves. Consequently, the wage gains which have been negotiated are less in real terms than they otherwise would have been. So, although in some cases unions of Canada have negotiated wage agreements calling for increases of 7 or 8 per cent, by the time you allow for the increase in governmental expenditures and the graduated income tax, and inflation the total gain is zero in real terms.
My friends to my left keep avoiding the critical issue. They say, "Let us have a review board which will look at prices and even roll back prices." But they will not do the same with wages and salaries. If you are to go through that process with prices, you must also go through the same process with salaries, because wages and salaries constitute a bigger proportion of the Gross National Product than any other single factor. They constitute a far, far greater proportion than profits, for example, and the trend is continuing in that direction. From 1949 to the present the proportion of the Gross National Product which is made up of salaries has been increasing and the proportion which is made up of profits has been decreasing.
So I say to my friends, if you are serious about housing, if you mean what you say, if you want interest rates to come down, do something about it; let that something be supporting an incomes policy along the lines put forward by the Progressive Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no other solution. You can make all the great speeches you want and "con" some of the people you talk to, because you are so eloquent, and make them believe things that they do not understand, but you are not being honest with them and you are not being honest with yourselves. If you want to reduce the level of inflation in Canada to anything like an acceptable level, you need to have a policy which stops this upward pressure by powerful unions and oligopolies. There is no way of avoiding it.
Recently in the Edmonton Journal there were two headlines in the same week, one stating that construction workers had turned down a wage increase of something in the order of 94 cents. I cannot remember the exact figure.

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing
The other headline stated the minimum wage would soon be increased to $2.


An hon. Member:: Is that too much?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. It is not enough to live on, not enough to buy the products made by those earning $8 or $9 an hour. It is out of joint. The pecking order is distorted, it is not fair, reasonable and just. We have to regulate the strong on behalf of the weak. It is ridiculous to have a minimum wage of $2 when the houses those people have to buy are built by people earning $9 or $10 an hour. It is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
The situation is actually deteriorating. It is getting worse as time goes on. If you go on the basis of percentages, when the fellow earning $8 and $9 an hour gets an 8 or 9 per cent increase, that is a big increase in terms of cents per hour. When the fellow making $2, $2.25 or $2.35 an hour gets that type of increase, he starves. He cannot afford food, clothing or shelter. He cannot afford to live. What do you do? You subsidize food, clothing and housing. You have to twist everything around and hire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to pass the money back and forth. These people should be paid a decent wage in the first place. They should have enough to look after food, clothing and shelter.
It is very disappointing to get all of this righteous indignation from the far corner of the House about interest rates on housing. No one is more concerned about it than we in this party. The present situation is absolutely unacceptable. It has deteriorated consistently over a period of about 15 years. Fifteen years ago, a working man in this country could aspire to owning his own house. That is not the case today. It is getting worse all the time. If we want to reverse the trend, we will have to do something about land costs, as recommended long ago by the task force and supported by this party. Something will have to be done about interest rates. To do that, we need an incomes policy to stop this cost-push element of inflation in our country.
Let's be realistic. Let's be honest. Let's not kid ourselves and the people. Let's stop this inflationary cycle. If the New Democratic Party is really serious about trying to do something about the housing problem, the next time there is a motion from this side of the House condemning the government for its lack of action in respect of an incomes policy, let's have some support from that part of the House.


An hon. Member:: Vote against this bill.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is an innocuous bill. It will not do any harm. It may do some good. I spend a lot of time worrying about this. Wliy not do something about the fundamental situation? The NDP say this bill will not solve the problem. They are right. This is not the solution. The solution is much more fundamental. The solution is to have some basic relationship between wages and prices and productivity so there are fair shakes for all of the workers of Canada and not just the powerful getting the big stakes while others do not have enough to live on and look after the needs of their families. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) understands this. It is too bad he cannot persuade his colleagues to do something about it.

If the hon. gentlemen in the far corner of the House really want to do something for Canadian workers and housing, they will reverse their one-sided, myopic policy and come out in favour of an incomes policy which is realistic; one which applies realistic guidelines to the profits of the oligopolies, and the wages of the members of the big powerful unions. We could then start to bring the situation under control. When we do that, interest rates will come down. When interest rates come down, ultimately the average man in this country will again be able to look forward to getting a house for himself and his family. We hope we will have the support of the NDP in this endeavour.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the floor too long during this debate, but as a result of the intervention of the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), I must specify a few points. As a matter of fact, the hon. member made a fair and honest description of the situation and the problem of income as regards housing in Canada, and he proposed a real solution, namely the use of credits of the Bank of Canada, which belongs to all Canadians, to help bring about a fair situation in housing, to enable low income people to have access to family and suitable housing.
Faced with such facts, Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that members of the Social Credit party call for a policy of income based on prices, on the cost of living in general and on the needs of citizens. It is not the first time that we say that the same causes bring about the same effect. As a matter of fact, three years ago, we passed a similar legislation. We will pass again-I hope personally that it will be turned down-a measure designed to increase a little bit the interest rate, create a new ivory tower dreamed up by public servants, which finally will not solve in any way the problem of housing.
Mr. Speaker, ministers and hon. members return the ball to one another and play politics. The Progressive Conservative members say that what the Liberals are doing is no good; the Liberals say that the Progressive Conservatives have not understood anything and New Democrats say that an interest rate of 6 per cent would be more suitable than the present rate of 7!4 per cent, and, as one of the previous speakers said, when we proposed a rate of 6 per cent, these people called for a 3 per cent rate.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind a former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), and the minister responsible for CMHC and mover of this bill (Mr. Bas-ford), of the current situation in my part of the country in Quebec. Today, we heard at length about the problems of Newfoundland. Let us now hear what goes on in Quebec.
In my remarks on the subject, I shall base myself not on the literature influenced by the social credit doctrine but rather on that supplied by the civil servants and the government itself. I shall refer to a publication, a working paper prepared by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as a contribution to the federal-provincial consultations bearing on a regional development policy for Canada, published in April 1973 and entitled "Quebec-Economic Situation and Development Possibilities".
September 19, 1973

Mr. Speaker, while the ministers, the governments which are succeeding each other ask Parliament to grant millions of dollars in a given sector, establish new departments to fight unemployment, to develop construction, they keep on putting up hypocritically with an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, further to the 8 per cent provincial tax. Meanwhile, the situation in the area of housing keeps on worsening in spite of these measures.
Mr. Speaker, it is not I who will say it. Before beginning my quotation, I would like to remind the House that we hear frequently: When housing is doing well, so is the economy. When it is doing bad, so is the economy. It is often said that this is one of the true barometers.
Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of the report that I referred to earlier, one can read and I quote:
In absolute terms, the income per capita and gains per capita (excluding government transfers) are both below the national average,-
And this concerns the province of Quebec.
In Quebec, per capita personal income amounted to $3,027 in 1971 as compared with $2,443 in the Atlantic area, $2,778 in Saskatchewan and $3,967 in Ontario.
That is the income situation. Is the situation improving in spite of allegedly good measures, both in the field of income security and social security as in the field of lodging and other areas, for example, economic expansion?
Page 6 reads as follows and I quote:
So, in Quebec per capita personal income in 1967 was $235 below the national average but, in 1971, $378.
Therefore, the income situation which would permit to buy a house grows worse and worse.
Let us take another item dealt with in the same report and concerning employment in the building industry.
We are told that the building of houses should be encouraged, that a new organization similar to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going to be created and that a new interest rate corresponding to the cost of living will be established. The governments have of course no control over this; they are controlled by those who control the cost of living. Now let us consider what is said about the employment rate which was to increase. On page 35 it is stated, and I quote:
The employment growth decreased during the second half of the last ten years and mainly in the service area. Between 1966 and 1971 the employment rate decreased by 25,000 workers in the building industry.
There was an employment decrease of 25,000 people in Quebec. And the minister will tell us that his policy was effective up to now and therefore that it was a good policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise him to read other departments' publications; he could see that the object of his policy up to now was to get votes. The damn well lied-as people usually say-as we know that according to this report, employment in construction decreased by 25,000.
That is what is being said on housing, considering as always the so-called good measures we have tolerated far too long, in housing in Canada. While reading the speeches from the ministers of that time, be they Progressive Conservatives, Liberals or NDP, one was under the impression
Mortgage Financing
that that was going to settle the problem, to provide a solution. Now let us see how things really stand. On page 36 of this report, under the title "Housing", one can read and I quote:
Housing: The main housing problems in Quebec are a matter of quality in housing and means of acquiring a house rather than a matter of quantity.
You will understand why in a few minutes. It is very simple: the birth-rate is falling.
I come back to the quotation:
The standards normally used to determine quality in housing show a steady improvement; it remains that Montreal and the province of Quebec-
And at this stage, I invite the minister to listen to me with great attention.
-it remains that Montreal and the province of Quebec as a whole have twice as many overcrowded dwellings than Toronto and the province of Ontario respectively.
-Moreover, in Montreal in 1971, more than 24,000 housing units did not have running water (6,000 in Toronto) and 16,395 units had no bath or shower.
And this situation existed in Montreal, in Canada, in 1971.
Mr. Speaker, how can we improve this situation? If people live in tenements, it is because they cannot afford to buy a house, because their income is too low for them to obtain the money they need from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the other financial institutions. And it is not with a bill such as the one before us, which will contribute to put people further in debt, that we shall solve their problems. I see that 24,000 units in Montreal-right here, in 1971-have no running water and that 16,395 have no both or shower, I believe that it is my duty to ask the minister to think twice before saying that all it takes to solve the problem is another "rigging" of government officials who will investigate and determine what the problems of housing are.
Mr. Speaker, this situation is revolting, and on page 37 of the report, we read that:
Low income families-
Some hon. members suggest that Creditistes have coloured dreams when we say that the monetary and financial system are the root of the problem.
I continue the quotation:
Low income families-
How many are there of these in the province of Quebec? In 1967, there were 248,000 low income families in Quebec.
Low income families (248,000 families in Quebec in 1967) must frequently spend an excessive portion of their incomes on housing at the expense of other essentials, unless they accept to live in overcrowded or substandard lodgings.
-without baths, showers or running water.
This problem is particularly acute in the cases of our senior citizens and Indian population (35,000 people in Quebec); the latter are the worst off in the province, as far as lodging is concerned.
And it is not over yet. I read on:
In Montreal, housing stock increased by 47 per cent between 1961 and 1971-
6740

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing
When we were supposed to have some extraordinary legislation allowing the construction of a greater number of dwellings and meant to improve the availability of housing for those families, the conditions are as follows:
The housing stock in Montreal has increased by 47 per cent between 1961 and against 1971 against 60 per cent in Toronto. While the number of individual dwellings is increasing more slowly than the number of apartments-
-the large apartment buildings where people are shut in-
-in other Canadian areas, the contrary is true in Quebec; however, a reversal of that trend has recently been noted. The number of housing starts in Quebec between 1961 and 1971 has been lower than the national average.
If the present trends are maintained, the increase in number of households in Quebec will remain substantially stable, that is 52,000 a year up to 1986; in Ontario, it will increase from 92,000 a year between 1971 to 1976 to 119,000 a year during the period of 1981 to 1986-
Mr. Speaker, that is the context in which Bill C-135 will be applied.
Those are the facts; I am not making them up. They are from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. After all the efforts of the former minister of Regional Economic Expansion and those of successive ministers, those are the results.
Mr. Speaker, still too many Canadians do not have access to ownership, particularly those on low or fixed income, older people, unemployment insurance recipients, social welfare recipients and so many others. It was said earlier that over 248,000 families in Quebec did not have access to ownership.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that as long as he will sponsor finance-dictated bills encouraging a system of indebtedness for Canadians and increased profits for those profiteering companies he will prejudice the normal evolution of a normal society that is there to allow every citizen to have a decent home.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to understand that the problem is not one of knowing whether the interest rate would be 714, 6 or 3 per cent but one of realizing that in order to pay back that interest of 714, 6 or 3 per cent, Canadians must have an adequate income, and as long as those who help finance make money to the detriment of small people who do not have the means to increase their income are allowed to continue to do so, we will be faced with an extremely serious housing problem.
While I am at it, I would also like to say to the minister that there would certainly be grounds for an in-depth and serious inquiry into the questionable practices of Central Mortgage and Housing and certain contractors. Mr. Speaker, dog houses are being built with their co-operation; houses crumble down, houses where construction is clearly at fault and inadequate, small houses that cannot be heated in winter, and that are being built here and elsewhere, especially in Quebec; I know at least that in Quebec, this is so. I seems to me that the minister could do more, he who is responsible for that Crown corporation. He could see to it that the standards of that corporation are followed, that the homes where Canadians will live are truly comfortable and of reasonable quality.

Mr. Speaker, if anything must be done, let us do it well and tackle the real problem. First, the sales tax on building materials imposed by the federal government ought to be abolished if we really mean to get better homes built and made available to more people. Secondly, new sources of funds should be created through CMHC by having recourse to the services of the Bank of Canada. If governments can turn to the chartered banks to finance their housing programs, why can they not do it by calling upon the institution that belongs to all Canadians, the Bank of Canada?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to give special attention to those areas where slums, unsanitary, inadequate and even revolting housing conditions prevail, and as a matter of urgency to set up programs that will enable these people to move either into 15-floor apartment buildings or into single family dwellings.
It seems to me that this government like, the previous ones, have failed utterly with regard to that problem of special importance to our large urban centres. We know that large urban areas will continue to grow and expand to the detriment of rural areas. We must now establish, urbanization programs which will respect human beings, which will allow Canadians to live adequately in respectable and acceptable homes.
At present, Canadians are forced not only to reimburse two or three times the initial value of their home, but governments do not check the quality of these homes and do not see to their improvement.
Finally, if seems to me, and I would like to tell him in a sincere way, that current programs to help owners improve their home are plainly insufficient and do not agree with reality. Many of our fellow citizens would like to improve their property, their original investment, but credit charges are excessive and these people are forced to forsake it and let their home deteriorate. Here again, it seems to me that the minister would be more than welcome it he tackled this particular problem of improving existing buildings and especially the financial problems it involves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would advise the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate on second reading.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief so we may vote before six o'clock pursuant to the order of the House. I want to make a few remarks about some of the debate we have had.
First of all, I am extremely indebted to my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Nine out of the ten speeches in the debate today and yesterday have come from members of the New Democratic Party, and I am indebted to my hon. friend from British Columbia for pointing out that he joined the debate because he did not know much about housing, and judging by the other speeches, nor did any of the other members. As I say, I am indebted to him for that perceptive comment on the speeches of his colleagues.
September 19, 1973

Yesterday, and to some extent this afternoon, our friends from the New Democratic Party clothed themselves, as they often do, in self-righteousness and pointed out that they were the only members of the House who had any humanitarian instincts, any concern for the housing needs of the people of Canada. For a group that claims to be the only humanitarians in the House, I am surprised, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was, that they repeatedly have to tell us and the people of Canada that they are the only humanitarians. I thought that humanitarianism was something that was obvious, that stood out, and that we need not be told about it once, twice, three times during the course of each speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously, the Canadian people, all of whom are humanitiarian, have not bought their sales talk.


Nels Edwin Nelson: They sure did in the west.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Most of the speeches have dealt not with the bill at all but with the housing situation in Canada and measures that were passed by this House a couple of months ago. I had hoped that the research assistants of the New Democratic Party had read Bill C-133 and the information put out just recently by CMHC as to those new amendments dealing with all the new housing programs of the government. But obviously they have not done so. I would encourage them to do so, Mr. Speaker, so that they know what the housing policy of this government is.
In the speeches of these hon. members yesterday and today, there was no mention of the measures passed by this House, and now implemented by CMHC and the government of Canada, dealing with problems relating to non-profit housing corporations and how benefits have been expanded, the new co-operative housing program, the neighbourhood improvement program, and the repair and rehabilitation program that my hon. friend from Quebec spoke about the other day, all of which are aimed at low and moderate income Canadians and which correct some of the housing difficulties that they encounter.
Similarly, there was no mention of the measures this House just passed, and which are now implemented, regarding land assembly and the amount of money set aside for that program, or the programs dealing with public housing, or the amendments to the National Housing Act with regard to Indian housing and the right of Indians to avail themselves totally and completely of programs under the National Housing Act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Get to the bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There was no mention by them of the assisted home ownership program, about which I wish the members of the New Democratic Party would read and persuade people to take advantage of. I would be happy to send them a description of that program.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), I think it was, said words to the effect that we need a housing program to look after people with incomes between $6,000 to $7,000. Details may be obtained from the program itself, but generally it will serve families in the income range of from $6,000 to $11,000 per annum by way of subsidized
Mortgage Financing
interest rates, reducing interest rates to as low as 6 per cent for people in the low and moderate income ranges.
The best thing that this group could do for housing, Mr. Speaker, is to persuade at least three of the governments with which I think they have some connection, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, to take full advantage of these newly passed programs. Then, instead of two days of rhetoric we might get some houses built in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I hope the members of the New Democratic Party will take that message with them to those three provinces, and that my hon. friend from Quebec who has just spoken will also take that message to the government of Quebec and ask them to take full advantage of the programs that this parliament has just enacted.
This bill is another measure, another instrument, in a comprehensive housing program and must be related to the other measures of which I have spoken which were enacted in Bill C-133, the amendments to the National Housing Act. This bill will benefit a very substantial number of people. However, the criticism of last evening apparently was that it is a bill that is directed toward the middle income people who are looking for their own mortgage money. Apparently a bill addressed to the middle income people in the eyes of the NDP is a bad bill. While Bill C-133 was aimed at and provided a program for, low and moderate income people this bill is aimed at those who can make their own way, but apparently it is not for this parliament to address itself to those Canadians who want to and can make their own way. According to the speeches of last night this bill is bad in NDP eyes because it attends to the problems of homeowners in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg. I think a bill which looks after the homeowners of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Ottawa is a pretty good bill. But apparently those are areas of the country which this parliament should not concern itself with because these are cities which, at least according to the NDP, should be ignored.
This bill will help people in those cities and others because essentially it will make it easier and more attractive for people, not just institutions, to invest their savings in residential mortgages. It is designed to bring in new and often small people, small savers, who now do not operate in the mortgage field, by making mortgages easier to deal in and by making them, in relation to other forms of investment, more attractive to institutions like pension funds and credit unions so that they may come into the mortgage business more heavily.
The purpose of this bill is to attract new money into mortgages. There has been a good deal of discussion in the speeches about the banks, life insurance companies and trust companies. This bill is not directed at and will not benefit them. They are in the mortgage business. This bill is not aimed at bringing those people into the residential mortgage business. It was drafted in a technical way to answer specifically the request, for example, from a group in my province which is important, the British Columbia Central Credit Union. This union, and the credit unions across Canada who are increasingly playing an important part in residential mortgages, wanted to avail themselves
26454-62S

September 19, 1973
Mortgage Financing
of the residential mortgage exchange corporation to be set up by this bill. I had thought that the New Democratic Party had some friendship and support for the credit union movement across Canada. All I can say is that in opposing the mortgage exchange corporation they are getting out of touch with what I thought was their own constituency. The making of mortgages and the mortgage document more liquid through the mortgage exchange corporation compared with other forms of investment will lend a greater degree of competitiveness in relation to other investments and will attract more capital which will have a downward effect on interest rates.
As I have pointed out, this is a highly technical bill. Essentially what we are trying to do is create two new institutions, the residential mortgage exchange corporation to create a market of exchange for mortgages and the mortgage insurance corporations to bring new investors into the field, not the banks, the insurance companies or trust companies which already are there but pension funds, retirement plans, credit unions and small investors. I was surprised to hear the objections of the NDP. I say surprised because I know parts of this bill, such as the exchange corporation, are wanted and needed by the credit unions of this country who are engaged in the residential mortgage business. I would have hoped that the NDP would have supported the creation of an institution which would allow the credit unions of this country to play an even more important part than they are already.
I was sorry to hear all the speeches about rip-offs. I would have hoped that rather than the doctrinaire approach, the cliches and rhetoric we have had we might have had an analysis of the bill. It seems to me, however, that cliches and rhetoric seem to be, judging by the speeches we heard last night, a substitute for thinking and analysis in the view of the NDP. I am sorry we have had the rather worn-out advertising slogan they used in the election campaign and since, because I think it has blinded them to what this bill is really all about.
The interest on mortgages accrued by mortgage investment companies is passed on to the shareholders and taxed in their hands. That is hardly a rip-off. If the investor in mortgages is an individual, it is part of his taxable income. In the case of a corporation investing in mortgages, that income from mortgages is taxable as corporate income. All we are doing is avoiding putting a double tax on mortgage interest payments. Surely, if we taxed mortgage interest twice, once in the hands of the mortgage investment corporation and once in the hands of the shareholder, be he individual or corporation-as the NDP is advocating-that would only serve to push rates up and slow down the flow of residential mortgage business. Surely, in the face of the growing savings and pension funds in this country it would be assinine to tax their income from mortgages when we at the very same time are trying to encourage those pension funds to become involved in residential mortgages. As I say, it would be assinine to do that.
If the pension funds, the savings of Canadian workers- which is what pension funds are-are invested in mutual funds, stocks and bonds and are non-taxable, are we to take the NDP view that we should tax the funds of the Canadian workers which are invested in pension funds and retirement plans when they are used to help the
[Mr. Basford.j
housing situation in this country through investment in residential mortgages. The NDP say tax them. That is a silly policy. It is what happens when a party such as the NDP uses cliches and rhetoric rather than thinking and analysis.


Mr. Broadbent:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am enjoying this very, very humourous address but one of the rules of the House, of course, is that one must stick well within the canons of honesty. I should like the minister to present one illustration in support of the claim he just made, namely that members of the New Democratic Party said that representatives of the trade unions or other groups which have money in mortgages should be taxed for this activity. Was there one speech in the debate which made that claim?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is really not a point of order. I daresay the minister may have some difficulty in this respect when the bill is in committee where points like that can be raised. However, if he wishes to reply he may.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it comes about by reason of the fact that pension funds, as a rule, are not engaged in residential mortgage business. There are instruments which we hope will attract them into the residential mortgage market. The NDP is saying that those corporations should not be set up and that such a tax arrangement is a rip-off, and they are therefore making it impossible or much more difficult for those pension funds to be in the residential mortgage business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: That is pretty tortuous, Ron.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In conclusion-so that we can leave before six o'clock-may I point out that I have tried to remind hon. members of what this bill is all about, namely, simply to establish two institutions: one, a mortgage exchange corporation to provide greater liquidity to mortgage documents and in that way attract more people into the residential mortgage business, and two, to allow the formation of mortgage investment companies so that those smaller investors and pension funds which are not now engaged can, through the tax instrument of mortgage investment companies, be attracted, we hope, into lending money on ordinary houses in this country. I have never said that this bill is the whole answer to the housing problem. It is one part of a comprehensive program that bas to be considered in particular relationship to Bill C-133, which was just passed, which was supported by the NDP who, in my reading of the debate, were complimentary about that bill which was aimed at the problem of low income Canadians in this country.
This bill, of course, like any other bill, does not remake the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Well said.
September 19, 1973


Frank Howard: It does not even recognize that the world exists.
Mortgage Financing
Messrs:


Mr. Jamieson:: Your members would take eight days to do that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not seen a bill yet that remade the world, but perhaps the NDP think that they have. I know that they feel they are closer to God than most.


David Lewis: Which God, Ron?


Stanley Ronald Basford: But it seems to me that it should, it does and it will benefit Canadians and improve the capital market and the flow of money into the residential mortgage business in this country. Surely, in view of the present situation in the country, that bill should be supported. We are building houses in record numbers in this country, 260,000 units a year. We will need $4 billion to $5 billion a year in investment to maintain those targets. Surely, this kind of bill which can introduce into the residential mortgage business, I would estimate, some $500 million almost immediately should not be turned down. Surely, we should pass this legislation to attract that money into the residential mortgage business and make that contribution toward solving the problems we have. I hope hon. members will support the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr, Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
House Leader about the business for tomorrow. Will it be the Parole Act?
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock-the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion, but just to make sure I rise to ask the government


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion and we will be disposed to commence tomorrow with the Parole Act.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being nine minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, September 20, 1973