1973-03-19

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 22 Elizabeth. II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday. March 19. 1973


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last June I reported that Canada had extended an invitation to the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm to host a major United Nations Conference and Exposition on Human Settlements. This invitation was very well received by the United Nations and it has been agreed to stage the conference-exposition in Vancouver. I am pleased to report that the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver have agreed to accommodate and support this major world forum as host province and host city. It will be the largest international conference ever held in Canada, bringing between 4,000 and 5,000 participants from 130 countries.
Originally the General Assembly had agreed that the conference exposition should be in 1975. At the request of the United Nations, they have obtained agreement of member states to shift the date to June, 1976.
The conference-exposition will be the first United Nations meeting devoted exclusively to the subject of human settlements and human habitation. Instead of identifying problems and determining directions for future research, the point will be to present, in various forms, answers that have been found. Policies will be discussed; resolutions for action will be proposed. But, most important, will be the demonstration of solutions. Much of the action will be in the form of demonstration projects. Some of these will have a national focus; others will have regional significance; and those of more universal interest will be exhibited in Vancouver. Canadian demonstration projects will be especially important since conference participants will be able to see them, both before and after the meetings take place, at different locations across the country.
The provinces have been consulted on this matter since our initiative in Stockholm last June and we will be working in close co-operation with them in preparing for the conference and in selecting Canadian demonstration projects. I have sent letters to all the provincial premiers, inviting them to designate a minister and officials to join us in planning Canada's participation.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians will enthusiastically support this major effort to confront these important issues that affect all of mankind.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I received the outline of the minister's comments just as I entered the House. I think it is very appropriate that this announcement should be made by the minister today when the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities is meeting in Ottawa. No one can disagree with the efforts of all countries of the world to face the question of proper settlement and planning for the future.
It is an excellent idea that this United Nations Conference on Human Settlements should meet in Canada, particularly in Vancouver in that setting which speaks for itself so far as the environment is concerned. Those in this House who are concerned welcome the statement by the minister that the conference is to take place in Canada. As a nation with a particularly large land mass and with particularly crowded settlements lying close to the American border, the questions of settlement, planning and population redirection are important to us as they are to all nations of the world.
I am glad that the minister has sent letters to the provincial premiers so that joint planning can take place with regard to participation in the conference. I would hope, too, that the minister might see fit to involve all the urban centres and municipalities in some of the planning for the conference. It has been the lack of their participation in the past that has so seriously limited the scope of national policies in reference to urban affairs and housing.
I hope the minister will use the coincidence of his announcement today, and the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in Ottawa to consider further municipal participation. I say, as I have said before, that at this stage of our development there should be a particular agenda whereby the municipalities can meet with the federal government and the provinces not as observers but as spokesmen to set out the problems they face. As 1 pointed out last week, only 4 per cent of wage earners in certain urban centres of Canada can afford to buy new homes, and if you take into account the whole nation the figure is an estimated 10 per cent. I hope that by the time the conference meets that figure will have improved. If it should go the other way, we will reach the point where very few wage earners in Canada will be able to afford a new home in our urban centres. I trust I have been brief enough, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, our group welcomes the statement by the minister that the United Nations Conference and Exposition on Human Settlements will be held in the city of Vancouver in 1976. A conference of this type is long overdue. For a number of years, environmental groups, groups interested in hous-

March 19, 1973
Conference on Human Settlements ing and others have been pressing the government to take some action on the human settlement problems that face us in Canada. We are very fortunate to live in a nation with a tremendous amount of territory and without the excess population that some other nations have.
To bring the problem into focus, Mr. Speaker, I point out that, from all indications, urbanization of areas in this country and throughout the world by the year 2000, only 27 years away, will mean that approximately nine out of ten people will be living in urban centres. We have noted the increasing number of problems that have arisen in Canada and in other countries because of the urbanization that is taking place. Some of the problems facing us concern housing, urban renewal, pollution, rapid transit and the pollution problems associated with it. There is also the problem of citizen participation. I urge the minister to co-ordinate a number of research projects prior to 1976 in an effort to get as wide participation as possible by interested groups throughout Canada to make certain that the Canadian contribution to the conference will be sound and solid.
Much remains to be done. Despite a lot of lip service to a national urban policy, we have done relatively little. Problems face us in the northern part of Canada, for example, where there is talk of settlements being established. We find that we do not have the expertise nor the amount of experimentation necessary to ensure that we can build these settlements with any degree of safety. I again urge the minister that action be taken.
Our party heartily welcomes this move by the government. We not only hope that the conference will be a success but that it will also help to lead Canada and the world to a solution of the very grievous human settlement problems that now face us.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit party welcome the announcement made today by the hon. minister. We again regret only having the English version, and we trust that next time the minister will let us have the French translation in time.
The conference on urban problems will be held in Vancouver in 1976, and will bring together delegates from 130 countries. It will be an extremely important conference for Canada, and for the rest of the word.
I wholeheartedly support the statement by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to the effect that there should be consultations throughout Canada prior to the conference, especially at the municipal level. Indeed, it is municipalities that have to deal with urban problems, and we should give municipal authorities a chance to draw up a concise program and a summary that they could submit to the conference, as well as suggested solutions to Canada's problems.
At the conference, Canada should not only suggest to other countries valid solutions to urban problems, but also report on our specific achievements as of that date.
Rather than coming to the conference with just theories, Canada should prove that she has made concrete achieve-

ments in that field, and found realistic financial solutions that other countries could adopt in solving their own urban problems.
The Canadian government has three years in which to put forward financial solutions to offer to the other countries, not just to the technical problems of urbanization and overpopulation, but also to the financial problems, such as those pointed out over the week-end at the meeting of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, where they deplored the fact that the federal government does not appear to have established a policy of aid to municipalities, which are for the moment the only ones to suffer the effects of the basic problems of urbanization.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-162, to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage container).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: The purpose of this bill is to assist in combatting the ever-increasing toll of fatal motor vehicle accidents, over 50 per cent of which involve alcohol. The bill would amend the Criminal Code so as to require sellers and importers of alcoholic beverages to have on their products a cautionary label stating: "Excessive drinking impairs driving ability".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: for leave to introduce Bill C-163, respecting the signing and implementation of International Labour Conference Convention 96 concerning fee-charging employment agencies.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at having the federal government negotiate with the provinces to ensure their implementation of International Labour Conference Convention 96 concerning fee-charging employment agencies. The federal government would then become a signatory to that convention and the provinces would pass legislation in accordance with the intent of the convention to regulate private employment agencies and to prevent some of them from charging exorbitant fees for the placement of unemployed workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 19, 1973

Motion agreed, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
* *
*


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND AIR CANADA
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister oi Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-164, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Department of Transport initiated legal proceedings against the owner of the ship called Traverse de Levis which ran aground in Montmagny Basin in the Autumn of 1972, spilling out a certain amount of oil and, if so (a) who was then the owner of the ship (b) what type of proceedings have been taken (c) was the owner held responsible for the damage caused by pollution?
2.	What were the costs of depolluting and cleaning?
3.	Who paid such costs, to date?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The Ministry of Transport has initiated proceedings against the owner of the Traverse de Levis for discharging oil into the waters of Canada at Montmagny, P.Q. (a) The owner of the Traverse de Levis at the time of the incident was Mr. Angelo Nittols. (b) Proceedings have been taken under the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations P.C. 1971-2005 of September 1971. The case is scheduled to be heard on April 6, 1973. (c) The owner is held responsible for damage resulting from the incident and is liable for suit in the civil courts.
2.	The cost of recovering and cleaning up the oil was $12,230.
3.	The Ministry of Transport paid the costs of recovering and cleaning up the oil, in view of the urgency involved in the case.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the total amount of money granted under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology in the past two years?
2.	In British Columbia (a) what was the total amount during this period (b) who received this money during this period?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: The following data are for the last two complete years, i.e., 1970/71 and 1971/72 and relates to the amount of money committed. 1. $85.9 million.
2.	(a) $6.2 million (b) See schedule I and II following.
Schedule I
PAIT Grants Made in British Columbia During Fiscal Year 1970/71
Company Name and City
Amount

Canoe Cove Marina Ltd., Sidney	72,250
Cominco Ltd., Vancouver	603,000
Ferrocon Industries International Ltd.,
Vancouver	204,000
General Propulsion Systems Ltd., Vancouver 52,774 Glenayre Electronics Ltd., Vancouver	18,500
Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd., Vancouver	42,500
Lenkurt Electric Co. of Canada Ltd.,
Burnaby	743,344
QM Machine Works Ltd., Prince George	59,800
Sun Rype Products Ltd., Kelowna	89,000
Trident Aircraft Ltd., Richmond	400,000
Viscount Video Systems Ltd., Vancouver	79,000
Schedule II
PAIT Grants Made in British Columbia During Fiscal Year 1971/72
Company Name and City	Amount

B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd., Vancouver	141,400
British Columbia Packers, Richmond	52,100
Cleanair Combustion Systems Ltd.,
Vancouver	48,375
Cominco Ltd., Vancouver	375,000
Cominco Ltd., Vancouver	241,900
Electric Power Equipment, Vancouver	65,000
Glenayre Electronics Ltd., Vancouver	27,500
Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd., Vancouver	40,000
Hobrough Ltd., Vancouver	264,144
International Hydrodynamics Co. Ltd.,
Vancouver	71,200
Letson & Burpee Ltd., Vancouver	195,115
Lockheed Petroleum Services,
New Westminster	1,573,750
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Vancouver	278,847
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Vancouver	108,800

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Company Name and City	Amount

Spilsbury & Tindall Ltd., Vancouver	179,000
Westdrill Equipment Ltd., Richmond	65,000
Windsor Machine Co. Ltd-, Burnaby	112,500


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of the recipients of grants under the Development of Management Courses Program (DMC) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Herb Breau: 1. The Development of Management Courses program was initiated in 1972 and the contributions approved to January 4, 1973 (Fiscal Year 1972-73) are as follows: Society of Industrial Accountants of Canada, $50,000. Ontario General Contractors Association, $17,250. Mechanical Contractors Association, Ontario, $29,250. Montreal Dress and Sportswear Manufacturers' Guild, $5,000. Canadian Institute of Management, $22,000. Mechanical Contractors Association, Toronto, $21,000.
2.	To encourage the improvement of management of managerial competence in Canadian industry by assisting associations to develop or revise management retraining or upgrading courses of high quality. Care is exercised that the program does not contribute to an undesirable proliferation of courses.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Lewis: What were the book profits, taxable incomes, federal income taxes and provincial income taxes reported by corporations for 1970, distributed by the 37 industry groups, plus the nine industry groups, cross-classified by (a) asset size (i) less than $1 million (ii) $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 (iii) $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 (iv) $10,000,000 to $24,999,999 (v) $25,000,000 and over (b) control (i) foreign (ii) Canadian?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: Information on the book profits, taxable incomes, federal income taxes and provincial income taxes reported by corporations for 1970 distributed by asset size and control is not, at present, available. However, it will be included in the annual report under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (Part 1, Corporations) for 1970 to be tabled in the near future.


Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Has the Eastern Coast Pipeline Ltd. filed notice of intent with the National Energy Board to build a pipeline and (a) if so, is CNR a participant or shareholder in the proposed venture (b) if not, has

anyone on its behalf filed notice of intent to build a pipeline with the National Energy Board?
2.	Has CNR granted permission for the use of its right-of-way and, if so, on what terms?
3.	Who are the principal parties involved in the venture and what form does that participation take?


Mr. lohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the National Energy Board and the Management of Canadian National Railways as follows: 1. Yes. (a) The Canadian National is not a party to these arrangements, (b) No.
2.	No.
3.	Not known.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	How many homicides were committed in 1972 with the use of rifles?
2.	How many homicides occurred as a result of restricted weapons, for example, with handguns, etc.?
3.	How many homicides were committed by other means?
4.	How many firearms of all kinds have been sold in Canada since 1955?


Herb Breau: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: Figures are not yet available for 1972. However, data are provided below for 1971. 1. In 1971 there were 100 homicides committed with rifles.
2.	In 1971 there were 54 homicides committed with restricted weapons.
3.	In 1971 there were 233 homicides committed by methods other than shooting.
4.	Statistics Canada does not collect this information.


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown by province of the following items listed in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of National Health and Welfare (a) Vote 5a, Abuse of Drugs, $1,800,000 (b) Vote 35a, National Welfare Grants (New Horizons), $6,150,000 (c) Vote 45a, Fitness and Amateur Sport, $1,000,000?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Supplementary Estimates "A"
Anticipated Expenditure by Province for 1972-73
		Vote 35a National Welfare	Vote 45a
Vote 5a	Grants	Fitness andAbuse of	(New	AmateurProvince	Drugs	Horizons)	SportYukon Territory	. $ 60,000	|$ 4,305	$ 6,400Northwest Territories	. 60,000	British Columbia	. 275,000	722,625	222,850Alberta	.. 275,000	418,815	90,800Saskatchewan	.. 30,000	333,945	49,700Manitoba	.. 175,000	337,020	58,400Ontario	. 370,000	2,271,810	314,900
March 19, 1973

Province	Vote 5a Abuse of Drugs	Vote 35a National Welfare Grants (New Horizons)	Vote 45a Fitness and Amateur SportQuebec	.. 325,000	1,456,320	147,950New Brunswick	.. 40,000	193,110	31,700Nova Scotia	.. 50,000	255,225	45,300Prince Edward Island. ..	.. 20,000	43,665	8,900Newfoundland	.. 120,000	113,160	23,100$1,800,000	$6,150,000	$1,000,000


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	Is Statistics Canada having its researcher's data returned (a) by post (b) by bank messenger service (c) by other means?
2.	If any means other than the post is being used, for what reason?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: 1. (a) The bulk of Statistics Canada's survey questionnaires (researchers' data) are returned via post, (b) Bank Messenger Service is used occasionally, (c) Rail Express is used for bulk shipments.
2.	The Bank Messenger Service is used occasionally when it is necessary to meet survey deadlines. Rail Express is used for economical reasons, to transport bulk shipments of survey questionnaires to and from the eight regional offices across Canada. Other means such as telex, telegrams, or telephone may occasionally be used to confirm or obtain additional data, etc.


Mr. McKenzie: Does the government consider returnable three-quart plastic containers for milk as a health hazard and, if so, does it intend to enact legislation which would prevent dairies from distributing them?


Marc Lalonde: No. When used as intended, these bottles are not considered to constitute a hazard to health. The primary concern regarding the returnable plastic containers for milk results from consumer misuse of these bottles as storage containers for gasoline, solvents and other obnoxious materials.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported into Canada during the year 1972 (a) from what countries (b) in what amounts?
2.	How many pounds of cheese were imported into Canada during the year 1972 (a) from what countries (b) in what amounts?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Butter was imported into Canada during the 1972 calendar year (a) from the following countries and (b) in the following amounts: Australia, 13,400 lbs; United States, 8,937,200 lbs; Total, 8,950,600 lbs.
2.	Cheese was imported into Canada during the 1972 calendar year (a) from the following countries, and (b) in
Order Paper Questions
the following amounts: United Kingdom, 991,800 lbs; Ireland, 48,400 lbs; Austria, 1,718,800 lbs; Belgium-Luxem-burg, 4,300 lbs; Denmark, 7,359,500 lbs; Finland, 2,457,400 lbs; France, 3,000,100 lbs; Germany West, 1,404,600 lbs; Greece, 1,504,300 lbs; Iceland, 4,900 lbs; Sweden, 450,900 lbs; Italy, 2,909,100 lbs; Netherlands, 5,276,100 lbs; Norway, 1,020,300 lbs; Portugal, 345,800 lbs; Switzerland, 4,550,400 lbs; Poland, 136,000 lbs; Australia, 111,800 lbs; Argentina, 612,400 lbs; United States, 3,603,400 lbs.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What was the final amount of financial grants made available by the government toward the construction of the Long Boat Marina at Western Shore, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the basis used for establishing the amount of this grant?
3.	What was the final cost of the Long Boat Inn development?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
The Department of Public Works did not give any financial grants toward the construction of the Long Boat Marina at Western Shore, Nova Scotia. Under the Marina Policy however, the Department did construct a breakwater and did all initial dredging.
2.	N/A.
3.	The expenditure for Department of Public Works' work was $396,438.


Mr. Coates: On what date was the Pension Appeals Board established by the Department of National Health and Welfare and (a) what are the names of the members (b) what was the position of each prior to appointment (c) what is the present salary of each member (d) what is the term of the appointment in each instance?


Marc Lalonde: The Pension Appeals Board was established by the Parliament of Canada through an act entitled the Canada Pension Plan, being Chapter 51 of the statutes of 1964-65 (now R.S.C. 1970, Chapter C-5), proclaimed in force on May 5, 1965 by SOR/65-206. (a) and (b) The Hon. Mr. Justice Alfred M. Monnin, a member of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Chairman. The Hon. Mr. Justice Jacques Boucher of the Superior Court of Quebec, Member. The Hon. Mr. Justice Samuel S. Bard of the Superior Court of Quebec, Member. His Honour Judge M. L. Tyrwhitt-Drake of the County Court of the County of Victoria, British Columbia, Member. All retain their appointments as judges in their respective courts, (c) In conformity with the Judges Act, they do not receive any salary as members of the Board, (d) All hold office at the Queen's pleasure.
2326

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since its inception, what has been the total number of appeals heard by the Pension Appeals Board and what is the breakdown between favourable and unfavourable decisions to appeals placed before this Board?
2.	Of the total number of appeals placed before the Board, how many were at the initiative of the applicant for pension and how many were as a result of actions taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The Pension Appeals Board acts as a tribunal of appeal for both the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. The total number of Appeals heard (i.e. brought to a conclusion) by the Board to date is 184 of which 62 are under the CPP and 122 under the QPP.
Total Canada Quebec
Favourable (to appelant) 47	24	23Unfavourable	136	37	99
In one instance, on consent of all parties, the matter was referred back to the Minister for readjudication. Seven further appeals have been heard and are under advisement. Still others have not yet been heard.
2. Of the total number of appeals for pensions (as opposed to appeals for contributions) placed before the Board (198), 164 were at the initiative or on behalf of the applicant for pension (Canada 7, Quebec 157). The remaining 34 were launched by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many commercial vessels weighing 500 tons or over, travelled in and out of Canadian waters through the Straits of Juan de Fuca in each calendar year 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What was the nature of the cargoes carried by these ships?
3.	Under the flag of which country or countries, did these ships carry on their trade?
4.	What were the main destination of these ships?


Herb Breau: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: Statistics Canada compiles data on the cargo of commercial vessels only by ports of arrival and departure. No information is collected on the routes used to travel to and from these ports and therefore the data are not available to reply to this question.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Has the government taken steps to monitor and/or direct inbound and outbound maritime traffic in Canadian coastal waters and, if so, on what date were these steps taken and in what form?
2.	How long has the government been monitoring and/or directing inbound and outbound maritime traffic in Canadian coastal waters?


Jean Marchand: 1. The Ministry of Transport has taken steps in a number of locations to monitor and/or direct inbound and outbound maritime traffic in Canadian coastal waters. Marine Traffic Regulating was implemented on the St. Lawrence River in August, 1966, Marine Traffic Regulating in the Canso, N.S. area on April 1, 1972, a Navigation Information service in Halifax Harbour on April 15, 1969, a Navigation Information Service at Saint John Harbour and approaches, N.B. on July 15, 1970 and a Marine Navigation Information Service for the southern coastal waters of British Columbia on July 1, 1972.
2. The Ministry of Transport has been monitoring and/or directing maritime traffic since the introduction of the St. Lawrence Marine Traffic Control System in August, 1966.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	In 1972, of those living below the Statistics Canada poverty line (a) what percentage of families (i) had no male head (ii) had a chronic physical problem in the family (iii) lived in houses considered unfit by normal Canadian standards (b) what percentage of males and females (i) had less than grade 8 education (ii) were unemployed more than 10 weeks (iii) were unemployed more than 20 weeks?
2.	In 1972, of those with incomes less than or equal to the poverty line, how many were (a) farm families (b) non-farm families (c) Indian and/or Metis families?
3.	In 1972, what percentage of income was paid out by Canadians on welfare for (a) food (b) housing?
4.	In 1972, what percentage of the incomes of those earning less than $2,000 a year went to paying federal income tax?


Herb Breau: 10 weeks of unemployment in 1971. (iii) 13 per cent of males and 4 per cent of females (or 8 per cent of all low income unattached individuals) reported more than 10 weeks of unemployment in 1971.
2.	In 1971 of all low income families: (i) 18 per cent on farms but only 8 per cent could be classified as farm families on basis of their income composition.13* (ii) 92 per cent were non-farm families.*3* (iii) no data available.
3.	In 1969 families and unattached individuals with more than 50 per cent of their income coming from government transfer payments, other than OAS, GIS, family allowances and UI benefits spent:*4* (a) 34.6 per cent of their total budget on food; (b) 24.1 per cent of their total budget on shelter.
4.	No data available in respect to earned income.
Notes: '"Number of low-income families was estimated at
814,000	in 1971. A family was below the low income cut-off if its income in 1971 was below: $3,355 for families of two members; $4,026 for families of three members; $4,697 for families of four members; $5,368 for families with five or more members.
"'Estimated number of low income unattached individuals was 651,000, i.e., unattached individuals with incomes below $2,013 in 1971.
<3>A family is considered a farm family if at least one member received more than 50 per cent of his total income in the form of net income from farming. '*[DOT]'Government transfer payments such as social assistance, veterans' pensions, war veterans' allowances, workmen's compensation, mothers' allowance, pensions for the blind and disabled.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to re-institute the requirement formerly contained in the Pollution Control Regulations governing the use of the Arctic area that there be a competent ice pilot or ice-trained officer on board and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the government consider that the safety and effectiveness of any shipping in that area depends on the capability of the Master to a large degree?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: 1. Section 26 of the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations requires, and has always required, that a qualified ice navigator be on board; (a) every tanker navigated in any zone; (b) every ship that is not a tanker, when navigated in any zone except during the normal open water period.
2.	Yes.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) What steps have been taken to determine the size and power of the most suitable icebreaker for Arctic service (b) what were the results?
2.	What decision has been reached as to the numbers of such vessels required?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to use such vessels for search and rescue functions?
Order Paper Questions
4.	Is it the intention of the government to provide that a charge will be levied against the rescued owner of a vessel beset in Arctic waters and, if so, on what basis will such a charge be levied?


Jean Marchand: 1. There really is no such thing as the most suitable icebreaker for Arctic service. The size and class depend on the type and duration of services to be provided. When the Louis S. St. Laurent was designed, it was determined that she was the best design for the over-all use required of her. The design of a particular class will depend on a combination of the zone in which it will operate and, as said previously, the type of service she will be expected to provide.
2.	No decision has been reached for it will depend on the increases or decreases in numbers and types of vessels to be served.
3.	All government ships are used for search and rescue operations as the situation dictates. Icebreakers are no exception.
4.	The question of charges to be levied is being considered but it is in the very early stages. We do not anticipate there would be any distinction between Arctic and other ice-infested waters.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What action has the government taken toward the establishment of a training program for seamen on Arctic icebreaker service?
2.	Has the government any plans for the establishment of a special institution for such a purpose and, if so (a) what are they (b) where will it be located?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to ensure that no effort is spared to ensure the recruitment of Northerners, particularly Eskimos, in both officer and seaman roles for such icebreaker service?


Jean Marchand: 1. Ships' officers receive training at the Canadian Coast Guard College in North Sydney with practical experience being obtained on board the icebreakers. Unlicensed personnel receive practical experience and training during icebreaking operations.
2.	A more comprehensive program for the training of unlicensed personnel is presently being considered. It is anticipated that it would probably take place at the same location as officers are presently being trained.
3.	There is no restriction on the recruitment of northerners in both the officer and unlicensed roles for services on any of our icebreakers. They would be recruited into positions compatible with their experience and would be given additional training if necessary.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to establish the Coast Guard as a distinct service, with its powers, duties and terms of reference defined by an Act of Parliament and, if so, will special efforts be made to recruit residents of Northern Canada, particularly Eskimos, for both officer and seaman roles and training?
2328

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: No, not at
the present time. There is no restriction on the recruitment of northerners in both the officer and unlicensed roles.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What action has been taken towards funding research into the design of a polar icebreaker with 100,000 or more horsepower, with a capability of 10 to 12-month operation in the Canadian Archipelago?
2.	Does the government consider research into such a vessel in the highest Canadian interest?
3.	At what date does the government estimate that the need for such a vessel would render its construction imperative?


Jean Marchand: 1. Studies have been carried out on the form that icebreaking hulls should take. Presently a contract is being let to carry out studies on gas turbines and other types of power sources for propulsion of icebreakers. We are also providing, for instrumentation, some of our icebreaker hulls to determine actual ice pressures to which they are subjected. Additional studies will be entered into as the requirement arises.
2.	Yes.
3.	This date would relate to some degree to the date that the natural resources are likely to be exploited in the north. It is presently estimated as being in the late seventies.


Mr. Forrestall: What arrangements, if any, have been made by the government to ensure the availability to commercial vessels in the Arctic waters of insurance at a reasonable or acceptable rate?


Jean Marchand: The government is not involved in the insurance business for commercial vessels. It has however a great interest and has provided voyages on our icebreakers, both in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the north, for representatives of the underwriters to allow them to observe firsthand the services which are available to ships operating in ice. By this and other means we are endeavouring to bring about rate reductions within the insurance industry.


Mr. Godin: Are lay-offs expected at the Department of Transport in Quebec City and, if so*(a) what are the reasons for such lay-offs (b) is it the intention of the government to take action to transfer such employees to other government agencies?


Jean Marchand: No.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Does the government operate a ferry service between Sorel and Berthier and, if so (a) what is the frequency of the service in each direction (b) what is the fare (i) per automobile (ii) per person?
2.	What were the profits or deficits for each year since 1962?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2. N/A.


Mr. Mather: What percentage of disposable income is spent on food in the yearly income categories (a) $2,400, (b) $4,800, (c) $10,000, (d) $15,000, (e) $20,000?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: Food as a percentage of total family expenditure is available from the 1969 national family expenditure survey. Such percentages for families and unattached individuals can be given within selected family income range (before tax) close to the five income levels referred to in the question, and these are as follows:
Food as Percentage of Total Family Expenditure
All Families and Unattached Individuals in Private Dwellings
Canada 1969 All Urban and Rural Areas (Except Yukon and NWT).
Income Range Before Tax


[Stage Direction]
Average Family Income in Range
[Stage Direction]
Food Per Cent of Total Expenditure
27.0
23.3
18.3 15.6
14.1
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what date was the tug Black Fir sunk?
2.	Was an enquiry held regarding the sinking and, if so, on what date?
3.	What were the findings of this enquiry?
4.	Were recommendations made by the board of enquiry regarding future stability tests of such tugs?
5.	How many such tugs have sunk since the loss of the Black Fir, and how many lives have been lost?
6.	Has the Department of Transport arranged an enquiry for April, 1973, resulting from the loss of a tug in February, 1972?


Jean Marchand: 1. March 9, 1963.
2. Yes. Preliminary inquiry, March 12,1963.
March 19, 1973

3.	The cause of the foundering could not be ascertained but it was conjectured that the tug sprang a leak.
4.	The report contained no recommendations, nor was stability a factor in this casualty.
5.	The Black Fir was 41 gross tons, (a) 40 tugs between 10 and 186 gross tons have sunk from all causes; (b) with the loss of 23 lives.
6.	The formal inquiry into the loss of the tug Haro Straits ended in Vancouver, February 12, 1973. The Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Collier was Commissioner and his findings are expected shortly.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is Mr. Colin D. Munro employed by the Treasury Board or another department or agency of the government and, if so (a) what position does he currently hold, and at what compensation (b) what was his previous employment and salary with the government?
2.	Is he permitted to work less than half the year and, if so, by what arrangement?
3.	How many other employees (a) in the Treasury Board (b) in the Public Service are the beneficiaries of similar arrangements as in Part 2?
4.	Is it the policy of the government to encourage such part-time employment in the Public Service?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
Yes. (a) Personnel administrator; $13,400-$19,200; (b) Personnel Administrator; $14,550-$16,15C.
2.	No; Mr. Munro is employed on a continuing full-time basis. However, in 1972, he was granted five (5) months leave without pay, consistent with the provisions of the terms and conditions of employment applying to his occupational group.
3.	(a) and (b) All federal public servants may be granted leave without pay under the discretionary authority vested in their Deputy Ministers, consistent with the provisions of applicable regulations and/or collective agreements.
4.	Where particular operational requirements apply, and/or in the interests of attracting qualified personnel unavailable for full-time employment, the Public Service has undertaken programs for recruitment of part-time employees. The latest figures available from the Public Service Commission show that, for the 1971 calendar year, 5,922 persons were employed, for various periods, on a part-time i.e., reduced hours, basis. In addition, 2,773 persons were employed on a seasonal basis i.e., working a full normal schedule in connection with seasonal programs.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): How many deputy ministers are there and what are their salaries?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: As of February 6, there were a total of 82 individuals classified at the DM level, including Deputy Heads, Associate Deputy Min-
Order Paper Questions
isters, and Heads and Members of certain Agencies and Commissions. As of the same date, there were 39 DM l's (salary range $34,000-$40,000), 35 DM 2's (salary range $40,000-$45,000), and 8 DM 3's (salary range $45,000-$50,-000).


Mr. Reid: Has the government any plans for the relocation of the two Indian Bands on the English River System, the Islington (White-dog) and Grassy Narrows Bands, whose main staple food, fish, is contaminated with mercury levels substantially above accepted Canadian levels?


Len Marchand: Discussions have been held with the Grassy Narrows Bands. They do not wish and the Department does not intend to relocate them at this time.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	What plans are under way for the provision of a fourth vessel to handle the rapidly increasing traffic load on the Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island-Caribou, Nova Scotia route?
2.	What plans are under way for the upgrading of the terminals for this service?


Jean Marchand: 1. There are no immediate plans under way for the provision of a fourth vessel for the Wood Islands-Caribou route. A 50 per cent increase in capacity has just been provided by the addition of a third vessel, the Prince Edward, commissioned in late 1972.
2. Upgrading of terminal facilities at Caribou, N.S., was carried out in 1972 with the construction of a terminal building and an exclusive ferry parking area, at a total cost of $550,000. There are no immediate plans for any major changes at Wood Islands, P.E.I., but consideration is being given to the possibility of adding a second berth if traffic trends seem to warrant it.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Has the Air Transport Committee received a complaint from three licensed air charter companies against an unlicensed air charter service operating out of Vancouver Harbour and, if so, on what date was this complaint received?
2.	Has the Department of Transport conducted an investigation into the complaint and, if so, on what date was this investigation completed?
3.	Will the Minister be advising the complainants of the results of the investigation and, if so, on what date?
4.	Has the Minister determined whether or not an offence has been committed?
5.	What action is the Minister planning to take in order to stop this unlicensed operation?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1.

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The Air Transport Committee received a complaint on December 1, 1972, from three companies licensed to operate air charters out of Vancouver Harbour against a company operating out of that point who was licensed to operate from another base.
2, 3, 4 and 5. This matter is a responsibility, under Part II of the Aeronautics Act, of the Canadian Transport Commission. The Air Transport Committee investigated the matter on December 4 and 5, 1972, and, on February 22, 1973, issued Order No. 1973-A-61 requiring the company in respect of which the complaint had been laid to cease and desist forthwith from operating in contravention of General Order 1972-3 Air, and to show cause by March 26, 1973 why its licence should not be cancelled or suspended.


Mr. Clarka (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Did the Irish Stardust, which ran aground near Alert Bay, British Columbia in January, 1973 with a resulting oil spill of serious proportions, have a coastal pilot on board?
2.	In what geographical areas of west coasted waters is a ship required to have a pilot on board?
3.	What is the maximum size of ship that does not require a pilot?
4.	Did the pilot, if any, or the skipper realize that the ship was holed after she was freed and continued upon her way to Victoria?
5.	Who ordered the ship to proceed to Victoria?
6.	'What are the estimated clean-up costs?
7.	What guarantees have been secured to recover cleanup costs and to compensate any persons who may have suffered loss or damage because of this accident?


Jean Marchand: 
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the government lay off certain categories of personnel covered by collective agreements immediately before the signing of such agreements and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Do such employees lose the benefit of retroactive payments where they were included in such collective agreements, due to the fact that they were not employed at the time of the signing of such agreements and, if so, for what reason?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. It
is not the practice or the policy of the government to lay off employees immediately before the signing of a collective agreement. If lay-offs should occur they would be due to lack of work or the discontinuance of a function.
2. Any employee who was laid off during the retroactive period would be eligible to receive an upward revision in pay if he applied for the retroactive payment not later than six (6) months after the date of approval of the upward revision in remuneration.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Herb Breau: 1. The cost of production printing, and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was $9,062.16.
2. A total of 3,000 of the 15,000 copies printed have been distributed since the publication was tabled January 22, 1973. Distribution continues at a rate of 100-150 weekly as a result of individual requests for information concerning the department. The remainder is earmarked for use at departmental sponsored seminars for industry held throughout the year.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many individuals were convicted of "drunk driving" during 1972?
2.	How many were convicted of driving while impaired during 1972?
3.	How many fatalities occurred as a result of accidents on roads and highways during 1972?
4.	How many were injured as a result of these accidents?
5.	How many convicted for "drunk driving" were under the age of 21?
6.	How many convicted for driving while impaired were under the age of 21?
March 19, 1973


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Data are not yet available for 1972.


Mr. McKinnon: How much money has been advanced to veterans each year (a) in total (b) in rural areas (c) in urban areas for disabled veterans during the past ten years to purchase homes under the Veterans Land Act?
Hon. Daniel ]. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): (a) 1962-63, $25,599,191.90; 1963-64, $29,160,731.25; 1964-65, $24,783,029.57; 1965-66, $30,945,406.48; 1966-67, $52,707,883.71; 1967-68, $72,862,485.94; 1968-69, $55,486,534.64; 1969-70, $70,534,307.82; 1970-71, $44,520,497.57; 197172, $41,654,388.26; 1972-73 (to 31 Dec. 72), $32,981,493.19. (b) and (c) It is not possible to provide information respecting money which has been advanced to veterans under the Veterans' Land Act in rural areas or urban areas, as records of loans are not being maintained separately for rural areas or urban areas. Records are not maintained separately for disabled veterans.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many people were employed by the govermment in 1942, 1952, 1962 and 1972?
2.	What was the total cost of running the govermment in 1942, 1952, 1962 and 1972?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Total number of Government of Canada employees as at March 31 and Expenditures for fiscal year ended March 31:
	1. Total number of employees"'	2. Expenditure ($'000)
1972	273,537	14,840,8651962	205,553	5,729,6241952	131,646	3,980,9091942	83,781	1,855,066
"'In federal departments and departmental corporations.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	Has the government been requested to join the Inter-American Indian Institute and, if so (a) by whom (b) on what date?
2.	If such request has been made, what action has been taken in relation to it?
3.	Has any employee of the government, its agencies or Crown corporations ever attended any conference meetings or symposia sponsored by the Inter-American Indian Institute over the past six years and, if so (a) who were these persons (b) on what dates and where were such conferences held (c) what were the total costs to
Order Paper Questions
Canada of their participation including (i) air fares (ii) meals (iii) hotels (iv) salary costs during their period of absence?


Len Marchand: 1. Yes. (a) Dr. Demetrio Sodi Morales, General Secretary of the Institute; (b) November 24, 1972.
2.	A response to the request for Canada to join the Institute is under active consideration by the Government of Canada.
3.	Canada sent an observer delegation to the VHth InterAmerican Indian Institute Conference: (a) Mr. W. McKim, Director, Policy, Planning and Communications Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Mr. A. R. Gill, Head, Program Monitoring Evaluation Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (b) August 7 to 11, 1972, in Brasilia, Brazil, (c) (i) $1,634; (ii) $236.50; (iii) $429,19; (iv) $1,200.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been asked by any employee of the government or by a member of the government or by anyone whatsoever on behalf of the government, for information of any kind whatsoever about individuals who have served as Members of the House of Commons or of the Senate since April 20, 1968 and, if so, how many times have such requests been made?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the number of requests that might have been made of the R.C.M.P., by employees of the government or by members of government or by anyone whatsoever on behalf of the government, for information of any kind whatsoever about individuals who have served as Members of the House of Commons or of the Senate since April 20, 1968. It is an established practice, in police records, not to relate the inquiry, in any category of inquiries, to the occupation of the subject and, accordingly, the retrieval of information by the type of employment or occupation of the subject is virtually impossible.


Mr. Coates: Is the Hon. Lucien Cardin, P.C., employed by the government and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) from what date (c) at what salary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Lucien Cardin, P.C., is employed by the Government. The other information requested is as follows: (a) currently Assistant Chairman of the Tax Review Board; (b) in his current position, from April 27, 1972; in his previous position as Member of the Immigration Appeal Board from February 25, 1970; (c) as of February 25, 1970, within the range $20,000-$25,000; as of January 1, 1971, within the range $21,000-$26,500; as of January 1, 1972, within the range $22,000-$26,000; as of April 27, 1972, within the range $28,000-$35,000.

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How many penitentiaries of all categories are equipped with gymnasia, swimming pools or other facilities for physical exercise?
2.	How many qualified physical education instructors are employed by the Canadian Penitentiary Service and in what institutions are they located?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Gymnasia: (a) Maximum Security, 12; (b) Medium Security, 11; (c) Minimum Security, nil; (d) Community Correctional Centres, nil (access to Y.M.C.A.); (e) Specialized (Prison for Women), 1. Swimming Pools: (a) Maximum Security, 1 (a small above-ground pool purchased by inmates at Archambault through their welfare fund); (b) Medium Security, nil (Community, swimming pools rented when possible); (c) Minimum Security, nil; (d) Community Correctional Centres nil; (e) Specialized (Prison for Women) nil. Other Facilities: (a) Maximum Security-All maximum institutions have fully equipped weight lifting rooms and hockey rinks. In the summertime, outdoor activities such as baseball, track and field, miniature golf and horseshoe pitching are organized, (b) Medium Security-Weight lifting rooms are provided in all medium institutions. Winter sports include the organization of hockey and broomball games. During the summer a whole range of outdoor activities are provided from track and field to baseball, (c) Minimum Security-During the winter months, hockey rinks are available and during the summer, depending on the location of the institution, activities range from baseball to swimming and fishing in near-by rivers, (d) Community Correctional Centres- These centres are located within various Canadian cities and they therefore rely entirely on community resources for recreational activities, (e) Specialized (Prison for Women)-Outdoor activities include the organization of baseball games and track and field events.
2. There are five qualified physical education instructors in the Canadian Penitentiary Service, located in the following institutions: Dorchester Penitentiary, 1; Saskatchewan Penitentiary, 1; Drumheller Institution, 3. In addition, the Penitentiary Service employs 12 Supervisors of Recreation. Three of these men are former Army Physical Training Instructors, two are former professional hockey players, two are former R.C.A.F. Recreational Specialists and the remaining five have on the job experience, have participated in community recreational programs had have attended various training courses. They are located in the following institutions: Matsqui Institution, Warkworth Institution; British Columbia Penitentiary, Cowansville Institution; Stony Mountain Institution, Archambault Institution; Reception Centre (Ontario), Leclerc Institution; Joyceville Institution, Correctional Development Centre; Collins Bay Institution, Springhill Institution. There are also 25 Recreational Officers in our institutions who have on the job experience and have attended training courses both inside and outside the institutions. They are located in the following institutions: Matsqui Institution, 1; British Columbia Penitentiary, 2; Saskatchewan Penitentiary, 2; Regional Reception Centre (Ontario), 1; Joyceville Institution, 2; Collins Bay Institution, 2; Millhaven Institution, 2; Federal Training Centre, 2; Cowansville Institution, 2; Archambault Institution, 3;

Leclerc Institution, 2; Dorchester Penitentiary, 2; Spring-hill Institution, 2.


Mr. Lawrence: What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received printing orders from the Department of Supply and Services during 1971 and (a) what were their addresses (b) what amounts were paid to each?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The records of the Department are not kept in such a manner to readily provide information about contracts awarded to business firms in counties or constituencies.


Mr. Lawrence: What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, received printing orders from the Department of Supply and Services during 1972 and (a) what were their addresses (b) what amounts were paid to each?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The records of the Department are not kept in such a manner to readily provide information about contracts awarded to business firms in counties or constituencies.


Mr. Lawrence: What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received printing orders from the Department of Supply and Services during
1971	and (a) what were their addresses (b) what amounts were paid to each?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The records of the Department are not kept in such a manner to readily provide information about contracts awarded to business firms in counties or constituencies.


Mr. Lawrence: What persons, companies or organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received printing orders from the Department of Supply and Services during
1972	and (a) what were their addresses (b) what amounts were paid to each?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The records of the Department are not kept in such a manner to readily provide information about contracts awarded to business firms in counties or constituencies.
March 19, 1973


Mr. Mather: 1.	What, in dollars, was the total amount of Services and Supply purchases and the total number of contracts for such purchases placed in Canada in 1972?
2.	(a) What, in dollars, was the total amount of such purchases placed by contract in British Columbia (b) what was the total number of such contracts placed in that Province?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The following figures relate only to the year in which contracts were placed and not to the year or years in which the work was performed or payments made. Therefore, care must be taken not to infer trends or make conclusions on the basis of performance in one year. Further, the location of a company is often that of its administrative office rather than the location where the work or service was actually performed or rendered. The figures cover only DSS contracts and do not include contracting by other government departments or agencies under delegation by DSS. The statistics for the Department are kept on a fiscal year basis. 1. Number of contracts, 193,161; Value, $793,797,000.
2. Number of contracts, 22,118; Value, $32,168,000.
CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS BETWEEN CAP-DE-LA-MADELEINE AND CAP-SANTfi


Mr. Matte: Have retaining walls been built on the north shore of the St. Lawrence between the Town of Cap-de-la-Madeleine and the Village of Cap-Sante since June 25, 1968 and, if so (a) where were they built (b) what was the cost (c) to whom were the contracts given?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes.
(a) Location (b) Cost	(c) Contractor
Ste. Marthe	$47,025.00	J. R. Denoncourt, NicoletChamplain	
70,242.70	Tessier & Trottier, Ste. AnneChamplain	
16,584.22	J. R. Denoncourt, Nicoletlie Val d'Or	
17,410.00	Rosaire Savard & Son,	St. MarcCap de la Madeleine...	3,100.00	J. L. Jacob, Lac au SableCap de la Madeleine...	13,028.33	Tessier & Trottier, Ste. AnneChamplain	
1,480.00	Jacques Tessier, St. Mauricelie Val d'Or	
3,900.00	Rosaire Savard & Sons,	St. MarcChamplain	
2,800.00	Ernest Duplessis, Trois RivieresChamplain	
73,167.18	Rosaire Savard & Sons,	St. MarcHe Val d'Or	
32,747.00	Rosaire Savard & Sons,	St. MarcChamplain	
10,015.00	Rosaire Savard & Sons,	St. MarcChamplain	
14,283.00	Rosaire Savard & Sons,	St. MarcCap de la Madeleine...	6,740.00	Sumital Inc., LongueuilChamplain	
8,000.00	Jacob & Bros., St. Prosper


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Did the government carry out a postal study for the City and rural areas of Grand Forks during 1972 and, if so, what do they intend to do with this study?
2.	Does the government intend to build a new post office in Grand Forks and, if so (a) do they own the site on which they intend to build the post office (b) what do they plan to do with the present post office?
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. No.
2. Yes. (a) No; (b) Future use of the existing building wiU be determined at a later date when a decision has been reached regarding the site for the new Post Office.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	As a result of the legislation which settled the Longshoremen Strike in Vancouver last year (1972) (a) did foremen receive any retroactive pay for the same period of time as full-time and casual help (b) what companies gave retroactive pay (i) for what period of time (ii) to how many foremen?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to intervene in this dispute to eliminate a Vancouver dock strike by foremen?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) No,
because the foremen are managerial employees and were not covered by the collective agreements with which the legislation was concerned, (b) We do not have information in this regard.
2. Being managerial employees, the foremen are not covered by federal labour relations and disputes legislation, but officers of the Department will be in touch with the situation.


Mr. Forrestall: Which national parks have had additional territory added to them subsequent to their establishment, on what dates was this accomplished and what were the amounts involved?


Len Marchand: Since the first National Park was established in 1887 there have been many changes to the descriptions of the various parks. At the present time there are 29 National Parks in the system. To answer this question in detail involves very extensive research at considerable public expense. If, however, a specific area is of interest the information on it would be more readily available.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	In what language will the officer cadet course at Chilliwack, B.C., be given this summer?
2.	What are the (a) linguistic (b) educational requirements for the course?
3.	What is the future policy concerning the language or languages of instruction of officer cadets in the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. In both official languages, the officers' basic course will be given in either the French or English language to male officer candidates, and in English to female officer candidates. Those female candidates not qualified to follow the course in English will receive language training this summer. Action is being taken to complete a French ver-

March 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
sion of the female officers' basic course as soon as possible.
2.	(a) The linguistic requirements are that the candidate speak either of the official languages; (b) the education requirements vary from junior matriculation to university degree, depending upon plan of entry.
3.	Eventually, all officer cadets will be instructed in the official language of his or her choice.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	Has the new master plan for Riding Mountain National Park been completed and, if not, on what date will it be completed?
2.	On what date will this master plan be announced to the public?
3.	Will public hearings be held on this master plan and, if so (a) on what date (b) will hearings be held in Western Manitoba?


Len Marchand: 1. The
provisional master plan is in its final draft form.
2.	The plan will be announced to the public at least 60 days ahead of the public hearing.
3.	Yes. (a) priorities associated with the public hearings already held and awaiting decisions make it unlikely that a public hearing for Riding Mountain National Park can be held in 1973. (b) the location of hearings has not yet been fixed.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Following the expropriation of the E. B. Eddy mills in Hull, has any compensation been paid as of January 31, 1973 and, if so, what was the amount and to whom was the cheque issued?


Stanley Ronald Basford: None of the E. B. Eddy mills in Hull has been expropriated. The following payments were made to E. B. Eddy Company for the purchase of property in Hull: February 21, 1972, $1,000,000; March 30, 1972, $23,000,000; November 27, 1972, $250,000.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all persons employed by, on loan to or attached to, the Security Planning and Research Group of the Department of the Solicitor General and in each case (a) what are the duties performed by such individuals (b) what are their salaries for the current fiscal year, in dollars?


Hon. Warren AUmand (Solicitor General):: Personnel of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, as of March 1, 1973, consists of:
Name	(a) Duties
(b) Salary
J. Armit...
P. Banning R. Bourne.
Security Officer (Physical Security)	
Chief, Security Police Section__
Head, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group


[Stage Direction]
Name	(a) Duties
L.	Cloutier... Information Analyst (Internal
Security)	
W. Dabros	 Chief, Information Analysis Section	
R. Gaudet	Information Analyst (Internal
Security)	
R. Harris	 Information Analyst (Internal
Security)	
L.	Lagac6	
Secretary	G. McCully	
Information	Analyst	(Criminal/Police)	E. Tack	
Administrative Officer	M.	Valenti	
Secretary	N.	Villeneuve... Records Clerk	P. Wallace	
Information	Analyst	(InternalSecurity)	
G. Wilkinson

Security Officer	(Personnel
Security)	
(b) Salary
Mr. Cossitt: Does the Security Planning and Research Group in the Department of the Solicitor General in any way whatsoever duplicate work performed in any field by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, what is the exact nature of this work?


William Warren Allmand: No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers were employed by the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the year 1970-71?
2.	Of this number, how many of the teachers were in the classification of (a) Teacher Aide or Unqualified Teacher who had no professional teacher training (b) the sub-level who had only Junior Matriculation education and one year of teacher education (c) Level 1 who had Senior Matriculation and one year of teacher education (d) Level 2 who had Senior Matriculation and two years of teacher education (e) Level 3 who had Senior Matriculation and three years of teacher education (f) Level 4 who had Senior Matriculation and four years of teacher education (g) Level 5 who had Senior Matriculation and five years of teacher education (h) Level 6 who had Senior Matriculation and six years of teacher education?


Len Marchand: 1. One
thousand three hundred and seventy-two.
2. (a) 160; (b) 53; (c) 402; (d) 266; (e) 153; (f) 214; (g) 78; (h) 46.


Mr. Laprise: How many acres were expropriated since 1968 for the development of the Valcartier military base and what was the average cost per acre?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1416 is that no land has been expropriated since 1968 for the development of the Valcartier Military Base.

March 19, 1973


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many times has corporal punishment been given in the year 1971 in federal institutions?
2.	How many prisoners have had such corporal punishment more than once?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure awarded by an Institutional Disciplinary Board has not been administered on any occasion during 1971. Such punishment has been abolished by Order-in-Council, number P.C. 19722327, dated September 21, 1972. Corporal punishment as a sentence awarded by a Court of Law has not been administered on any occasion during 1971. It has been abolished by the Amendment to the Criminal Code, Chapter 13, Section 59, given Royal Assent on June 15, 1972.
2. Nil.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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



GRANTS UNDER PROGRAM OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Program of the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



PURCHASES OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Harding: 1.	How many pieces of the following office equipment were purchased, by each department and agency in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and what were the costs for (a) typewriters (b) dictaphones (c) tape recorders (d) adding machines (e) calculating machines?
2.	What is the total stock of this equipment in each department and agency for each of the five categories in part 1?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns



PUBLIC WORKS-PROJECTS CARRIED OUT IN HUMBER-ST. GEORGE'S-ST. BARBE CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Marshall: What projects were carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in each year 1968 to 1972 and what were the costs involved?
Return tabled.



RECORD OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES SINCE 1945

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many (a) births (b) deaths were recorded in each of the three prairie provinces since 1945?
2.	What was the population in each province in each year since 1945?
Return tabled.



INFRACTIONS OF THE COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. Orlikow: In the past year, have any persons or corporations been fined for infractions of the Combines Investigation Act or Section 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code and, if so (a) what are the names of the persons or corporations so fined (b) what was the amount of the fine in each case (c) on what date was the fine imposed (d) what infractions occasioned the fine?
Return tabled.



DELINQUENT LOANS UNDER EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT

Mr. Stevens: 1.	What loans had delinquent instalments of 30 days or more as at January 31, 1973, in Section 29 financing of the Export Development Act, and for each loan what is (a) the name and country of the obligator (b) the Canadian exporter benefiting from the loan (c) the date of the loan (d) the original principal amount (e) the interest rate (f) the oldest past due instalment (g) the total outstanding principal and delinquent instalments (showing principal, interest and total of such delinquent instalments)?
2.	Has the Export Development Corporation refinanced or reloaned any Section 29 loans and, if so, what was the reason for such refinancing or relending?
Return tabled.
[.Editor's note: During the announcement of order paper questions to be answered.]


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to ask when I may expect from the parliamentary secretary answers to some of the questions I have put on the order paper. Many of them are very straightforward, requiring simple, factual information. I am particularly interested in getting answers to questions Nos. 853 and 841 which deal with related matters. At the speed we are going at the moment, which is about that of a glacier going backward, most of the questions will not be answered until mid-summer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might wait until we have reached the end of this order of business as other questions may be answered later. There is, of course, no way

March 19, 1973
Orders for Returns
of knowing that, but the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to proceed at this point.
[Editor's note: Following order paper questions.]


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I dislike having to rise again concerning questions that are not being answered, but it seems obvious there is a concerted effort not to answer questions that may prove embarrassing to the government. One of the reasons so many questions are being asked during the oral question period is the fact that it is almost impossible to get answers to order paper questions when the government finds it advantageous to conceal.
I refer to question No. 52, a very simple question. It asks what is the amount, since July, 1971, by province, that has been expended by all departments of government in grants or other assistance to corporations, partnerships, and so on. There can be no excuse for not answering that question which has been on the order paper now for two and a half months.
I would also refer to questions Nos. 1,004 and 1,080 having to do with my own province. They concern the removal of a government department from the London building to another building after the expenditure of more than $1 million to put the London building in shape. The first of these questions has been on the order paper since February 16. It is very simple. It asks whether the federal income tax office in Saskatoon is being moved. There is just no excuse whatever for the egregious contempt being shown to parliament by the degree to which this government refuses to answer very simple questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Unless we are able to secure some assurance from the government that it is either negligent in securing information available to it or that it has some other reason, we can only conclude that the idea behind not answering is concealment of facts that the government realizes would not be advantageous to it to reveal.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the question about which he has complained, No. 52, requires a very extensive search involving many departments of the government. It would seem to me that merely looking at the question would be ample indication to any hon. member that to answer it accurately and deal with its many aspects would require more than a day or two.


John George Diefenbaker: But two and a half months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure the right hon. gentleman that, while we appreciate his regular interventions on these occasions condemning the government, we are making a very serious effort to answer questions as rapidly as possible.
There are on the order paper at present more questions than have ever appeared on any order paper, and there have been more answers given up to the present time during this session than at the same point in any other previous session of the House of Commons, including that

period when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman ought to refresh his memory about recent history. He ought to compare the performance of the present time because it is a very good performance. I should like to see it better, but it is reasonably good.
I would draw to the attention of Your Honour and hon. members that it is possible to abuse the practice of placing questions on the order paper. I do not accuse my right hon. friend of that. However, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that over the weekend one hon. member placed on the order paper 98 questions. Surely that is not in accordance with the intent or purpose of questions on the order paper. If hon. members want to abuse the practice by loading up the order paper with a multitude of questions, we will be confronted with legitimate grievances as presented by the right hon. gentleman.
I suggest, if we are to use the order paper properly, that the number of questions should be reduced, and we will do our level best to get answers for hon. members.
I will make another effort to see that the request of the right hon. gentleman is met as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the interest the hon. gentleman is taking in the period during which I was Prime Minister regarding questions, the smokescreen he has raised pleases himself and those surrounding him. The total number of questions I have on the order paper is nine. How transparently deceptive his remarks are. He is a good debater and he makes the best of a bad case. Question 1,004 reads as follows:
1.	Is the federal Income Tax Office in Saskatoon being moved from the federally-owned London building to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce building?
2.	What has been the cost of operating the London building during each of the past five years?
3.	Under the lease of the said bank building (a) what is the annual rental and for how long (b) is there a further rental period provided at the option of the lessee?
That question has been on the order paper since February 16. The hon. gentleman's attempt to explain the unexplainable is answered by the fact that that question under no circumstances comes within the ambit of the imaginary hypothesis he has advanced.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on the point of order. I can only echo the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I should like to refer to four specific questions. I admit it is often difficult to follow the smokescreens cast by the government House leader. I believe there are more questions on the order paper for the very good reason that there are so many things wrong that need inquiring into. The four questions I should like to refer to are as follows: Nos. 443 and 444, which require simple yes or no answers, have been on the order paper for a little over two months. Question No. 819 concerns the new income tax forms, the cost of advertising and the fee paid to that great outstanding tax expert, Mr. Davis. I do
March 19, 1973

not see why that should take hours of research. I would think it could be replied to quickly. Then there is one final question, No. 990, concerning the imitation letters from the Prime Minister mailed during the election campaign. I would think that information could also be available in a hurry.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think it lies ill in the mouth of the government House leader to berate members on this side of the House for asking questions, particularly a House leader of a government that tries so manfully to conceal so many things. Of the many hundreds of questions on the order paper, one stands in my name. It could be answered if one of the multiplicity of ministers and their satellites and secretary's secretaries would pick up the phone and call the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I suggest to the House leader and his accomplices over there that they would do well, instead of complaining about all the questions from this side of the House, to attempt to answer some.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral question period. The Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Hees:: Let us get an answer to this one right off the bat.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to some 2,000 employees about whom I questioned him last week in connection with the Delorimier office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Montreal. Can he give the House a firm assurance that there is no discrepancy with regard to those 2,000 cases, or most of them, between the TP4U forms sent out from Ottawa and the records of the Delorimier office with regard to benefits paid and income tax deducted?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition the other day, my information was that errors that were discovered early in the year had been corrected before the TP4U slips had been sent out, and that information has been confirmed to me. In light of the press reports that came forward today and over the weekend I have asked for a second investigation of that situation. I would say that none of the people who alleged there were errors made have yet been identified. I understand there is an allegation that there is to be a meeting on Wednesday next about this matter, and I would certainly appreciate it if any of those people who have concrete or
Oral Questions
specific information which might be to the contrary would let me know so that we can take measures to correct the situation. As it stands now, my information is that any errors that were made earlier were corrected before the slips went out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Arising from the minister's statement that microfilm records standing behind these cases are kept in the regional offices, can the minister give the House assurance that there are microfilm records with regard to these cases available in Ottawa or in the Montreal office?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that information I gave the hon. member the other day stands. As I say, unless there is specific new information as a result of next Wednesday's meeting or the investigation I have caused to be undertaken, I would stand with that answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that there are 100,000 instances in which TP4U forms cannot be delivered with regard to benefits paid or tax deducted because the commission has no address for the recipients where the forms can be delivered? If this is the case, is there any way in which the minister or the commission intends to help these people to be able to complete their income tax forms correctly or to assist them in claiming rebates where these are due?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no such situation involving those numbers has been brought to my attention. I will investigate and let the hon. gentleman know.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether in fact the minister can inform the House if the advisory committee, which is inquiring into the investigative procedures, has looked into the specific matter that has been brought up by the Leader of the Opposition? Further, in light of the fact that over 50 per cent of the appeals that have been heard have been allowed, and in light of the fact that the committee has been out for a week and was supposed to report today, has the minister any information as to the report? Has it been submitted and are there any recommendations in this respect?


Robert Knight Andras: There are two or three sections to that question. During January and February in Hamilton there were 351 appeals to the board of referees, and of those 39 were allowed. During January and February in Toronto there were 964 appeals to the board of referrees, and of those 121 were allowed. Thus, the total during January and February in the Toronto-Hamilton area was

March 19, 1973
Oral Questions
1,315 appeals to the board oi referees, and of those 160 or 12 per cent of the appeals were allowed. This is similar to the experience of the past few years. These figures include all appeals regardless of their reasons. I would say that the figure of 2,000 which appeared in the newspaper the other day, with 1,000 supposedly successful in the Toronto-Hamilton area, may include reinstatements of non-eligibility decisions where people did begin to search for work. I do not know, but unless they went through the appeal system those are not considered to be appeals.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps I should not have phrased my question in three parts. Is that the report of the advisory committee that the minister has given, or does he intend to bring in their report for tabling so we may know what their investigations have revealed and whether in fact there were any recommendations in that regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Those figures are not based on the advisory committee's report, but I will be getting a report from the advisory committee shortly. I cannot give the precise day or date, although I have been in touch with the chairman and the committee seems to be proceeding satisfactorily.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one last supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a further supplementary question but perhaps we should try to get on with other supplementary questions.


BENEFIT CONTROL-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY REFEREES INDICATING WITCH HUNT-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that three referees in the Toronto area, I believe, by the name of Murray Tate, William Baker and Henry Weisbach have indicated that there is evidence to the effect that there is in fact a witch hunt being proceeded with which is, in their words and as reported, "terrifying innocent people". Is the minister aware of this particular set of circumstances and has he investigated or will he cause the advisory committee, if it is not ready to submit a report, to investigate the allegation of these three persons in order that its findings can be included in that report?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would be most certainly willing to do that if the three gentlemen in question or any member of any other citizen in this country would give me specific information with date, place, time and names. Allegations and innuendoes make it almost impossible for me to carry on an investigation, but the members of the advisory committee were asked to do exactly what the hon. member is suggesting.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I first follow up the question that the hon. member for Hamilton West has just asked. The three gentlemen to whom he referred were members of boards of referees. Perhaps the minister was not aware of that and of the fact that their statements were made on the basis or information they obtained from appellants to the board of referees. Would

the minister therefore undertake, instead of waiting for someone to tell him, to contact these three gentleman and perhaps even some of the appellants to make certain that the control officers are behaving in the way in which he has said he wants them to behave?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I would only add that I have made that invitation before and I would have been very pleased if those gentlemen had sent that specific allegation to the commission or to me. We would have been able to act on it and give precise answers to the House.


POSSIBILITY OF DISQUALIFICATION OF RECIPIENTS AS A RESULT OF COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS AND WITHOUT INTERVIEWS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister undertook last week on one or two occasions to inquire into the information given to me, which I gave to the House and to him, and ascertain whether or not disqualification has taken place by computer in any number of cases or whether applicants were personally interviewed before they were disqualified. Has he completed that inquiry now?


Robert Knight Andras: I am advised that the disqualifications followed individual personal interviews by the benefit control officers prior to the disentitlement. Again, if there are any specific instances or examples where this appears not to have been the case, I would be appreciative of the evidence so that I could act upon it. That is the information I have been given now.


David Lewis: I think this matter is of such importance, and I am sure the minister would agree, for me to ask him where he got the information. I now have copies of several disqualifying letters obtained by claimants and in every case the claimant has stated that he or she was not interviewed and then received his or her disqualifying letter. May I ask the minister from whom he has obtained the information that there are personal interviews and how that information was gathered by the person who gave it to him?


Robert Knight Andras: This matter is before the advisory committee. I am not treating it lightly in any way, but I would be very grateful if the hon. member would give me that evidence so I can investigate these cases where necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice six hon. members to my left are seeking the floor on supplementary questions. Before continuing these supplementary questions the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Shefford.
March 19, 1973


TRANSPORT
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House whether steps have been taken to ensure that our international transportation system by sea and by air will not be paralyzed or boycotted by the World Federation of Labour whose head office is in Brussels?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not taken any special steps.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a supplementary question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Does the minister intend to communicate with the Canadian ambassador in Brussels in order to avoid reprisals by the World Federation of Labour which is asking for the liberation of the three union leaders who are imprisoned in Quebec, failing which there will be boycotting of our international transportation system?


Jean Marchand: I think that if the hon. member knew about the organization of the labour movement, both on the national and international levels, he would not be asking this question.



INCOME TAX


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that it is apparent that thousands of unemployment insurance claimants will be late in filing their income tax returns through no fault of their own but because of incorrect TP4U forms, is it the intention of the minister to speak with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, so that these people will not be fined for late filing?


Robert Knight Andras: I think the premise of the hon. member's question is quite incorrect.



MANPOWER


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether, in light of the many statements of a conflicting
Oral Questions
nature made both in the House and outside concerning the affair since March 9 last, he now wishes to take this opportunity to publicly clear the name of his deputy minister in connection with that sorry affair?


Robert Knight Andras: I think the Prime Minister made a statement on Friday which meets the case. I think any statement I have made which is on the record in Hansard also meets the case.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is with reference to the question I put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last week. Has the minister discovered yet whether the unemployment insurance benefit control officers are being forced to work under a quota system?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have inquired into this matter and, as I told the hon. gentleman the other day, if I found such a system to exist I would be the first to take disciplinary action or cause it to be taken, but I have not found that to be the case.



MANPOWER


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will it continue to be the policy of the government to make jobless students from vocational training programs pay income tax on federal training allowances in the same manner that unemployment insurance benefits are taxed, and will the minister tell the House why students were not warned that this practice would be introduced this year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the law required payment of income tax on such training allowances beginning January 1, 1972. Again my information is that students were advised of this during interviews preceding authorization of such training and in pamphlets and in letters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a last supplementary question on this subject, and then recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.
Oral Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1973

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the large number of people who are now being cut off unemployment insurance because they have not satisfied the officials of the commission that they have been active enough in looking for work have been given any information, any details, as to the number of job inquiries they are to make per week or per month so their unemployment insurance benefits will not be cut off?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that assistance and advice is contained in the interviews and information conveyed to the claimants being disentitled for that reason. They vary according to the community and according to the availability of jobs in particular categories, but in a simple precise way the answer is yes, they are told that.


David Orlikow: Could claimants be given the same kind of directive as must have been given to the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who are enforcing this new policy so they will have some idea of what is expected from them before they are cut off?


Robert Knight Andras: I think I just answered that, Mr. Speaker, but I shall examine the question again when Hansard is printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Lotbiniere who seems to have one or more supplementar-ies, I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister met with representatives of the west coast pilots in view of the threat of a pending strike of British Columbia pilots with its national implications, and is he prepared to discuss with them changes in the terms of reference or guidelines for the west coast pilotage authority so that it will be able to meet the demands of the B.C. pilots?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning a request from the pilots' association asking me to meet them. My hon. colleague was kind enough to give me notice of his question. I can only review the whole case to ensure whether my intervention at this time really "imbalances" the bargaining power of the interested parties. If not, I will happily

receive not only the pilots but also the British Columbia Pilotage Authority.



&quot;IRISH STARDUST&quot; INCIDENT AT ALERT BAY

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether the Irish Stardust was under the control of a Canadian pilot at the time of the accident near Alert Bay at the end of January? If so, why did the captain allow him to proceed to Victoria, given the condition of the hull?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember whether the vessel was in the area where the services of a Canadian pilot are required. I am going to check and advise the hon. member tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon, if he agrees.
As for the ship, it could hardly be left where it stood. It had to be taken somewhere and that was to be Victoria. I believe damages were reduced to a minimum and I doubt that anyone can complain about the behaviour of the department in that instance.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister be in a position to report soon on the accident which occurred about two months ago?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have received just about all the details. We know exactly how much cleaning operations will cost. It is simply a matter of knowing what the company in question and what the government will pay and that I can tell the hon. member when I answer his question about the pilot.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is really supplementary to his previous question. Still, in a way, it could be related to the first question.

Before going to the next member, I believe the hon. member for Calgary Centre has a supplementary. I hope it will be a supplementary to the one or the other of the questions just asked.



PENDING STRIKE OF WEST COAST MARINE PILOTS- INVESTIGATION OF STATUS OF PILOTS' ASSOCIATION BY COMBINES BRANCH

Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. In view of the indication by the Minister of Transport and I believe by the Minister of Labour a short time ago that the B.C. Pilots Association is in fact a corporation and therefore not subject to federal labour regulations and for this reason the minister felt he could not intervene in the discussions, and in view of the fact this is apparently a monopolistic situation, can the minister indicate whether officials of his department
March 19, 1973

have investigated this situation to see whether it is within the Canadian law dealing with these matters?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that our existing combines law does not apply to services. Perhaps in due course the hon. member will support new legislation that will help cover the supply of services within Canada.



BRITISH COLUMBIA PROPOSAL TO USE RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR ALASKAN OIL-STUDY BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENT-PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his appearance on the television program, "Question Period". Since the minister has stated that the Canadian government would be inclined to refuse the United States access to the Mackenzie Valley route were it not for the danger of oil spills on the west coast, may I ask if he is having a thorough study made of the proposal of the government of British Columbia for a partial railroad and partial underground pipeline to transport oil from Prudhoe Bay to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some reservations about the way the question was asked. The minister will be allowed to reply on the assumption that the question was asked directly rather than on the basis of a statement made outside the House.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that the remark was with regard to an oil pipeline rather than a gas pipeline specifically because at the moment the oil reserves have not been identified to the same degree in the Mackenzie Delta. I can confirm to the hon. gentleman that it is the intention of my department along with the others affected, the Department of Transport and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to examine Premier Barrett's proposal very closely. I believe as a first step a group will be contacting the provincial government at an early date to see on what advance studies of the ecology, engineering and economics the Barrett proposal was based.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that in answer to a question I asked last week the minister and the Prime Minister seemed to have some preference for the Mackenzie Valley route pipeline because it would carry Canadian oil as well as American oil, I want to ask the minister if there are any proven reserves in the Mackenzie Valley or whether it is correct, as the chairman of the National Energy Board has said, that this pipeline would be used exclusively for American oil, certainly for some time to come?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The suggestion, Mr. Speaker, was the development of the Mackenzie corridor. Given
Oral Questions
the fact that it would only be possible to develop one such corridor in this current decade, it seemed to us to make more sense to develop one which would serve Canadian resources, in this case natural gas, as well as American oil and natural gas, than one which would serve the United States alone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As the government seems to have pretty well made up its mind, provided the Americans are agreeable, to proceed with the Mackenzie Valley project, may I ask the minister if the government has completed its ecological studies of such a pipeline and whether these will be prepared and made public prior to an application being entertained by the National Energy Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the hon. gentleman. In my remarks on television I said that the government would be prepared to entertain an application. Since the jurisdiction rests with the board it would, of course, have to decide in the first instance whether an application could go ahead. A great many of the studies have been completed and have been published. My recollection is that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, provided a very lengthy list of those already published and an even longer one of those to be published, along with the publication dates, to the standing committee to which he was reporting.



PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE- PRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION TO UNITED STATES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary in reference to the national interest of Canada only. In light of the fact that there is a congressional hearing which will decide whether the United States will transport crude petroleum down the west coast in international waters off Canada from Alaska to the west coast of the United States, has the Canadian government set out a firm position to the United States so that before a decision is taken in the next month they will at least know where we stand in reference to the ecology and economics of that situation? I ask this question particularly in view of the minister's statement on "Question Period" yesterday as to a Mackenzie pipeline for either crude petroleum or natural gas.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon gentleman on that supplementary that the statement of that position was provided in correspondence between myself and Secretary Morton which was laid upon the table of the House during the last session. We have continued to make it evident through diplomatic channels that that position is clear. President Nixon has made it quite clear, to borrow his phrase, that in no way is the present United States administration interested in the Canadian route. All the information on the Canadian route has been made available to the American authorities. The United States administration is obviously determined on its own route.

March 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact, as disclosed in a recent Financial Post article, that the Liberal leader, Mr. Anderson, who has taken a firm position with respect to this matter, has stated that if the Canadian position is not made known and if it is not firm with respect to whether we intend to entertain or endorse a pipeline the United States will make the decision within 30 days despite Canada-I am thinking of the national interests of Canada- what is the minister's answer to that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I repeated on the weekend-I am glad I had the hon. member as an audience-to all Canadians, as I have repeatedly said in the last year or so, that we would indeed entertain such an application. However, because of the National Energy Board Act and the jurisdiction of the board, of course no government of Canada is in the position to give an advance commitment that such pipeline may be built. We would, however, entertain such an application.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a queestion for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is he aware of the very serious charge laid by three referees of the Toronto board of appeals, Mr. Murray Tate, Mr. William Baker and Mr. Henry Weisbach, to the effect that several persons were deprived of their unemployment insurance benefits and were the victims of a real witch hunt and, if so, can he check those facts and report to the House on the appeals procedure to the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that the question has already been put to the minister. In any case, if the minister has something to add to the answer he gave he could be recognized for that purpose.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that I answered that question earlier in the question period.



DAMAGE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN ASSESSING PROPERTY LOSS AND IN RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment, but in his absence and because the concern is shared by the Minister of Agriculture as well I direct this question to him. In view of the second major catastrophe in southwestern Ontario, particularly in Essex and Kent counties, caused by the combination of high water and violent

storms on the Great Lakes, can the minister say if federal engineers are today working with provincial engineers in assessing the tremendous property loss, and will he say if consideration is now being given to increasing federal aid and accelerating the repair and reconstruction there in view of the continuing danger in the face of spring storms?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I spent most of the weekend talking to the people in the area and talking to my provincial counterpart, Mr. Stewart, several times. I do hope that both provincial and federal people are in the area today. It is my understanding that this is the fact, although I have not had time to check and find out if they are there. I met with several municipal leaders on Saturday night, and I think there is another meeting scheduled for this coming Saturday afternoon to assess what the damage was and where they should go from here. All I can say is that I am trying to keep in close touch with what is going on and with what we can do to assist those people in their present plight.



DAMAGE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-POSSIBILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In the absence of the Minister of the Environment, perhaps I can direct my supplementary to the acting minister. In view of the fact that further floods are likely, is the federal government now prepared to establish a program of flood insurance for land owners in southwestern Ontario?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that question to the attention of the Minister of the Environment.



HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-SUGGESTED FEDERAL INITIATIVE IN FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that not only in the Windsor area alone, not only in the Lake Erie area alone but right through the lower Great Lakes this year there is a tragedy forthcoming of gigantic proportions, would the Prime Minister please impress upon his ministers that they should not leave most of the responsibility to the provincial government and, as this is an international waterway and a navigable waterway, will the federal government show more initiative and leadership in the whole flood control program in the lower Great Lakes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the problem of flood control and meeting natural disasters the government has a position. It has explained this position. The essence of it is that we do not like to intervene in provincial jurisdictions or in provincial territory or in areas off that territory except at the request of the province. In fact, in previous years at the flood season
March 19, 1973

there have been many instances in which the House has heard ministers announce federal assistance to alleviate or repair flood damage in any cases where the province had so requested. Last year there was a case in British Columbia where the federal government supplied funds to the tune of several millions of dollars. This happens all the time. There is a federal policy. It is important that the provinces and the provincial governments themselves realize the extent of the occurrences.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Is the Prime Minister then indicating that if the province of Ontario indicated some desire for the federal government to intervene in this matter, in respect of the lower Great Lakes this year, that federal assistance would be forthcoming?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is
hypothetical.



FINANCE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of widespread reports from financial circles that Canadian chartered banks are planning in the near future to raise their interest rate structures, and as, of course, this would greatly slow down industrial expansion and job opportunities, has the minister been in touch with the presidents of these institutions or, if not, will he point out this important fact and request that interest rates not be raised at this important time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker,
I will certainly take the representation of the hon. gentleman into consideration.



BRIEF OF CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE ON CAPITAL GAINS TAX-MINISTER'S POSITION

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
A paragraph of the brief submitted to the cabinet last week by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture reads as follows:
The capital gains tax concession on the transfer of farms within a family is so designed that it makes any serious planning of operations almost impossible; it does not even include property other than land.
Can the minister tell the House if he examined the paragraph and what answer he intends to give concerning that request?


Hon. John  Ij. Turner@Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I even attended the submission of that brief and answered the federation. For a more final answer, the House will have to wait for the text of the bill.
Oral Questions



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. ]. Korchinski (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with the proposal to close railway stations in western Canada. As Canadian National is holding at many points and as a representative of the Saskatchewan government is on hand to inform the public that briefs to the Canadian Transport Commission will only be heard after there has been consultation with lawyers, has the Canadian Transport Commission removed itself so much from the public that people have to resort to lawyers, or will briefs presented by the public generally be heard by the commission?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the commission and give an answer to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Korchinski:: May I ask the minister whether the meeting that he suggested early in January he will hold with provincial representatives is any closer today than it was in January?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is closer today that it was in January.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister and Immigration. In view of the fact that those who are applying for unemployment insurance benefits must first register with local manpower offices, and in view of the fact it was revealed by the Swadron committee report that only 23 per cent of available jobs in Canada are registered with manpower offices across the country, is the minister considering any action to have employers list all jobs available with local manpower offices?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are not considering any compulsory action, of course, because that would not be in our jurisdiction, nor proper. We are appealing to all employers across this country on every possible occasion to do so. I might say that we have indicated to unemployment insurance claimants that we would prefer that they do not use the services of manpower offices only but to search for jobs beyond that, which is part of the statement I made the other day.


John R. Rodriguez: Does the minister think it is fair that people who are unemployed . ..


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Oral Questions



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1973

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what purpose his personal envoy, Mr. Head, has in visiting various Commonwealth countries at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Head is attempting to meet as many as possible of the heads of government who plan to attend the Commonwealth Conference to be held next summer in Canada in order to discuss matters of the agenda and various other arrangements with them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what particular message was to be conveyed to General M'boto of undistinguished notoriety, the head of Uganda? What was the message to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, President M'boto is no longer president of Uganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that just indicates one should not accept everything one reads in the newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the Prime Minister this: Is Mr. Head carrying a message to these various countries of the possibility of having to postpone the Prime Ministers' conference in Ottawa in August because of an intervening event? Will the Prime Minister give assurance that, regardless of the eventualities of the next few weeks, the conference will be held on the date fixed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, no guarantee that political events will not intervene between now and the month of August. However, there is no suggestion being made by this government that this should prevent us from going ahead with plans for the conference or, indeed, with plans for the Queen's visit. I would be curious to know whether the right hon. gentleman would support an endeavour to cancel the Queen's visit and the Commonwealth Conference just because there might be some political events that would be distasteful to him and his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, realizing the tremendous intense affection that the Prime Minister has always evidenced for the Crown-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -may I express to him deep appreciation for his change of heart and his conversion. However, I wish to ask him, in the event that an election should take place-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -even though the Prime Minister will not occupy that position after the election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -have there been any tentative plans made or has he transmitted such to any of the countries within the Commonwealth that, on the basis of previous experience, an adjournment might be necessary in so far as Canada is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is entirely hypothetical, but I must point out to the right hon. member that the premises on which it is based are just a continuation of the type of innuendo that the right hon. member has been speaking quite often in this matter.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is prompted by an emergency telephone call I just received. In view of the fact there is evidence of foreign draggers off the northern coast of Newfoundland that are fishing within the 12-mile limit, will the Prime Minister direct that this emergency be corrected and that the Minister of Fisheries be delegated to act at once?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I am replacing the Minister of the Environment I will report immediately the hon. member's representation to him.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact the patrol vessels of the Department of Fisheries are ineffecive in this emergency, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Marshall: Will the minister take note of this emergency and direct the air-sea rescue squadron to look into this dangerous activity by foreign draggers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government prepared to give consideration to supplementing the inadequate fisheries patrol fleet by Canadian naval vessels to protect Canadian nationals fishing in Canadian waters? -


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 19, 1973


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we will have to find out what the state of the emergency is before we can make any decision in this regard.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the numerous inquiries about the backlog of just over 9,000 applications for new and increased veterans' and dependents' pensions as indicated about two weeks ago, has the minister arranged for or is he considering a further increase in the number of new commissioners to help deal with this backlog of applications?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, answering the hon. member's question, as I indicated to the House before, considerable progress has been made in this regard. We have appointed new commissioners. For the information of the House, applications are being received and applications are being processed. In the month of February alone we received 700 additional applications. At the same time, I wish to inform the hon. member that I am reasonably satisfied with the progress being made. We know the matter is of an urgent nature and we are doing our very best to deal with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling Orders of the Day, the Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and try tomorrow to recognize some of the members in the third, fourth and fifth rows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it will be their turn tomorrow.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance the same question I asked him twice before. When is he going to be able to give me the breakdown of the cash requirements of the government of Canada for the next fiscal year? I find it difficult to understand his problem. I would have thought he would have to have a breakdown before he could compile a total.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what I am having difficulty with is putting the answer in a form that can be accommodated during orders of the day. I am looking for another way to respond to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
National Housing Act


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to four answers to four questions received today from the ministry which I find to be insulting in the extreme. The four questions are Nos. 1,034, 1,035, 1,036 and 1,037. Briefly, they relate to the question of what persons, companies or groups in two counties in southern Ontario received printing contracts during 1971 and 1972. The answer I received from the Minister of Supply and Services in each case is very brief. I quote it:
The records of the department are not kept in such a manner to readily provide information about contracts awarded to business firms in counties or constituencies.
In all fairness, I find these so-called answers to perfectly legitimate questions, and we have every right to have this information placed before us, insulting in the extreme. That is my question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker,
I did not conclude my remarks on Friday afternoon. As Your Honour is aware, shortly after you called private members' hour, the fireworks started. However, it is a privilege to again speak on housing and to try to put before the House the position of the people in the small municipalities and rural Canada. Those in rural Canada must look into every possible angle for new housing, no matter under what department it comes. I think they could be assisted further through the Ministry of Veterans Affairs.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) a question concerning the number of late applications for assistance received from veterans under the terms of the Veterans Land Act. I had in mind those who had failed to file certificates before the expiration of the deadline. I also asked whether the minister planned to take action to have the deadline extended to accommodate veterans who would now like to acquire small holdings but who had failed to apply. A great many veterans did not take advantage of this generous plan when it was available, and I would commend the government of the day for having introduced this scheme. If this offer could be re-opened, much needed housing could be started at most attractive interest rates and rates of payment. Such housing could be restricted to "have-not"

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
areas where ordinary subdivisions have not been developed.
At this point I might be permitted to make an aside-I do not know whether or not it could be classed as a question of privilege. I know it is customary, on occasion, for hon. members to quote from newspapers. In the Globe and Mail this morning I saw an editorial which started off very nicely with the words "Hi, there ... ". Then, it went on to berate two members of this House-for which, more power to it. But, at the end the article states:
Still, this reduction of minority government parliament to its lowest common denigrator-
I understand this is a very insulting way in which to say "denominator"-
-is curiously casual in a House to which the halt and lame and seedy have lately hauled their feverish bodies.
I can defend myself very well, and so can a good many members of this House. But when it comes to words such as these, I think of two outstanding members. One of them is the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who despite a handicap is an outstanding member of the House and an outstanding servant of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Another is the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan), again an outstanding member, despite the fact that he is almost blind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: These hon. members are certainly to be commended much more highly than those of us who enjoy reasonably good health. 1 think some smart-Aleck reporter for the Globe and Mail should be taken to task. He may have a strong back but it is my impression he has a very weak mind. A good many of these people seem to think they have the answers to all questions-that the hon. members on the government front bench, and on the front benches of the opposition parties, know nothing compared to these smart-Aleck reporters who have answers to everything. I am very well aware of the saying "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen". I am here and I like the heat. There is no signature beneath this article-it was probably written by some cub reporter. But when accusations of this kind are made, I think it is time someone in this House spoke in defence of the members concerned and took these writers to task.
There is one other area with which I should like to deal. It brings up the whole question of subdivision control and the long delays which occur in approving land for building. I listened to one farmer, now retired, telling me in very strong terms, to put it mildly-I could not repeat in this chamber the language he used-that the government had kicked him off his farm. He wanted to take an acre of land off his farm and build a small modern house on it. He would then turn the farm over to his son to operate- his plan was to help his son and, probably, to keep a few chickens himself. Well, he was unable to get permission to build the house and, as a result he sold the farm to someone from the city who paid, I suppose, a reasonable price for it. The point is, though, that the farm is now out

of production and the barns are falling into decay. This, to me, represents a step backwards.
I am well aware of the powers available to provincial planning boards to determine where buildings can be placed. But in this case the farm was located close to a highway on a year-round road. No additional services were required, and the school bus already passes the lot the farmer had chosen. All that has happend is this: the township in question has lost the additional taxes which would have been paid, and the farmer has moved into town, where he was obliged to pay almost the total price of his farm for a house-a house in which he is not nearly as happy, and probably not as healthy either.
I know of a great many other cases, such as the one I have just mentioned, involving farmers who wished to retain one building lot on their farms upon which to build a home for their retirement. This story has been repeated many times across the province of Ontario. Homes could have been built on these lots without any worry whatever about additional services. No new sewers or water systems would have been needed because the lots chosen were, naturally, by the side of existing roads. I do not think these farmers intended to raise second families but in any event the school buses were going by their doors.
I believe it has been established that the federal government's explicit role in the housing field is to ensure that all Canadians are adeauately housed in viable communities at prices they can afford. That is certainly an ambitious undertaking. It means that at the federal level, at least, and only partly through cost-sharing there has to be a concentration of effort on housing needs of low income families. It means a wider search for new and cheaper building techniques. It means assistance to the less well-off among us to enable them to rehabilitate their homes and their communities. Among other things, it moves Ottawa into a field of direct income subsidies in connection with housing, where required, as a new wrinkle in its income support programs.
As an example of the savings which can be brought about through alternative building techniques, about $2,000 could be saved on smaller homes if basements were dispensed with and the homes were simply built on solid concrete slabs. Then again, the building code presently demands that all lumber used in house construction must be stamped. This discriminates against many of our small sawmills which are unable to provide stamped lumber. Yet their lumber is graded-it is just as good as the stamped materials and, sometimes, it is better. Relaxation of this rule should lead to a saving amounting to a minimum of $200 a house-the exact amount would depend, of course, on the quantity used. That damned stamp costs an additional $20 per thousand. For many applications, second grade plywood could be used, sometimes available at half price. Again, of course, the total saving would depend on the quantity used. I would point out that in many of the homes built in our smaller centres plywood is used a great deal for finishing rather that gyproc or plaster.
I am pleading for a place in the sun for the rural areas of Canada. These are the areas in which attempts should be made to build more houses and develop more industry.
I firmly believe that, given a reasonable opportunity to
March 19, 1973

choose, people will place quality of life ahead of economic gain, and would be only too happy to move to, or remain in, rural areas of Canada, provided they could make a reasonable living there.
I note that the bill proposes to make money available for the renovation of older homes. The maximum amount of $2,000 available certainly does not go very far, however, and I hope the minister will agree to increase this sum considerably. I also hope the provinces will be willing to provide matching grants. It seems to me only common sense, or business, that a thorough restoration job costing $6,000 or $7,000 is far preferable to a patch-up job costing $2,000 or even $4,000. With additional financing some of these older homes could probably be made into duplexes to provide good living accommodation for two families. I would hope also that this type of a loan would be available to families anywhere in Canada.
I am pleased to note that housing is to be made available for our native people on the reserves. If money for much needed housing can be made available in these areas where there certainly are no sewers or water systems, then so that there will be no discrimination, I feel that loans should also be made available in other rural areas and small villages which do not have these facilities but could meet the other criteria, such as available land, good soil, independent water supply and satisfactory soil for weeping beds.
This points up what I have been endeavouring to say, which is that no area should be barred from applying for and receiving national housing money and loans. Housing in rural Canada, therefore, will require the combined help of all three levels of government and their many departments. Again let me emphasize that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Finance should be providing money and working together to promote the build-up of the economy in smaller centres.
The one provincial department which is the greatest culprit in restricting building is the department of municipal affairs, and certainly the province of Ontario is far from guiltless. They say that we chastise those we love for their own good, Mr. Speaker, and a good example of this occurred last Thursday in two provincial by-elections. I am hoping this provincial government will take to heart the strong feelings of the rural people in Ontario and make an about face. I would strongly recommend that they start putting their stamp of approval on a lot of land which is ready to be developed and provide additional housing at low prices.
In my own little area people are begging for a lot on which to build a house. All of them say that they want to get out of the city. Believe it or not, I can look out of my own office window and see enough land on which to build 50 or 100 houses, but none of it is available because of subdivision control and crazy delaying laws from the department of health, whose inspectors take their own good time approving property and time and again turn it down. I might say that local people have a different name for these inspectors; they are called "sewer sniffers".
National Housing Act
I should like to commend the speech given last Monday at noon in Ottawa by the Ontario minister for housing in which he outlined many forward looking plans. Then, we heard on Monday evening one of the directors in the department, and I am glad to know that both governments are working together in co-operation and will give every assistance.
One of the areas in my riding, the district municipality of Muskoka, has just prepared a submission to the Ontario advisory task force in housing policy. They have gone into great detail stressing shortages of certain types of housing, the great difficulty in getting new housing underway, and emphasizing diversification of the economy in selected locations within the district as a prerequisite to a substantial increase in the standard of living of the present permanent population of the area. Land ownership in this particular area by residents is continuing to decline; now less than 50 per cent of the area is privately owned. The proportion of land owned by residents of metropolitan Toronto has been increasing; they presently hold 33 per cent of the privately owned land. The influence of residents of metropolitan Toronto in the district has therefore become very significant and is continuing to increase.
Provincial and federal measures to encourage employment have had a direct effect upon industrial growth and the need for permanent residential housing. The brief goes on to recommend that residential development should be permitted on a limited number of sites where partial services can be provided, but agrees that indiscriminate urban development throughout rural areas is not desirable. It is the feeling of this particular area in Muskoka that a limited amount of residential development in rural areas could be permitted, and such a policy would ease housing problems.
They also recommend that the province should consider entering into the financing market to the extent required to assist lower and middle income groups to obtain mortgage money in rural and recreational areas of the country. These areas are not adequately serviced by existing financial institutions; mortgages are refused many potential buyers in the absence of full services in small communities and in rural areas. They also recommend, as I have many times, that there should be ways and means of assisting municipalities to provide fully serviced residential lots in small urban communities. This should apply particularly to communities in areas of difficult terrain where the cost of servicing is often prohibitively high. This type of assistance should aid in maintaining real estate prices at a reasonable level.
It is recognized that indiscriminate urban development throughout rural areas is not desirable, but it is the feeling of the people in the district of Muskoka that a limited amount of residential development in rural areas could be permitted. Such a policy would ease certain problems. It is highly unlikely that development could approach urban density other than on the most suitable sites, but steps could be taken within the framework of planning policies to ensure that development in rural areas is strictly regulated and directed to sites best suited to residential uses on partial services. The province should review ways and

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
means of assisting municipalities to provide fully serviced, residential lots in small urban communities.
The objectives of Bill C-133 still look like noble gestures, with the purpose of bringing good housing within the reach of more Canadians. However, I would point out that the government's duty to rural dwellers is non-specific in the bill. The only possible attention given to these persons would lie in a small "1" liberal interpretation of the new communities, neighbourhood improvement and rehabilitation of existing housing proposals. However, it must certainly be assumed that money will not be poured into these districts in view of great pressure from the urban areas and, of course, the trend to urban living.
I would also point out that a beneficial housing policy cannot be developed in isolation from other programs. The government still has no full strategy for urban growth. For example, the failure of the government to develop an effective transportation policy will ultimately result in the failure of its housing strategy. This is one more argument in favour of transferring a good deal of new housing activity to the rural areas where roads are already built but the same services are not demanded. Many of the communities are situated along railroad lines, where rapid transit could be utilized if only the railways would provide it, rather than discontinuing trains and doing their best to tear up the railway lines so they can never be forced to go back to transporting people. Urban developers are told that in their price of land must be included the cost of recreation facilities, park lands, arenas, recreation centres and so on. These facilities are already available in many small communities crying for housing.
If I have one priority as a backbencher in this House of Commons it is this, that I will endeavour to be a voice for rural Canada. I have said this before and I will continue to say it. I served as the head of a municipality for a quarter of a century and certainly know what is required in small towns and villages. I get a little weary of hearing about "urban this and urban that". Again I stress that a special department of rural affairs should be set up, or an ombudsman appointed to speak on behalf of the rest of Canada. As I look around this chamber, I wonder if it would not be an excellent idea to have a large map of Canada available to let some of these urban Members of Parliament see just how much of Canada they represent. Take for example the map of Ontario. It reminds me somewhat of a chicken. The chicken's head and part of its neck comprises southern Ontario, and the rest is the great rural area and northern Ontario.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), our housing critic, when speaking most eloquently on Thursday night, stated that the metropolitan Toronto area would require at least $73 million of the 100 million dollars allocated for any one year for land assembly. He went on to state that this would leave only $27 million for the other cities, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Halifax. This certainly is dividing it like a Christian, Mr. Speaker, and you know what it leaves lor the rest of rural Canada, about three-eighths of five-eighths of you can guess what.

I understand, from what I read in the paper this past weekend, that Toronto is now demanding 100,000 lots, and the price is at least $20,000 a lot. I am not very good at multiplying, but I thought the total cost came to $200 million. However, I had it checked by one of my colleagues and he said it is $2 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a hell of a lot of money. If you read the Toronto Star, every weekend you will see houses advertised at $41,000 to $80,000 in Oakville's Charmwood, and so on, and a Mississauga townhouse at $30,000. This is decentralization says the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). My gosh, we could build I don't know how many thousands of homes in rural Canada with that amount of money and let the development of Toronto stop where it is. I get sick and tired of seeing all these advertisements.
Mr. Speaker, again I am hoping that hon. members on this side here, as well as hon. members on the government side, will say that Toronto and Montreal have grown too damn big, period, and, therefore, we will have to look to other areas to decentralize. By "decentralize", I do not mean moving out to Mississauga or up as far as Thornhill. I am not quite so familiar with that great octopus, Montreal, but I understand it extends for 20 or 30 miles. I intend to stretch our sights a great deal farther in order to try to get industry into this area and then housing along with it. Again, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and I hope that my few remarks will be given consideration by this House.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: If I may at the outset, while the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is still with us in this Chamber, make brief reference to the fact that I had hoped, when I came here as a new member only a few months ago, that perhaps Toronto would no longer be the favourite whipping dog of all other parts of Canada. As I say, I had hoped that practice had faded, and I am sad to see that it has not. Indeed, we have problems and I hope I can convince you, and the other members through you Mr. Speaker, that members from Toronto also share a concern and responsibility for rural Canada, and a very genuine concern. I had made a note, before the hon. member made reference to what seemingly was an unfair proportion of assistance being given to Toronto-at least that is what I gathered from his comments, Mr. Speaker-to make sure that I refer to the fact that I come from rural Ontario roots so I share the great concern of the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka about the condition of housing in rural Ontario.
Borderline poverty people and lower middle-income people in our cities are doing much better in housing in finding accommodation, if it is not housing of their own, despite the fact there remain many very critical problems. Meanwhile, many of our farmers working very hard to earn a minimum wage find themselves in housing that would never be accepted within an urban area in Canada. Certainly, a great deal more has to be done in that area and I want to make that very clear as someone from Toronto, Mr. Speaker.
Now, in referring to Bill C-133, I want to cover, if I can first, two or three basic points and then go into some detail, if I may. First, after going over all the material that was made available to me, as well as my own awareness of the housing problems in a suburban riding such as my
March 19, 1973

own which has a population of 140,000 and all the hell and dilemma of suburban sprawl, I was very pleased to learn that the federal ministry of urban affairs and housing had made a very real effort to discuss with the provincial and municipal levels of government just what kind of assistance was needed at this level. There was a real tri-level input I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly think that is the way you start out to really help those other two levels of government.
If I can refer to the particular areas that I think are the very essence of the intent of this bill, having said that getting together and creating understanding at all levels before presenting this bill is important, I want to say these areas of real change from the original legislation brought down a year or so ago are the result of this getting together. I think the land banking to which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka referred a few moments ago is one example of something basic and urgent, which the government has recognized and upon which it certainly has not taken piecemeal action, but very strong and decisive action. As I add it up, over the next five years about half a billion dollars will be provided to try to put back into shape the housing in our urban areas.
It is very true we need development in rural Canada. Areas which have been neglected need help, but there is now a crisis-right now-in our urban areas and that must be met. One of those crises, certainly, in my area in suburban metropolitan Toronto, is the cost of land and the way that influences the cost of housing. Now we have the impossible task for many even in the middle-class, much less the lower middle-class, of finding themselves homes.
Finally, when I talk about the basics of recognize in this bill, I think very much of, and am extremely encouraged about, the inclusion in the neighbourhood improvement program of improvements to commercial properties. I am not referring to Eaton's, Simpsons, Steinbergs or Safeway. I am referring to the little fellow who has built up a small community store and has seen his neighbour's home deteriorate. Perhaps his store has become run down as a result of urban sprawl, and general physical deterioration in an aging community. We must include business, as well as the other factors in the community program, and provide some incentive to improve. I believe this is a very positive step indeed, at a time when small business in this country should be encouraged.
Now, perhaps I might turn to the particular reforms. First, I wish to talk about the new community program. In the address the minister gave to this House a few weeks ago I noted that the objective of the legislation is to help accommodate urban growth other than by urban sprawl and to promote the development of regional growth centres. In my own riding of York West in northwestern metropolitan Toronto, I have seen what urban sprawl can do, not only in respect of the misuse of land not built on previously but also in terms of engulfing a small town with a proud community caught up in the problem of trying to maintain that community. We have seen high rises move next door to a family home which has existed for a period of 40 or 50 years. We have seen the problem confronting people who must move to suburbia to even
National Housing Act
find apartment accommodation which they hopefully can afford, and where they can find available within their budget recreational facilities for their children included which cannot be found at a reasonable price in the heart of a densely settled area. They move out to the far suburbs which includes, in part, my riding. They move into high rises and suddenly find that they are not welcome because other people who have also moved out of the city core, who could afford land previously, now do not want the imposition of density resulting from the construction of high rises. It seems terribly important to me that this new community program will help develop regional growth centres and help fight that kind of urban sprawl which causes very unnecessarily, I believe, confrontation between people seeking a decent place to live.
I am also very pleased that the new community program does not involve merely land and buildings. This legislation provides that loans will be available and will take into account the need for open space, planning and services. It is no good just to throw a chunk of land at the public and throw up a lot of units with the kind of mistakes I believe the Ontario Housing Corporation has made in the province of Ontario, thereby creating terrible ghettos. The problem is to provide the open space and the atmosphere so that a citizen of any income group will know he can find housing where he can live with respect and dignity.
I would like also to say that in that particular program of new communities the expression of the desire to coordinate the various federal departments involved is extremely important. A lack of co-ordination, as a matter of fact, has occurred too often in the past at all levels of government and, unfortunately, has brought suffering to one group, namely, the people who seek government assisted housing in their search for a decent place to live. So, interrelation and co-ordination should play a part in that program and allow for certain community experiments in such fields as urban transportation, communication and in the mixed use of land as a concept in contrast to traditional zoning practices. His pledged co-ordination will also help to reduce urban pollution and introduce new models in community development.
I also think it is very promising that this very young and fresh department is willing to say it has learned a lesson in the area of urban affairs, has considered the needs expressed by all levels of government, and now intends to take the initiative. It is also saying it wants to learn, will experiment, and within a short period of time will find out how it can positively and quickly bring forth the most effective measures. On the issue of the land bank, the amount of $100 million is a major assist in metropolitan Toronto. For instance, in order to obtain land of any kind one must be a very large developer with large financial resources. The end result has been that a very few people have control of the only land available for development. As the private control by a few develops, we find soaring prices and inability for anybody except the very well-to-do to purchase homes. We want to move into our urban communities and drive down the prices the speculators are demanding and also provide, through competition, to them, a lot more housing. This seems to me to be very crucial.
2350

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
My concern would be that it the experience of the government over the next year or two is that $100 million is not enough, then it should be prepared to try to find the funds to expand that to an even greater amount. I also want to say in relation to the land bank program that I believe it is extremely important in cases where a loan is taken out and land acquired and retained in public hands, whether by the province or by the municipality, that the term of the loan is doubled so that it will not be a period of 25 years, but a period of 50 years repayment, thereby providing a real opportunity for the public sector to take a piece of the action in this area with the feeling that they do not have to worry about the short-range situation; they then know they can control long range development without a heavy short-range burden on local taxpayers.
I want to speak for a moment about the assisted home ownership program. I think there are three major factors which show the positive direction of this legislation as proposed by the government. The first is that if you are to assist people buying homes you must realize that today even with the kind of land bank program I have discussed, it will take a lot more time for lower income people to pay off a mortgage because prices have gone up tremendously. Many people, not just the upper middle-class and the wealthy, but the great broad strength of this country, the group below that level, still want an opportunity to have homes and the extension of the mortgage period to 40 years will be of a real assistance. I hope, indeed that we will get to a point where we can actually bring down prices in respect of houses because 40 years is a long time to have a mortgage hanging around one's neck.
The second positive point I find in the assisted home ownership program is the fact that we have the pledge the government will make money available at the lowest rate of interest possible for these people. The government finally has shown its concern by lengthening the period of mortgaging, lowering interest rates, and by saying that, in many instances, it will even go further in order to allow people to get a start and will take action to help many with partial grants to assist home ownership without any strings. I think I spoke briefly about the non-profit housing assistance and how it will help churches in the city core as well as help service clubs and other groups develop in the community to do the kind of thing the government has tried to do alone with limited funds over a number of years. Perhaps it could have accomplished a lot more if it had decided sooner to encourage the private sector by taking the kind of measures proposed in this bill.
I want to go on from there, if I can, to talk about the fact that in the non-profit housing assistance program there is provision for an increase from 95 per cent to 100 per cent of the loan value. I have heard several members in this debate in the early stages pooh-pooh this provision. I believe it is very important. If you take a piece of land occupied by a large church in downtown Toronto where the congregation has fallen off to 150 to 200 people, they can move and join up with another congregation nearby. They can now take the acre and a half or two acres of land they hold including the manse, the church itself, the parking area and so on and the government can say: we will lend you the total amount and are even willing to give

you as much as a 10 per cent grant of the capital cost; away you go, build it and participate with the public sector in developing this kind of housing which would be of tremendous assistance.
Now, perhaps I might touch in some detail on the neighbourhood improvement program. This is something very close to my heart and particularly important to one area of my riding, the old community of Weston, where as I say, through being engulfed by suburban sprawl and by the confrontation between high rises and single family homes, a great disruption has been brought on in what was a proud and positive community. This is a very important point. I stressed earlier that the government, in some cases, was taking the initiative and, in other cases, was allowing the other levels of government to become involved.
I think it is very important that when you go to the assistance of a particular community, you must leave them with the steering of the project. That is very much what has been done in this part of the legislation. Municipalities, in conjunction with the province, will decide what they want to do, but we will set down what we will make available to them. I am not just referring to the chance to fix up the plumbing in a house but to find out whether, for example, there is need for more parks, whether a small businessman in the area needs his corner store improved so that it may remain structurally sound in the years ahead, or whether there is need for more social facilities or day care centres. It is done as an entire project rather than street by street. The whole community works together to refurbish itself and regain the community pride which has been lost through urban sprawl and the development of the great megalopolis around.
In conclusion I should like, if I may, to sum up the areas in which I have found encouragement. When you tie together the various facets of Bill C-133 you find massive new directions, hundreds of millions of dollars being spent. There is experimentation in areas where we must admit we do not have much experience. We are saying that in urban areas we will do something about the high cost of land and at last try to take a large step toward bringing down the price which speculators have brought about in our urban communities. We are also saying that our established communities and old neighbourhoods will no longer be faced with the kind of blight and decay they have faced until now because of the greed of developers in recent years. They will have a chance to pull themselves together and, once more, be what they were 15, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. We will assist people in home ownership and be of assistance-in fact there will even be grants in some cases-to people in the lower middle class and working class to make it possible for them to get a real chance to buy a place of their own.
We will also develop new communities, not ghettos but communities where transportation, communications and other services will be interrelated. We will direct our efforts toward delaying urban communities as well as troubled suburbia, the poor residents as well as the poor small businessmen. We will tie it all together and say: here is a new approach to the housing problem in Canada. Initially, we will spend money for the assembly of land, in
March 19, 1973

bringing down prices and for the protection of neighbourhoods. Later, having experimented our next step will be to go beyond that point and bring together a modern community which will reflect many of the profitable and beneficial things we had in the past and have lost because of the growing housing crisis.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister who moved second reading of the bill before us today, and having read the bill itself, I wish I could have the confidence of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) that this bill will indeed bring down land prices in urban centres in Canada. On first reading, I must admit that I found the bill quite interesting. In many ways it seemed to be helpful in providing the tremendous relief which is needed in our urban centres with respect to housing. However, on second, third and fourth reading, and particularly having read the address given by the minister to the House when he introduced the bill, I must now admit that my optimism with respect to the bill has fallen off tremendously.
I feel that the bill does little more than fiddle with a huge problem in this country. The problem is the lack of available serviced lots in most urban centres, and in particular in the centre which I come from, namely, the Toronto region. Lot prices in our Toronto area have jumped almost fourfold since 1961, and home prices have approximately doubled in the same 12 year period. As a result of this unprecedented rise, Toronto house prices are now the highest on the continent, and I would emphasize "the continent", in that if we review house prices in cities such as St. Louis, Philadelphia, Dallas, Pittsburgh, New York, Houston, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, Minneapolis, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, we will not find one average area that has house prices higher than at present in the Toronto area. In fact, there are two other areas that are ahead of all of those cities that I have listed. I am referring to Ottawa and Hamilton.
I feel that the federal government must take a tremendous responsibility for the plight of the average house owner in this country. For example, in 1961 the most expensive detached home that you could find on average in North America was in Los Angeles where the average price for a house was $19,247. The comparable average NHA financed Toronto price in that year was $17,368. In 1971, however, as I have stated, Toronto prices became the highest on the continent. In Toronto, the local price for a house at present-and I emphasize that I am referring now to the NHA financed houses-is $32,567. Ottawa comes second with $30,955; Hamilton third with $28,429, and Los Angeles is in the fourth spot with $27,950.


Mr. Stanbury:: In what provinces are all the cities?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having pointed that out, it is important to remember that while those in charge of administering NHA and officials of CMHC like to create the impression that they are taking a tremendous amount of the mortgage financing in this country, the fact is that it is not that big a figure when you relate it to the entire mortgage financing in Canada. I do not have the 1972 figures but I refer to the fact that mortgage financing of a residential nature in Canada was $3.17 billion in 1971, and of that amount CMHC was responsible for $701 million. What I
National Housing Act
find most disappointing when you review the figures is the tremendous trend that there has been in the Canadian urban centres away from detached single owner houses to apartment dwelling. Certainly, this shows more vividly than perhaps anything else that land prices, soaring as they are, are virtually prohibiting the average person in Canada from the right, which I feel he should have, to own his own house.
Looking at those figures, for example, we find that in 1961 roughly the same number of single detached dwellings was financed as multiple dwellings in our urban centres. In 1971, however, the figure was more than two to one in favour of multiple dwellings.
But let me come back to the Toronto region, if I may. I have referred to the average NHA prices in that area, but that is only part of the story. Land prices in the last year in Toronto have jumped so sensationally that the average lot price in Toronto today is $22,000 and the average single detached house sells for $45,000 in the Toronto fringe area. I would again emphasize that the bulk of the houses in the Toronto area is not being financed by NHA but is being financed through the conventional lenders. For example, in the northern fringe, which includes the towns of Markham, Richmond Hill, Stouffville and Vaughan, of 989 deals only 155 were financed by NHA in 1971. The reason for this is that land prices and the cost of houses have risen so much in these urban areas that NHA financing is virtually ineffective in financing the home into which people want to move.
To be specific, until a few months ago the maximum loan you could get under NHA was $25,000; that has recently been raised to $30,000. There are few in the Toronto area who can afford to pay $45,000 for a house and put $15,000 down in cash. As a result, it is left mainly to conventional lenders to put out the mortgage funds that are required. As most members in this House, and certainly the minister, realize, the conventional lending rate is approximately one per cent higher than the NHA rate. That means that today, most home owners who are buying properties in the Toronto area are being committed to a 10 per cent rate on their mortgages unless they are able to get an NHA rate of about 9 per cent.
This sensational rise in home prices, and in serviced land in particular, affects my riding of York Simcoe which includes such towns as Aurora and Newmarket. For example, last weekend a realtor in the town of Aurora told me that local prices had jumped at least $5,000 in the past six to 12 months and he gave me an example. Last October he acted as agent when a 75 year old home in Aurora sold for $24,000. He said that frankly the house was overpriced when he sold it, but last week he sold the same house for $31,000, a $7,000 jump or 29 per cent in five months.
A Newmarket real estate agent told me that he bought a new home for himself in Newmarket last September for $29,800, which was NHA financed and today he is selling the same house for $37,900. He told me, "land price is the reason; as prices move up in Toronto they move up in Newmarket. A lot in town is now worth $15,000. That is still much lower than in Toronto." It is becoming more
26087-3i

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
and more evident that such price increases are the result oi an inadequate supply of serviced land, not only in my area and not only in the Toronto centred region but in most of the urban areas across Canada.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for an all-out attack on such rising land costs. I believe every Canadian should be able to realistically anticipate that he will own his own home some day. Under the present Trudeau government, however, in the last ten years it has become harder and harder for Canadians to have this anticipation. When the hon. member for York West referred to a massive attack on this problem, I think he should have told the House where the massive attack is in Bill C-133.
I have mentioned that housing prices have risen by approximately 100 per cent in 12 years since 1961. As we know, every month we get new cost of living figures which indicate that the actual cost of living has increased by about 50 per cent since 1961. House prices in my area are double that. This rising price of housing, however, is only part of the tragedy and this is what I should like to emphasize today.
In 1961, the NHA mortgage on the average home in my area was $13,125 and in that year it carried a 6J per cent interest rate on a 25 year amortization; a man could anticipate paying off his entire debt and having a debt free home with a total outlay of $26,970. Today, however, his average mortgage principle would be nearly $30,000 with a current NHA interest rate of 9 per cent. Based on a 25 year amortization he would now be required to pay $74,000 to get a debt free home under the Trudeau government.
In 1961, a person could buy the home that I have referred to with a down payment of $4,243; today his down payment would be something in the neighbourhood of $7,000. Including financing, to own a home today which you hope to pay off within 25 years, requires an outlay of $81,000 compared to $31,000 in 1961. That is a $50,000 jump in 12 years, Mr. Speaker, a 260 per cent increase. There has to be a better answer, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to this House that Bill C-133 is not that better answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When the hon. minister introduced his bill I was dismayed to read his references to the problems that we have been touching upon, that is, serviced land. Obviously the minister is well aware that it is a problem but if we refer to Hansard we will find that virtually all he is saying is; "It is a problem. We intend to study it. We are going to have conferences and trilevel meetings and we hope that we can come up with solutions." That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. This government has had ten years to come up with some concrete plans on what it intends to do to relieve the situation. For the hon. Minister to stand in this House with this fiddling bill and suggest that it is something that he hopes to get passed and in the meantime there will be conferences and studies in the future to solve the bigger problem, is the wrong order in my view.
We know, for example, that there will be approximately 13 million more people living in this country by the year 2000. In the United States there have been various propos-

als for coping with the new population that they expect to have in the same period. An interesting article by Robert S. DeVoy appears in the winter 1973 issue of Real Estate Review. The writer is an adviser to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the United States and I would strongly recommend that the minister and his staff read this article. It discusses new communities and how they may be profitable. Interestingly, it points out:
Capital investment in new community development probably approximates $15,000 per person for land, land improvements, utilities, streets, public facilities, housing, commercial and industrial facilities and related appliances, machinery, furniture and equipment (exclusive of automobiles and other vehicles). Land and buildings account for at least $10,000 of this total investment.
The remaining $5,000 is taken up literally by getting the land to a point where it may be built upon. If you relate that to the Canadian situation, it is not hard to see that, on average, between now and the year 2000, if we are to house properly the 13 million people by which our population will increase, it will be necessary to spend approximately $5,000 per person. This amount will simply look after the various transportation services and other services necessary to put people into the position where they can build on their lots. In Canada that means that we are contemplating an annual expenditure for such services of approximately $2.5 billion. I think it is high time that the federal government accepted this large responsibility and told the provincial and municipal governments how it will help them finance the $2.5 billion outlay which will be needed, on average, every year up to the year 2000 if we are to provide the various services needed to put lots in Canada in a serviced condition.
In this bill there is only one reference to the type of thing to which I refer. Amounts available for sewage treatment plants will be increased from $200 million to $300 million. That is an increase of $100 million. What a drop in the bucket, compared with the total needs of this country for solving this problem. We should bear in mind that the government, through its inactivity, has been creating a pressure on land values in this country that is resulting in virtually unbearable mortgage loads for most people. It is interesting to note that a psychiatrist from the University of Washington in Seattle has drawn up what he calls a stress scale. He has listed various items of stress that people must meet, and has devised an index which shows how the various stress components affect people. One of the lowest forms of stress, he points out, is having a mortgage of under $10,000. At that point in the hundred point stress scale the stress factor is 17. It is interesting to note that if the mortgage goes up to $30,000, the stress factor increases by more than three times. A mortgage that is greater than $30,000 represents one of the highest stresses that any man must cope with in his day-to-day life. Now we have $30,000 NHA mortgages on average houses.
The minister's speech on this bill, I feel, is perhaps more interesting in what he did not say than in what he said. You will find in the bill that there is reference to increasing the amount of mortgages that may be insured by the corporation and also to the amount of money the corporation may borrow. It is intended to increase the amount
March 19, 1973

that the corporation may borrow to $10 billion, and the amount of insurance to $19 billion.
Let the House consider why those two ceilings are being raised to those two figures. We have not been given the benefit of an up-to-date audited report with respect to CMHC. The last audited report that we have is for 1971. At that time the total amount borrowed from the government to finance CMHC operations was $5.6 billion. The total amount of insurance issued by the corporation was only $9.22 billion. I think it is relevant to note that this House is being asked to agree in principle to a bill, yet no one has shown us the courtesy of making an audited statement available with respect to the corporation with which this bill is concerned. I point out that the auditor's report for the corporation last year is dated February 17, 1972. Yet here we are, more than one year later, considering a bill of tremendous magnitude without an auditor's report. Bear in mind that CMHC is the largest Crown corporation with which parliament is concerned. Here, we Eire being asked to consider tremendous changes affecting this corporation, and we have not even been given an up-to-date statement.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is why committee hearings Eire held.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hope the minister will provide some answers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, that is why we hold committee hearings.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may continue, or does the minister wish to make a new speech?
I should like now to touch on the suggestion raised in the bill to the effect that new communities are to be created. To that end, the government proposes to go into land banking. What I did not notice on my first reading of the minister's speech, but what I noticed subsequently and found most interesting, was this: the corporation now wishes to have the right to lease land, in addition to selling land. It was not until the minister spoke in the House that I reEilized the government's true intent. In introducing the bill he said, as recorded at page 2259 of Hansard for March 15:
Measures will ensure that the public retains the benefit resulting from subsequent appreciation in value of land acquired for the communities. Hon. members will note that that is provided in the bill by leasing of the public land rather than by its sale which has invariably been the practice under land assembly schemes of the past.
We CEin see what is intended. The minister resilly intends to set up "Basford fiefdoms." He anticipates having people pay land rent for an indefinite period to the public treasury. It is not enough that the government has worked out the most devilish taxation process that the world has ever seen in recent times and inflicted it on CsinadiEins; this government now proposes to cut the ground from under our feet. I suggest that this is a deliberate move, and one members of this House ought to look into, espe-cisilly in committee. Why does the government feel it is necessEiry to take away the right to own land that people may wish to live on in a new community? Is this being done solely for the reasons stated by the minister? It is unfortunate that people are put into the position of debat-
National Housing Act
ing the ancient question of leased property as opposed to freehold property.
Touching on the question of new communities, it is interesting to note that the bill anticipates land acquisition for transportation corridors. Yet, nowhere in the bill is there any reference to the transportation problems that face the urban areas of our country and will, presumably, face the new communities that may be created in future. There is no mystery about our transportation problems in urban centres. Everybody knows what ought to be done. Yet, for reasons totally unexplainable, the federsil government in the one area where there is clearly no problem over jurisdiction and where it has real jurisdiction has failed to provide urban transit services in our urban centres.
In Toronto, and I refer to my area again, after months and months of studies, the federal government was finally presented with what was called a Toronto commuter rail study. That has been in their hands, certainly in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), since November of last year. The study comes to various conclusions. It points out that it is quite feasible to utilize the railroads that go in and out of Toronto for urban transit services. It sets out the costs of utilizing those services. It points out, for example, that in terms of capital requirements, to inaugurate new services on the lines running north, northwest and northeast from Toronto, it would cost for limited services, approximately $80 million and, for full services, $130 million. In terms of the estimated daily patronage of the full service, they point out that some 32,000 people would use those services, yet the Minister of State for UrbEin Affairs (Mr. Basford) is introducing a bill in this House without tackling the important matter of transportation. It is a subject that is of particular relevance to the federEil authorities because it is one that is squarely under their jurisdiction.
I rsiise this question because sometimes we in Canada forget that we have one of the lowest per capita ratios with respect to land of any nation in the world. This country has tremendous land available, but it has to be serviced, because we must get people to the development. It is lack of foresight that puts us in the uncomfortable position where we find, that in an area such as Toronto, house prices and certainly lot prices are the highest on this continent. It need not be so. The federsil government must truly attack this matter with a massive approach. They must go to the municipEdities and provinces and indicate in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars the funds they will commit annuEilly for the next 15 to 20 years to help service land then land, as it is serviced smd, in particular, lot prices in urban centres would tumble tremendously. That is the most effective thing this federal government can do.
Second, the federal government must accept the responsibility of providing urban commuter services. They must go to the vsirious municipEil and provincisil governments and offer to at least pay the capital cost of bringing such services into regulEir activity. That would open up a tremendous amount of land for servicing and development in areas such as Toronto and other urban areas of

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
Canada. It would certainly reduce the degree of lot price increases that have been taking place.
Third, the federal government must get rid of the red tape. It is high time that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stopped having requirements that they universally expect to be met from sea unto sea. Municipalities have different needs. If CMHC would accept the basic principle of financing, be it on the servicing side or the home ownership side, homes that are acceptable to the local community and stop drawing up their hard and fast rules as to what the house must have in terms of square footage, sewage, water facilities and so on, there would be a tremendous relief in the backlog of demand that now exists in this country.
It is time that CMHC got down to the grassroots, began diversifying and stopped this eternal centralization that seems to be the Ottawa answer to Canada's problems. Surely, when I can show the impact of 12 years, 1961 to 1973, of house prices in urban centres in Canada-


Richard J. Stanbury: Ontario.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -there can be no question but that CMHC is not doing the job it should be doing.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Twelve years of Conservative government in Ontario.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is 10 years that your government has been here, Mr. Minister. If the minister, his department and CMHC would simply trust the private sector a little more to produce, we would start getting some results.
I suggest that CMHC is an interesting contrast to the comparable company in the United States. There, the bulk of the financing is from the private sector and the corporation is owned by the private sector. The tendency in Ottawa is to have Crown corporations 100 per cent owned by the federal government and 100 per cent financed by the federal treasury, and that is bad. It should not be allowed to continue indiscriminately and indefinitely as the Trudeau government has allowed. Surely, the nation should expect more than Basford fiefdom's and Trudeau government fiddling with this whole question of housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, the act to amend the National Housing Act now under consideration is part of the lengthy progress of the Canadian society to carry out a housing policy consistent not only with the needs but also with the aspirations of our people.
A housing policy throws a lot of light on the government which promotes it. Is it a reforming government? Is it a government which is responsive to the various needs of the people? Is it a government which has drawn up its policy based on needs which could vary from an area to the other in that huge country? Is it a government which has secured the support as well as the willingness to act of other levels of government and the private sector, without which only a measure of success could be achieved?


The government's achievements in the field of housing and urban affairs since 1968 indicate the extent of the efforts made to achieve these objectives: From mid-1968 to the end of 1971, almost 750,000 housing starts were recorded. Forty per cent, or 315,000, were financed under the National Housing Act and 160,000 of these were, in turn, homes built for low income families thereby exceeding the total produced in all previous Canadian history. Nearly $11 billion was invested in housing during this period. Of this amount, $6.6 billion was injected under the NHA and 2.7 billion of that was direct federal funds loaned by CMHC.

Federal-provincial meetings about urban and housing matters were also quite successful. This has to be pointed our, however, since usually, only contentious cases in federal-provincial relations are referred to in his country.
Being aware as well of the gaps of the previous legislation, which failed to meet the ever growing needs of the Canadian society, the government has proposed the new measures which are now before us. The minister responsible for this legislation pointed out that these measures had earned the support of the provinces at the federal-provincial conference in January.
If we analyze the text that was put forward in the House, use can find that the minister proposes ten new measures or programs which will enable people to get a decent dwelling at a reasonable price.
Let us look briefly at these measures. The new communities program is designed to secure urban growth in ways that the unregulated spread of cities. We are all aware of what such growth of their urban centres has cost our American neighbours, and it is important to avoid their mistakes.
What about the land assembly program? Land prices undoubtedly represent one of the most costly features of housing. The government proposes an overall strategy designed to encourage provincial and municipal governments to become more active in getting land in order to meet future housing needs. The federal government is ready to spend some $100 million each year, for the next five years, towards public land assembly, including land for new communities.
Moreover, the government is thinking about the development of an assistance program for homeownership. I wish to speak at some length, Mr. Speaker, about this part of the amendments to the act. I suggest that it is difficult nowadays to state as principle that one should rather be a tenant than an owner. Some people may prefer, for worthwhile reasons, to be tenants rather than owners, or vice versa. The important thing is that our society make this choice a little more real, and insures to a larger number of people a choice in fact rather than in theory in this regard. And the bill which is now before the House represents a big step in that direction.
In his March 15 speech, the minister gave as an example that a wage-earner with two children and an annual income of some $7,500 would be able to purchase a $19,000 house by monthly payments of $137. It means that houses of $14,000 to $15,000 would be accessible to families with incomes lower than those the minister mentioned.
March 19, 1973

There are also programs for assistance to non-profit organizations, for co-operative housing assistance for neighbourhood improvement for rehabilitation of existing family housing for Indians living in reserves and a research and development program.
The last feature of these amendments, as outlined by the minister, covered the question of purchaser protection of homes. The amendments proposed will protect purchasers from the insolvency or bankruptcy of the contractor. In such cases, funds for the completion of houses would be advanced to the buyer through the mortgage insurance fund. The minister has stated that he expects to announce a national system of warranties for house buyers "before many months". Recent experience indicates that this is indeed a field parliament must look at closely. While I believe that protection against insolvency and bankruptcy are important I would like to see the federal government make strides to improve purchaser protection in areas which are clearly within its jurisdiction.
I realize that only 40 per cent of housing is financed through the National Housing Act and that housing is also subject to provincial legislation. The fact remains that builders are hungry for CMHC loans and that with its leverage CMHC ought to be in the forefront of exacting high building standards and eliminating shoddy workmanship which so often entails high maintenance costs and, at its worst, turns a dream house into a house of financial horror for the purchaser.
I recently read a booklet put out by CMHC called "What you should know about the inspection of your House". According to the booklet, and I quote:
The inspection routines are designed to make sure that the complete house will be adequate security for the NHA mortgage loan. They are not intended to police builders or to provide comprehensive supervision of construction.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this kind of statement is not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation presently before this House. What we are interested in providing is decent housing at a reasonable cost. That is the prime objective, and if we reach that objective, NHA loans will be adequately protected. It is sufficient to say that the homeowner who has agreed to meet payments on a mortgage over a number of years, must be confident that a CMHC-inspected house means much more than that CMHC has looked after itself.
The question of purchaser protection can only be solved through interaction of provincial and federal governments. I am delighted that the minister proposes to pursue this matter with speed. But let me say that while additional legal safeguards for the purchaser will be most welcome, we all know the burden which legal action to enfore rights of this nature may place on low and middle income families. Strict enforcement through inspection by the appropriate authorities which would permit the identification of defects at an early stage would be a more satisfactory way of attacking this problem.
National Housing Act

Which is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's initiative in taking the first steps to protect the purchaser is a most laudable one.
It is easy to see how far our concept of a housing policy has evolved since 1968. Not so long ago, the role of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was that of a banker. It was thought then that the way to solve Canada's housing problem was to build up a stock of available housing, rather haphazardly and without reference to specific needs. In the light of the changes that have taken place since 1968, it is hardly surprising that our total stock of new houses at reasonable prices for low income families is far bigger than similar stocks in the past. The initiatives that the minister has announced show how much progress the present government has made in this field.
A housing policy must offer stability, so that private enterprise, whose job is to build quality housing, can work in close collaboration with the three levels of government, whose job is to ensure that the new buildings go up in a healthy environment where Canadian families will be able to live the sort of life they want.
A housing policy must also have flexibility, if it is to adapt to our society's evolution. The measures that have been applied by the government since 1968 show that it has succeeded in combining these two essential elements of a sound housing policy.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising to add my comments to the debate this afternoon. I shall again draw from my experience in the municipal field as I relate the act governing national housing, as well as the proposed amendments and the requirements of the National Building Code, to the needs of those in the care of municipal governments. In particular, I intend to refer to those areas which are sometimes deprived of special attention due to their geographic location. I am thinking of areas and municipalities, relatively small in size, located in the central and northern regions of our land.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker-and this may shock the hon. minister-I wish to say that even though the proposed amendments do not go nearly far enough to meet the needs and demands of Canada's population, they are most certainly a step in the right direction. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the minister and his department. They have certainly recognized the need, and they have certainly been very imaginative in designing policies to fill that need.
However, there remain two areas of grave concern to me. Again, it is because of my involvement in municipal politics that I have learned to recognize certain shortcomings-the result of being frustrated so often in attempting to implement the national policies, such as they are. My first concern, then, is that we have not invented a workable solution to communicating to people in need of such programs and services the criteria for applying and qualifying.

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
I am particularly concerned with some of the programs designed for people of moderate means, and programs geared to people with no income of their own, people who are living on social assistance, old age pensioners and the physically handicapped. If it is ever our intention to find a solution to Canada's social crisis and to the problem of our poor, we must first of all find ways by which those people can provide for themselves a proper and comfortable home environment. So, I look to the minister of housing and urban affairs to take the first step. I make him responsible, in the first instance, for finding a solution to this problem which is crippling our nation-a situation where more than one-third of our people are living in huts or shacks, or at least in substandard conditions. Almost all of their other problems would solve themselves once a family who has lived on social assistance for two or three generations experiences the pleasure and satisfaction that comes with modern living. This is particularly true of the problems faced by children and young people who are being moved to a new environment.
Again I wish to say that the minister has in some areas taken this first step, but because of a breakdown in communications the services provided by his department do not find implementation. Now, why would that be, Mr. Speaker? At first glance it would seem that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act are just other government services wherein all ink is used to print red tape and the bureaucrats' first concern is self-perpetuation. However, this is only partly true in the department of housing and urban affairs. This department has actually gone a long way to decentralize its services by making sure that its regional offices are made available to serve the need. It is, however, not enough just to maintain regional offices, because if we examine the work these offices are doing, we find that almost all effort is directed toward accommodating the construction industry, not people who are in need of housing.
I wonder whether or not as a result of this the cost of the average home has gone up by 100 per cent in the last 10 years. Price is usually the last thing the contractor discusses with his client. The builder makes all the financial arrangements with the corporation and charges whatever the traffic will bear, and as a result the corporation serves the demand of the greedy instead of the needy.
My solution to this problem is that the corporation must first of all find ways to convey to the people I referred to earlier what services are available, and must establish facilities and services that would help people in filling out and filing their application. Furthermore, it should become the department's responsibility to motivate people to improve their position by actually telling them in plain and simple language, and showing them with pictures if necessary, the benefits of better living.
We all know, of course, that those benefits would bring with them a vast improvement in areas where we face the dilemma of only 3 per cent of the type of people I have referred to earlier achieving full utilization of our school system. We would find a vast improvement in health care and in the infant mortality rate, since people would have a chance to practice better body hygiene in their homes. The benefits I am referring to would have a profound

effect on the character building of our young people, who would not have to be ashamed any more of their social background. They would be given at best an equal chance because they would be experiencing, for the first time, pride of ownership and the satisfaction of personal achievement.
I realize that it would be physically impossible for the minister and his staff to fill this role without creating yet another bureaucratic monster which would eat up all the benefits, but I know from experience that there is a way by which we could achieve what I have talked about. To illustrate this, I wish to elaborate and explain to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, what I mean. As mayor of a small municipality in northern British Columbia, I set out to find a solution to the problems that were facing not only the native but also the poor white people in and within the fringe area of our town. That was also the dilemma facing the municipality that people living in unbelievable substandard conditions not only identified with our town and used all the services and social amenities, our schools and hospitals, but did not contribute anything to help us pay for these services. I organized a social improvement committee and set out to build some homes for these people on land which the provincial government had made available for the purpose.
In order to achieve maximum benefits-the minister knows the project I am talking about; he has contributed immensely to it-it was decided that the people for whom the homes were to be built should be involved during the planning and construction stages and that they should end up owning the homes. We took a survey of services and loans available from the two senior governments and found that there were actually sufficient services available not only to put all the applicants into new homes but to assist the town financially by broadening its tax base and by increasing the per capita contribution by the province. But the greatest benefits gained by this experiment, as it was called by CMHC, was not the dollar value, of course, but the fact that for some participating families the chain that kept them on welfare for three generations will be broken.
The project is only two years old and already we know that most of the children will not follow in their parents' footsteps. Teachers are telling me that there is already a profound change in their attitude towards school. The doctors are telling me that there is already a marked difference in these families health care, and some of the young men and women are making contributions to service clubs and community services so essential to the way of life in the north. We must consider that almost all of the participants in this project were on welfare, and most of them had a deplorable social background. We must further consider that the only special service employed was a direct liaison between senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the people themselves, through the municipal council.
We asked the question why so many Canadians do not avail themselves of a proper home, a question I have asked many times. I asked that same question about a year ago while speaking to the annual conference of the Native Council of Canada in Ottawa. I asked why I was honoured to come to Ottawa to talk about what I thought
March 19, 1973

was just a practical solution to a complex problem. Why was I honoured to represent the municipal view in this very critical question? I asked what was going on in other areas of Canada, and the answer, of course, Mr. Speaker, was that nothing was happening. Or, at least, let me say not enough was happening.
I do not wish to imply that innovations are necessary in the National Housing Act. We must examine the possibility that no innovations are necessary. We must-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should now call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis)-Social security-Suggested financial assistance to low income families to provide proper nutrition-Provision of guaranteed minimum income; the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse)-Penitentiaries- Failure of John Charron to return to Collins Bay following release on one day pass-Reconsideration of parole policy; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)- Penitentiaries-William Head-Possible conversion to medium security institution-Request for consultation.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, following the usual consultations I think there would be unanimous agreement to proceed directly to private members' notice of motion No. 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house proceed to the consideration of notice of motion No. 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose law) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Pension Plan Act
Canada Pension Plan
so as to allow farmers the option to make Canada Pension Plan contributions regardless of their net income.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon of speaking on a motion I submitted to the House on January 12. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Pension Plan Act so as to allow farmers the option to make Canada Pension Plan contributions regardless of their net income.
The subject matter of this motion is of vital concern not only to the farmers of western Canada but to farmers throughout the whole country, and anyone who is involved in the preparation of farmers' income tax returns, particularly in western Canada, will tell you that it is almost an annual point of discussion when taking instructions for the preparation of their income tax returns. Farmers' incomes are subject to many variables. They are at the complete mercy of mother nature, drought, hail, frost and floods can minimize or eliminate farm production in any given year. On the other hand, mother nature can be kind, with production unbelievably high.
A farmer's income depends on the international market, and in years of plenty in other grain producing countries he finds the price of his product very low, whereas if other grain producing countries have experienced reduction in production the farmer finds the price of his product very high. Whether he receives the high price for his product, of course, is dependent on the policy of the government or the wheat board in entering into contracts, either short or long-term, with importing countries throughout the world. The result is that a farmer does not know from year to year what his income will be, and he has many years with no net income and other years in which his net income is very high.
For many years under the Income Tax Act there has been a provision allowing a farmer to average his income over a five-year period. I would suggest that this is a very sound policy, one which has the effect of modifying the tax inequity which exists where there is a wide fluctuation in income. I do not know how many members are familiar with the method employed in determining the average income, but I should like to give a brief explanation. The averaging period consists of the year of averaging and the four immediately preceding years for which the farmer has filed income tax returns on time. The averaging period cannot include a year that was included in a previous averaging period and, if the farmer did not file his return on time for a particular year, or if he was not involved actively in farming or fishing in one of the years of averaging, he can use five of the six years, including the years of averaging to determine his average net income.
Having determined the five years which can be used for the averaging of income, the result is divided by five. By deducting the personal exemptions for the year, the result becomes the average taxable income, and the tax for each year is determined by using the tables for each of the particular years. Quite often, with the wide variation in income, you find a situation in which a farmer has for three or four years had no net income, and for one or two years has had a very high net income. The result is, of course, that he pays no tax in the no net income years, and
2358

March 19, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
there is no Canadian Pension Plan contribution made at that time. In the year or years when the farmer has a taxable income, usually that income has been very high and he pays tax at a high rate. Of course, he pays Canada Pension Plan contributions at the maximum rate in those years.
By the process of averaging, it quite frequently turns out that the taxpayer is taxable in each of the five years and, on the averaging form, the tax for each of the five years is based on the rates in existence for that particular taxation year. This results in a refund of tax. However, there is no provision under the regulations or the act whereby the taxpayer is allowed to make a Canada Pension contribution for the three or four years in which he was not initially taxable, but in which, under the averaging provision, he becomes taxable. As a consequence, many farmers over the years have been making Canada Pension contributions in maximum amounts in those years when they were taxable and no contributions in the years when they had no taxable income, despite the fact that their average annual income would require them to make contributions. This has had a drastic effect on the amount of Canada Pension Plan for which the farmer will be eligible on retirement.
The Canada Pension Plan was adopted in the 1964-65 session of parliament, and my understanding is that the purpose of the act was and is to provide an actuarially sound plan for citizens of Canada. Most employees in Canada who are working today for wages and salaries have been making regular contributions over the years to this plan and will, on retirement, be eligible for the maximum, or near maximum, benefit under the plan. In addition, the large majority of employees on salaries and wages participate in private pension plans contributed to by both the employee and the employer. This will give them a monthly pension on retirement in addition to the Canada Pension Plan benefits.
It might be argued that a farmer is entitled to provide for his old age by contributing to a registered retirement savings plan on his own, and that he is entitled to deduct the amount of the contributions, within limits, from his income in order to determine the amount of tax payable. I would suggest, however, that the farmer is in a very unusual situation in that, in those years when he has no net income he does not have the necessary cash to take advantage of the registered retirement pension plan scheme and, therefore, his contributions are of an erratic nature. This does not permit him to provide a stabilized retirement plan. It should be pointed out as well that a farmer, as well as other self-employed persons, contributes double to the Canada Pension Plan what a person on wages or salary contributes, because as the plan exists at the present time an employee pays one-half of the necessary contributions while his employer pays the other half.
There are two means of solving the problem; one would be for a farmer who averages his income to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan based on his average net income for each year. This would be a retroactive payment and could be adjusted by charging, in addition to the amount calculated, interest for the period from the time when he should have made the contribution to the
date of making same at the rates that the plan investments are earning during the period. The result, however, of basing the contribution on the average net income would mean that a farmer would not necessarily be able to make the maximum contribution.
The more reasonable, and I would suggest acceptable method, would be to allow a farmer, regardless of his net income, to elect to pay at his discretion, any portion of or the maximum amount allowed under the act as a contribution in any year. The effect of this would be that the farmer would be able on retirement, to receive Canada Pension Plan benefits at the maximum rate. If as has been stated in previous debates, the Canada Pension Plan is actuarially sound, then I would submit that the farmer is not being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, but in effect is on his own, participating in a pension plan which will enable him to live in dignity upon retirement.
Mr. Speaker, we have been moving over the years towards a welfare state, and this has caused me a great deal of anxiety and concern. Our great country was built on the concept of free enterprise and hard work. The right of an individual through ambition and initiative to provide not only for his old age but to make provision for his wife and family is a basic right. Once this initiative and ambition is destroyed-and I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is what is happening-we will end up in a situation where there will be a slowing down of our economy, for if the state is to take care of a person from the cradle to the grave, and if there is a penalty for initiative and hard work, we will destroy the very thing upon which our great country was built. I am not suggesting that welfare schemes are not necessary; they are necessary, but only for the aged and for the physically handicapped and as a temporary measure for those who are unable to find employment. It is the responsibility of government to develop policies and institute programs which will enable all able-bodied persons to be gainfully employed, to encourage our citizens and to teach them that the work ethic is important.
The farmer of Canada does not want something for nothing. He wants to be able to take care of himself and his family on his own initiative. By allowing a farmer to elect to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan regardless of his net income-and this applies, I would suggest, equally to all other self-employed persons, although I have not included them in my motion-he is making a contribution to an actuarially sound plan and providing a pension of his own which will assist him in his twilight years, which should be years of comfort, satisfaction and enjoyment. Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to give full support to my motion.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on the motion cf the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). This motion is not new since several official representations have been made in the past to the government in this connection by agricultural associations. The Canada Pension Plan advisory board has examined a proposition of this nature at the time of its semi-annual meeting, at the beginning of October 1972, and will study it again when it will meet in April or May 1973. Moreover,
(Mr. Neil.]
March 19, 1973

some people have approached the government about the possibility of voluntary payments, an aspect which the government studied in depth. It will also be noted that Bill C-115 introduced on January 12, 1973 seeks to amend the Canada Pension Plan so as to permit housewives to make voluntary contributions.
As for fair treatment of farmers and other workers I would be glad to see the farmers meet this new challenge to its maximum.
Although the motion is partly worded "so as to allow farmers the option to make Canada Pension Plan contributions regardless of their net income" it is directly connected to two further basic questions: the right of people to contribute voluntarily to the Canada Pension Plan and the right of those people to determine their average earnings for the purpose of calculating their annual earnings which are the basis of the contributions to the Canada Pension Plan.
I	deliberately use the word "people" in this context because it would be unfair if some provisions of the plan covered only farmers and excluded self-employed people or people whose only earnings are wages or salaries.
II	farmers are allowed to pay voluntary contributions for years during which they earn no income, why should the same right not be granted to restaurant owners and other businessmen? If this right is granted to farmers and other self-employed people, what about salaried people who are unemployed all year round and get no earnings? If these groups are given the right to pay voluntary contributions, what about the housewife who left the work force for many years to devote her whole time to the very important task of raising children?
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, if any group is given the right to pay voluntary contributions, this right should certainly be granted to all Canadians. The same considerations apply to the principle of averaging earnings in computing contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. Many self-employed and salaried people earned income that varied as much over the years as farm incomes. If we allowed farmers to establish their average earnings for the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan, we should honestly entitle all Canadians to do the same.
Having examined those concepts of basic justice, we can now consider the two basic principles deriving from that motion: the right to pay voluntary contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and the right to establish the average earnings for the purpose of that Plan. However, before dealing with the principle concerning voluntary contributions, it would be suitable I believe to summarize the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan and the relationship between that plan and other plans designed to ensure retired people income security. The Canada Pension Plan's first object is to provide all Canadians with retirement benefits and survivor's benefits related to earnings. The plan js especially designed so that Canadians who are unable to benefit from private plans may, during their working years, pay their contributions in order to get a retirement pension based on their earnings during those working years.
Canada Pension Plan
The plan's basic principle is that benefits and contributions should be based on annual earnings up to a certain yearly maximum.
As regards the link between the plan and other income security programs, let us not forget that the Canada Pension Plan is but one of the numerous retirement income security plans and should be considered as such. The universal old age pension plan provides for a basic income to all Canadians over 65. The guaranteed income supplement also provides an income for people over 65 who were unable to contribute to a retirement fund, either because of inadequate earnings during their working years or because there was no private pension plan to which they could contribute. The Canada Assistance Plan provides for additional assistance to people whose needs are such that old age pension and guaranteed income supplement are inadequate. It should be noted that benefits paid under these three programs are not related to the income earned by an individual during his working life. The Canada Pension Plan is one of the components of the overall retired persons income security program particularly designed to ensure pension benefits based on the income earned by an individual during his working life.
Since the Canada Pension Plan has been explicitly designed to be related to gains and considering the role it plays in the overall system of retired persons income security, allowing payment of voluntary contributions would constitute a considerable deviation, not only from the fundmental principle of the Canada Pension Plan but also from the general program of income security for older people.
As for voluntary contributions, it is important to understand that the Canada Pension Plan is not an "entirely financed" retirement savings plan. The precise formula used for determining the pensions is somewhat complicated but essentially pensions are linked to maximum income giving a right to a pension at the time of retirement by the average ratio between an individual's annual earnings and his maximum annual income giving a right to a pension. In general the projected value of the life pension under the Canada Pension Plan for an individual at the time of retirement exceeds the value of his contributions plus the compound interest. In fact, the present labour force continually subsidizes the pensions of former members of the labour force who are retired. The amount of these subsidies depends essentially on the time during which a retired person was part of the labour force and on the amount of his earnings up to the annual maximum. To allow voluntary contributions would mean authorizing people who never belonged to the labour force or did so for a short time during their active life to receive, on reaching 65 years, a pension subsidized by those who are working today. For instance, the older person whose support during life was an income derived from an inherited fortune could pay contributions and receive at 65 a pension subsidized by those who work. In other words, those who have enough revenues to pay voluntary contributions would benefit from the subsidy, whereas those with a very low income and unable to pay such contributions would not benefit from that subsidy. This would be contrary to all recognized standards of justice and to the intention of the Canada Pension Plan.
2360

March 19, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
Mr. Speaker, let us note that the arguments put forward against the averaging principle are weak. If it is not allowed at the present time, it is above all for administrative reasons.
As I said before, the possiblility of allowing gains averaging for the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan has always been and is still being looked into by the government. However, it would be fairer to grant all Canadians having earned an income the right to averaging; that right can be only granted to an individual group.
We have just reviewed the Income Tax Act in order to allow all Canadian taxpayers to apply some kind of averaging of income for income tax purposes. Should the Canada Pension Plan be amended to allow some kind of averaging, the same right should also be granted to all Canadians with earnings eligible for pension purposes.
Mr. Speaker, some people have thoroughly examined the Canada Pension Plan, especially the question of averaging. Although a certain form of averaging would seem possible it could not be implemented today without multiplying the red tape and costs of the plan. In addition, after a thorough examination it is not evident that such a provision would benefit people, including farmers, on low or medium incomes.
Farmers, for example, are already averaging their incomes in their books of earnings. The level of benefits is based for all contributors on 85 per cent of the highest earnings received during the years during which they paid contributions. Allowing a new averaging of earnings for pension purposes would be equivalent to averaging an average, which could have adverse effects on pensions which will be paid out to many contributors on low or medium incomes.
In fact, the provision concerning averaging would be likely to benefit only those who receive a relatively high and fluctuating income. For example, it would allow people who stay in the labour force for a limited number of years and receive very high earnings during those years to pay contributions for those years during which they are not working. Not only would averaging benefit the rich but it would violate the principle under which pensions are related to annual earnings up to a certain ceiling.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are calculated on wages and salaries or business income under the Income Tax Act.
Under the Income Tax Act a farmer can average his income for tax purposes. If he does, his total average income is calculated, not only from the annual gains and losses of his farm, but also any wage or salary he has earned, the profits and losses of any other enterprises of his as well as income from rent and investments. The whole legislative context would have to be changed and special regulations made for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan to establish what part of the average income, for each year of the period from which the average was calculated, was income for which contributions were payable under the plan, since the gains record for the calculation of benefits is based on gains in respect of which contributions are paid.

Neither this nor the many other administrative considerations mean that the government has rejected the idea of calculating averages. The matter will be looked into again within the next two years, during the second stage of revisions to the Canada Pension Plan. If detailed study should show some form of calculating averages to be both fair and administratively feasible, then of course the government would do all in its power, after consultation with the provinces, to amend the act accordingly and give farmers the possibility of paying contributions.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary agree to answer a question?


Léopold Corriveau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member mentioned subsidization. Could he advise me whether the Canada Pension Plan is actuarially sound?


Léopold Corriveau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, referring to the answer given to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), I assume there is more money in that plan than they would ever get around to using, according to the last reports I saw. I will not pursue that matter with the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the motion of my hon. friend is of some significance, I wish to deal with it though my professional instincts give me an answer contrary to the one given by the parliamentary secretary. There is considerable merit in the motion, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary mentioned a conference to be held in April, 1973, when this particular matter and others relative to the Canada Pension Plan will be discussed. I think the House should support the motion and pass it on to that conference.
I receive many letters from producers relating to the instability of their income and their problems in trying to contribute to this plan and use it as a retirement plan. Those of us who represent prairie areas often say that the only thing a producer has for his retirement is the investment in his land. The options are extremely restrictive in terms of other means of contributing toward his retirement.
The bill to establish the Canada Pension Plan was passed in 1965 and came into force on January 1, 1966. Since then, in the years, 1966, 1967 and 1968 western producers were in a position to contribute to the plan, but in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 many who would normally have contributed while they were still working would have been cut off because they would not have had sufficient net income to necessitate filing a tax return. The parliamentary secretary pointed out the problem common to many groups who wish to contribute to the plan volun-
March 19, 1973

tarily whether or not they have sufficient income. The hon. member for Moose Jaw suggested a method by which the producer may be able to get around this problem by averaging his net income between the years 1965 and 1972.
If there is difficulty not only for the producer who wishes to contribute voluntarily to the Canada Pension Plan but for other groups such as housewives, there may be a need to consider revising it entirely to enable such people to participate. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the housewife should be allowed to contribute. We know that the farm housewife is often actively engaged in the labour of the farm. I hope that the departments concerned, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture, can come up with a plan so that farmers and housewives-just taking these two examples-can contribute voluntarily to the Canada Pension Plan in order to obtain its benefits in their retirement years.
I was somewhat disturbed by the fears expressed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw concerning the onslaught of a welfare state. This program was established to protect producers and others in their retirement years. I do not consider it welfare; I consider it part of the type of scheme available to a person in a welfare state. The hon. member's motion would make the plan available to the producers of western Canada. However, somewhere between his philosophy and the motion, his logic has gone astray when he deals with the free enterprise system and all that goes with it.
If we are to go back to the free enterprise system we should abolish the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare plan such as we have in Saskatchewan, hospitalization, some equalization payments, unemployment insurance, etc., and go back to the dog eat dog attitude of Tory conservatism. I support the motion but I point out my concern regarding the very weak defence of the free enterprise system which no longer exists.
I am sure other hon. members wish to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that before six o'clock the government will allow it to come to a vote and pass. The subject could then be brought before the conference in April which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) mentioned, where it could be discussed along with other changes to the Canada Pension Plan as they relate to housewives and other groups and the possibility that they could take part in the plan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to ask a question?


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, could I answer the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) because a moment ago I did not understand his question? I do not insist on answering his question but I would like to tell him, with reference to the question he asked, that some studies may have been done in this field but I did not examine them. That is what I wanted to tell the hon. member a moment ago.
Canada Pension Plan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I think the hon. parliamentary secretary gave the answer he could have given had he had the unanimous consent. Now I think we will listen to the next speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in my view, motion No. 15 proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is important and touches upon a subject of great concern not only to farmers but to many groups in our society, those working in small businesses, the self-employed, and so on. As the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) so ably pointed out, the principle underlying the motion before the House is one that would have to be carried through to cover all these other people if we intend equity to prevail.
Speaking as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is to some degree involved in the question even though the Canada Pension Plan comes more under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) than under the responsibility of my minister. Let me say that our department has certain responsibilities as they affect health and welfare and is concerned about this particular problem. The matter is being taken under active consideration.
May I point out to hon. members that this question cannot be resolved by the House alone. The Canada Pension Plan was entered into by agreement with the provinces and cannot be adjusted unless there is agreement by two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population of Canada. That means that if there is to be a change along lines suggested by the hon. member-and apparently this kind of suggestion has come forward on previous occasions and has affected the involvement in the plan-of various groups in our society it would be necessary for agreement to be reached with the provinces.
As hon. members may recall, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has indicated in this House on previous occasions that a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers is to take place in Ottawa in April, and at that time the provincial ministers and federal Minister of National Health and Welfare will look at the entire problem of social security in Canada with the intention of relating these programs one to another in such a way that we shall obtain in an organized way maximum benefits for Canadians.
The provinces have been asked to come forward with model proposals for consideration by the federal government, and the federal government has indicated that it will come forward with model proposals on the matter of social security for consideration by the provinces. I understand that the whole question of the Canada Pension Plan will be discussed at that federal-provincial conference. If agreement is reached by all levels of government, then I believe and hope that some action will be forthcoming.
I should like to touch on one or two points which have been raised with respect to this question. They relate to assistance given by the federal government, sometimes

March 19, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
independently and at other times in concert with the provinces. There is a whole series of programs involving not only the aged but also other Canadians. I should like fo talk about this for a moment.
One cannot consider the Canada Pension Plan in isolation; it is not the only piece of legislation that affects the elderly in Canada. As we know, the government's proposal for a universal pension of $100 per month is at the report stage and will soon be brought forward for third reading. In addition, there is the guaranteed income supplement. When you combine these two programs you will see that there is a minimum guaranteed income of $170 a month for single persons aged 65 and over, and $325 a month for married couples. That does not take into consideration the Canada Pension Plan. Those amounts are by no means small. The figure may be somewhat less than our elderly would like; it may be less than they deserve in view of their contribution to the well-being of Canada through the work they have done during their lives, but it is none the less significant and the benefit is valuable. Also, as far as I can ascertain from statistics, our benefits cannot be matched by those of any other country in the western world.
In our over-all review we will take into consideration not only the Canada Pension Plan, the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement but the family allowance program or the FISP proposal that was brought forward in the last parliament under which we would pay allowances for children. As well, we shall consider youth allowances and welfare, which is administered by the municipalities but to which the federal government contributes 50 per cent, disability pensions, the Canada Assistance Plan and, as I mentioned before, the Canada Pension Plan. If we are to come up with a comprehensive program all these matters must be looked into and rationalized to make sure that every segment of our society is properly treated.
One comment in the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw alarmed me. He suggested that no one in Canada should be on welfare except the aged, the temporarily unemployed and the handicapped. I do not want to put words into the hon. member's mouth, but that is how I understood his remarks and I think Hansard will substantiate the correctness of my interpretation. In my view, that is an oversimplication and does not cover many areas of serious concern inasmuch as the government must provide assistance to those in need.
Let me give a significant example that was not mentioned by the hon. member. Unmarried mothers need assistance from public revenues. Also, one could give the examples of widows and orphans. You could go on and on speaking about areas in which the government must enter the field in order to give assistance. We have given assistance in these fields in the past and will continue to do so despite anything the hon. member may have said about welfare programs. I think it is true that no one really wants to see a welfare state, in the sense that there may be abuses of welfare programs. Perhaps welfare is really not the right word to use. Nevertheless, it is clear that the government must accept its social responsibilities and for the common good intervene to help those in need. Regard-

less of the category the people concerned may fall into, this must be done.
Also, there are other programs which simply redistribute wealth. These are required so that wealth does not become overly centralized in the hands of a few. Anyone who looks at the question rationally will realize that this is really what income tax is all about. The government takes money in and redistributes it sometimes in a way that is better than that in which the money would have been distributed originally. The result is that larger numbers of citizens benefit from the over-all increase in the gross national product and in the wealth of the nation.
In conclusion, may I say that my department, as well as all departments of government, is concerned about the anomalies which have been created within social program structures. One of those anomalies affects the person who is self-employed, such as the farmer. Problems of averaging, and so on, must be considered. It is sometimes easy to state a problem but it is not so easy to find an equitable solution. The government is concerned about this problem and will be bringing it before the federal-provincial conference in April. I hope that the deliberations of that body will result in a better kind of program which will involve the whole social structure in Canada, so that we will minimize red tape and maximize benefits as well as cut down the excessive costs that might be involved in some of these programs which are often duplicates of others. This will require much co-operation and good will, not only on the part of members of this House but also by the provinces which must act in co-operation and in concert with the federal government.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who proposed this motion is to be commended for bringing it before us. However, I would take issue with the narrow way in which he has framed the problem. Its implications are far broader than he suggested. What he is really dealing with is not just a program involving farmers whose incomes fluctuate; he is also suggesting that people in other trades and occupations whose incomes fluctuate should come under the ambit of a motion such as this.
In addition, the matter is of concern to me inasmuch as it touches on the question brought forward by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) which deals with the possibility of women who are not in the labour force also participating in the Canada Pension Plan. In addition, another group experiences difficulty with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, our native Indians. Under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan legislation it is not possible for an Indian earning income on a reserve to pay into the Canada Pension Plan. If an Indian earns income other than on a reservation, he is permitted to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan from that income.
At the present time there is a distinction in the Income tax Act as to the way in which the income of an Indian is treated depending upon where it is earned. As collections for the Canada Pension Plan are basically administratively controlled by the Department of National Revenue, it was determined at the time of passage of the Canada
March 19, 1973

Pension Plan that Indians would remain outside the ambit of the plan for the purpose of benefit in respect of income earned on a reserve. This was not a conscious decision taken by the government alone; there were consultations with the various Indian organizations. It was determined that since the moneys were to be collected by the Department of National Revenue, the Indians paid no tax on income earned on an Indian reserve and therefore had no direct contact with the department on that matter; and since the Indians had come to no definite conclusion at that time, the decision was taken to eliminate from payment into the Canada Pension Plan fund contributions based on income earned on Indian reserves.
That situation is now in a phase of flux; the Indians are now beginning to re-examine their payments into various funds of this nature. I have received from band administrators in my constituency requests as to the possibility of having the act amended or the regulations changed to permit Indians in some cases, where they determine to make such contributions, to pay into the Canada Pension Plan fund the same as anybody else; that is, on income earned on a reserve. This problem is a glaring anomaly in the way in which the system has evolved over the past few years.
The matter specifically raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw has been dealt with somewhat extensively in the proceedings of the advisory board which, as members know, deals with both the federal and provincial governments. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) said that he thought there was in the fund a considerable amount of money now, without there having to be any increase in the amount payable by those who now pay into it. In point of fact, the Canada Pension Plan as passed by the House of Commons is distinct from the plan that was originally proposed to the House of Commons by the government. The consequence is that the plan we now have is largely designed to finance the ongoing activities of the provincial governments and to provide a pension plan for those who have paid into it.
The Canada Pension Plan as currently set up by legislation is based upon those who are now in the labour force providing a portion of that pension regardless of the amount which people have paid into it in the past. In essence, the current labour force is perpetually subsidizing the pension of members of the labour force who are now retired and collecting pensions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Only because the provinces and municipalities want cheap money.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says it is only because the provinces and municipalities want cheap money. I think that is a very legitimate point. However, I remind the hon. member that during the debate when the Canada Pension Plan was being set up the government made tremendous change to the original plan in order to accomplish this very end. It is an integral part of the Canada Pension Plan to provide the provinces with this kind of cheap money.
Since that principle was accepted by the House of Commons at that time and it was a minority House of Commons-we ended up with the situation where the Canada Pension Plan at the present time is not self-funding. It is
National Housing Act
basically used to do two things-I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that in some respects they are mutually exclusive-that is, to provide a source of funds to the municipalities and the provinces as well as to pay pensions to those who have paid into the plan. In order to make it work, a portion of the moneys which people in the work force pay into the Canada Pension Plan subsidizes the pensions of those who are retired and are now collecting benefits.
The amount of this subsidy depends, essentially, upon the degree of labour force attachment that a pensioner had during his working life and upon his level of contribution up to the yearly maximum. This principle is embedded in the pension plan. However, over the past few years there have been a number of projections as to when the Canada Pension Plan will run into difficulty because of the way in which the funds are administered by the provinces and the commitment of the fund to provide pensions for persons now in the labour force. The expectation is that some time in the 1980s the amount of money paid into the fund by those in the labour force will be insufficient to meet the obligations which the fund will have contracted.
With regard to the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, providing for increases to permit people to average their incomes has been discussed by the advisory committee, particularly during its last meeting from September 29 to October 1, 1972. The matter was extensively discussed at that time. I have before me the minutes of that meeting. It goes into some detail, with pros and cons in respect of the matter.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I was encouraging the minister by telling him about the projects and services which he and

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
his department had innovated which were adequate to solve the problems of many Canadians today in the field of housing. I told him of a wonderful experience to which he and I contributed in developing a project leading to the rehabilitation of a great many people, thanks to our success in placing them in proper homes. I do not wish to imply that innovations to the National Housing Act are unnecessary. We must examine the possibility of lower interest rates or of loans without interest in particular cases. Such policies would repay our investment in human resources one hundred times over.
What I am saying is that the minister and his department must find a way to enter into direct partnership with municipal officials and regional governments. They must decentralize to a greater extent and become more flexible so as to meet local needs which are so different as one travels from one area of our land to another. I do not find the solution to this challenge in the amendments now before us. Nor do the amendments make it easier for people living outside organized municipalities, on farms or small country holdings, and motivate such people to improve their position. ,
There is another area of concern to me. It is that because of antiquated regulations imposed by the national building code no significant changes or innovations have been made in conventional construction methods, particularly in the private home sector. I know personally of a number of projects carried out by companies which have concerned themselves with this task and have invented new methods of constructing private homes or family dwellings making use of new materials. While I am not proposing that CMHC find ways in which to finance the construction of igloos in the Arctic, I suggest that in some areas which are particularly remote or where climatic conditions are especially severe, we depart from conventional plans to allow the utilization of materials which may be more readily available than others, and that we relax the somewhat stringent regulations presently governing loans. This would allow people living in substandard housing to improve their situation in a simpler, perhaps, but yet more practical way than is presently possible. The amendments provide for funds being made available to carry out research and experimentation. This, one might think, would constitute a partial solution to the present unwillingness to depart from conventional housing methods. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that these funds are to be provided reminds us that existing programs such as ARDA and or PAIT have failed to produce the desired effect.
How can the minister be sure that this time Canadian industry, firms in the private sector, will take advantage of the new situation? Can he assure them of access to the fund? problem may be unchanged. The minister and his staff will continue to experience frustration because it will be impossible for them to communicate with the very people who could really propose meaningful innovations. They might, after all, live in Flin Flon, or Taylor, B.C., or Fort Nelson, 500 miles from the nearest CMHC office; and the officer who visits them from the office in Prince George is likely to be an inspector who is already three weeks late and two weeks behind time in his schedule of visits to other places. He has no authority to examine new ideas which someone might wish to incorporate in the

building of his house, and no interest in facilitating an application for a loan.
I wonder whether this is not the real reason why 85 per cent of our population is living in concrete jungles instead of participating in a life style almost unique, now, in Canada. It would be interesting to examine what our neighbours to the west are doing; how they are developing their northland and what incentives are provided for people who share in the excitement of a developing frontier. In Canada, there are no incentives for people living up north. There are only penalties.
Particularly in the field of housing one must pay a severe penalty for a pioneer since programs are designed to solve the problems of urban centres and cannot be applied to rural situations. In addition, of course, there are special needs and requirements in the north, and conventional construction methods leave much to be desired. The answer is simple. The minister already knows the answer because he has made it his business to talk to municipal leaders and exchange ideas with them. We had an opportunity today to talk to mayors and reeves from all across Canada. They certainly expressed the ideas which are contained in my speech today, though the speech was written long before I met the mayors. Surely someone must have expressed to the minister the frustrations that we in the municipal field have suffered in trying to implement services, such as they are.
The answer is the establishment of a direct link or partnership between the corporation and the municipal council. Every municipal or regional council in Canada must make housing its top priority. The size of the municipality does not matter. Even though the problems are different, the priority nevertheless exists. Every council in Canada has a housing committee, and every council in Canada would be prepared to establish a housing authority under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, may I say at no cost to CMHC. This housing authority would deal with local problems, implement the act to serve local needs, engage pre-existing services to complement the services established by CMHC, such as the homeowners assistance plan, the community development program, land assembly, public housing, and so on. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we would be involving local people in order to solve local problems and meet the needs in the areas I have described. This is the only way we could do this. People just do not have the time to discover how to slice through all the red tape, particularly if they have two bureaucratic monsters to deal with.
Why, then, are we not implementing what is truly a national housing act? Certainly it is not one now. Provincial governments have found ways and means to keep civil servants busy inventing all kinds of stupid changes in regulations. A perfect example of this is now being demonstrated in British Columbia, where a provincial administration has misinterpreted the word "socialism" to the point where their legislation is in conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights. They are planning a freeze on all land development in the province because they know best how it should be developed. Would the minister ever find his way through that mess in trying to implement a com-
March 19, 1973

munity development program, a land bank or land assembly program?
If, Mr. Speaker, we are seriously concerned to implement what is truly a national housing act, it will only be possible to do so by involving people in front of the firing line, municipal governments and, if need be, even service organizations-those for whom the act was designed in the first place. I know all the great arguments that are made about the rights of provincial governments to deal with municipalities and about how they are in conflict with the law that prevails throughout the land. But we must accept a challenge to change the laws if they are not consonant with what we are trying to do. I suggest we could do away with cumbersome regional administration and set up an administration that instead of dealing with contractors would deal with all people through their elected representatives.
I must admit, however, Mr. Speaker, that there are two hitches in my plan which would have to be overcome. Firstly, we would have to make the act even more flexible so it could be implemented to meet an even greater variety of regional and local needs. Secondly, the minister will be challenged to find four times the amount of money that his budget now calls for. If he is to implement his housing policies, the money allotted to him through the budget will not be nearly enough.
It almost seems to me that this is the real reason the act is so cumbersome and the mountains of red tape are so high. If we are to find a practical solution to Canada's housing crisis, the minister's budget is going to look like the estimates for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This is why I believe we are not really serious about having a national housing act. With all the other luxuries to which we are accustomed, we simply cannot afford to have all Canadians living in decent homes.
I suggest this is also a reason why the government has not removed the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. We do not have the guts to face the challenge that this would present. Meanwhile, social and human costs remain staggering. Yet another generation of people will walk in the footsteps of their parents, having been born in the gutter or under a stump, wasting their lives by being a burden to our society before dying in the same place.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I share with my colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) the view that the housing crisis facing many Canadians today, both as individuals and as members of families, is due to many years of accumulated neglect. This crisis is based on the fact that financial aid has been available through legislation to assist in providing housing for those who need it the least-the upper 10 per cent or perhaps, at best, the upper 25 per cent of the income brackets in Canada.
Canadian housing performance as it affects average and low-income Canadians has lagged behind that of many other industrial countries throughout the world during years of both Liberal and Conservative administrations. I appreciate and would underline the point made by my colleagues the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that the success of the various programs'included in Bill C-133 will
National Housing Act
depend upon the government making adequate funds available to finance these various programs, the passage of adequate regulations filling in the details of the act, which, as so often, are vague, and lastly upon vigorous administration.
Nevertheless, I want to speak primarily about two aspects of this bill which I welcome and commend, a bill which I will not only support on second reading but, subject to suitable amendments, will seek to get enacted into law as soon as possible. I refer to the provisions relating to the rehabilitation of existing housing as distinct from the building of new housing. Both the rehabilitation of existing housing and the building of new houses are important, but the former has been neglected for a long time, as is well documented in the so-called Dennis report. I notice that in its submission to the government today, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, representing as it does many municipalities across Canada, said that very little money has been made available for the purchase, rehabilitation or repair of existing housing, or for the extension of services to raw land.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the provisions for assisting the financing of co-operative housing, which I welcome. As far as the rehabilitation of existing housing is concerned, perhaps I may be permitted to say that ever since I was elected to this House this has been a cause I have had very much at heart and have urged in the House from time to time, partly because it is common sense to preserve an existing stock of housing and to spend, say, $3,000 or $4,000 on preserving an existing unit adequately serviced rather than spend $15,000 to $20,000 building a new house in an area where you must also provide additional services. Another reason I have always supported the financing of the rehabilitation of existing housing is that it fits in with the needs of those in my own constituency, which I shall discuss more fully later.
My constituency is a built-up residential area. It has many attractions and very good existing services. It is not an area fit for the bulldozer or for residential programs such as have been conceived in the past. However, the moderate and low-income people who live in the area need assistance in financing the maintenance and development as well as the renewal of their present housing.
Public funds available for grants and loans for the rehabilitation and improvement of housing are a most necessary addition to any improvement program. If we are to achieve the goal of access to decent housing for all Canadians which the minister and all of us proclaim, we cannot leave existing poor housing-and it is estimated there are at least one million houses which can be defined in this way-until this housing has become intolerable and must be totally replaced at very great expense. I join with the metro Toronto housing task force which recently made a submission to the minister in expressing my pleasure that the federal contribution is not contingent upon a matching provincial contribution, as was the case in the previous legislation introduced in this House. This is a highly desirable aspect.

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
I presume this change was made as a result of consultation with the provinces and other bodies concerned with housing. However, I agree with the task force of metro Toronto that the level of funding will be insufficient for the purpose which must be accomplished. I urge an early review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. Along with the task force, I suggest that the amount of a loan for rehabilitation which can be made should be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 for low-income families.
I also commend to the minister the view of the task force that to achieve residential rehabilitation, traditional contracting arrangements are inappropriate. I join in their recommendations that funding be provided for the development of neighbourhood work groups which can work on a salaried basis. I also strongly urge upon the minister the recommendation that landlords benefiting from the grants and loans program be subject to rent restraint agreements for a stated minimum period of time.
I hope that the neighbourhood improvement program will be applicable in certain situations where the property is beyond designated areas. It has been suggested that the very fact of the designation tends to cast a blot on the area so designated. I also call to the minister's attention the recommendation in the task force report that there be provision for grants and loans for conversion of larger residences for multiple use. Conversions frequently represent the most economical use of larger buildings; therefore, this is an oversight in the legislation which should be remedied.
I would also call attention to the brief of the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Ottawa, and the Ontario Habitat Foundation with its headquarters in Toronto to which the minister has already referred. I must in fairness repeat what the minister has said, that the experienced authors of that submission believe the bill to be an enormous advance over the present National Housing Act provisions so far as they affect co-operatives. I agree with that. Nevertheless, let me remind the minister that the brief proposes further amendments and I support the amendments they propose.
Dealing with rehabilitation, the brief says that the rehabilitation program will be of significant assistance in many Canadian municipalities. It goes on to urge that two shortcomings should be overcome. The first is that the program should be extended to include rehabilitation which provides housing for single persons. Secondly, the program should provide explicitly, as I have mentioned already, for the conversion of larger houses to a number of smaller dwelling units. I hope the minister will introduce amendments to this effect.
I now turn to the question of co-operative housing. As the co-operative housing brief puts it, the co-operative process would do more than simply provide housing. It would, as well, strengthen the participatory fabric of our urban centres. The legislation, subject to certain amendments and improvements, would put co-operatives and many other non-profit organizations into a position where they could provide significant amounts of housing to Canadian families and individuals. To put the matter in the language of the metro task force submission to which I have already referred, an important new direction in housing policy in the present legislation is the encourage-

ment of non-profit and co-operative housing associations. This thrust should be welcomed because the non-profit sector can make a significant contribution to easing the housing situation for many individuals and families.
Co-operative housing provides a form of participation and management that has been proven to be most productive in motivating people to plan for and paarticipate in programs and services. The wording of the act must be carefully reviewed to ensure that non-profit co-operatives or par value co-operatives will be eligible for non-profit funding. Those who have followed housing policies in other countries will know the enormous contribution made to housing and indeed to the whole social fabric by co-operative housing. It is high time Canada sought to catch up with other developed and civilized countries in this field. The housing co-operatives must, therefore, expand and multiply and the legislation should be clear that it includes so-called par value continuing housing co-operatives.
As stated in the Ontario Habitat Foundation brief, par value co-operatives are an extremely important vehicle for meeting the housing needs of a broad spectrum of low and moderate-income families and individuals. This housing stock provides the only housing accommodation for families which is not operated for private profit or whose cost is not built up by successive changes in occupancy. Over the long term this could have a significant impact upon Canadian housing. The provisions of the present act provide that a non-profit corporation must be constituted exclusively for charitable purposes. I say to the minister that, surely, as a lawyer he knows the extreme difficulties in respect of what are charitable purposes. I suggest that provision should be changed in order to ensure that all non-profit co-operatives are included in the definition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I made that clear in my speech.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Then I missed it. I am glad to hear this. We welcome, as do others interested in this field, the provision of start-up grants to enable non-profit organizations to undertake preliminary development work on a project. Many groups which have not had access to such funds are being severely handicapped. There should be express provision in the legislation for the subsidization of residents of non-profit and co-operative housing. This, of course, would expand the area in which co-operatives could serve the housing needs of the people of Canada.
I would now like to refer to a housing development in my own constituency which can benefit from the proposed legislation and which illustrates the value of individual and co-operative enterprise. I do not wish to sound as if I were speaking in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, but what I am saying is relevant to this subject. My constituency of Greenwood corresponds roughly to ward 9 in the city of Toronto. It is a residential area with beautiful, tree-lined streets providing a fine setting for a variety of homes. There is a real diversity of incomes, rentals, age groups and family size.
The people in my constituency have shown an initiative in developing local organizations to meet their needs. They have formed an organization called ForWard 9 Citizens' Association. They publish a ward 9 community news sheet. They established a waterfront task force which
March 19, 1973

produced a people's guide to the waterfront. The set up a housing task force comprised of architects, businessmen, university professors and contractors from the area which evolved into the ForWard 9 Community Development Co-operative. During the summer of 1971 Opportunities for Youth funding was made available to Forward 9. Nine students carried out research for the task forces which had been established in the spring.
The housing task force indicated trends which could seriously alter the economic and social character of the entire area. I am mentioning this because I am sure there are many other constituencies in exactly the same situation. It is estimated that some 50 per cent of the families in ward 9, or in Greenwood earn between $6,000 and $9,000 a year. The cost of housing has been below the average. In the last year pressure to redevelop has been felt. The most noticeable trend is the rapid rise in rents over the last five years. Houses have changed hands at higher and higher prices and the rents which must be charged to the tenants have been raised.
I would point out that the tenants are the people who suffer when speculators drive up the price of land. Increasing numbers of houses are owned by absentee landlords. The number of owner-occupied housing units is decreasing. The upward rent spiral is evident in all parts of the area. Indeed, rents are increasing one and a half to two times as fast as those in the rest of the city. Contacts have been made with people whose rents have jumped as much as $60 over the past two years. When it is recalled that many of these people are old age pensioners, we see that sometimes the increases in pensiops approved by the House have turned out to be a mockery as the left hand of the landlord grasps what has been granted by the right hand of increased pensions.
The ForWard 9 Community Development Co-operative has been incorporated in an attempt to counteract these trends which I have described. The co-operative plans to purchase and renovate existing houses in the area which would then be let to ward residents on a non-profit basis. The co-ops are controlled by the people living in the co-op owned houses. Rents will be stabilized and security of tenure ensured. Increases in rent would be made only when there is an increase in taxes or an increase in operating expenses.
The project was designed to provide housing for families with incomes falling within the $6,000 to $10,000 range. This economic group is caught in the middle. They are too affluent for public housing, yet their earnings are insufficient for them to be able to purchase a house. The families whose incomes were above $10,000 would not be excluded, but they would be charged an additional monthly charge to be used to subsidize families with incomes of less than $6,000 and who would otherwise not meet CMHC requirements for the minimum increase.
Already in November, 1972, a mortgage commitment for $1.5 million was obtained from CMHC. The loan was granted under section 15 of the NHA on ForWard 9 Community Development Co-operative providing between 80 and 100 housing units. This will involve the purchase of some 40 to 50 houses and their rehabilitation. As in all
National Housing Act
cases, they will be dealing with multiple unit dwellings either existing or through conversion. The CMHC loan covers only 95 per cent of the total cost to be amortized over a period of 50 years. The remaining 5 per cent equity is being raised from local churches, individuals and other organizations. This emphasizes the importance of an amendment to provide that loans available for such projects be up to 100 per cent. The lack of 5 per cent equity could cause a serious and unnecessary slowdown in the progress of this project and other projects, despite the fact that they have strong community support.
I have recited this story of ForWard 9 in my own constituency so as to stimulate, I hope, the interest of other hon. members in similar developments in their communities. Such developments are in my view essential to the healthy maintenance of strong residential communities in the urban and built up areas of this country. In so far as the present legislation recognizes this need-suitable amendments could recognize it in an even more clear and satisfactory manner-I welcome the legislation and, as I have said before, will support it on second reading in the hope that in committee further improvements to the legislation will be introduced and accepted.
I hope that as soon as possible the legislation will be passed, that it will be vigorously administered and that the worthy purposes proposed in the legislation and mentioned by the minister will be executed with directness and vigour.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) gave us in his own inimitable style a wide-ranging speech which was pretty strong on rhetoric but not very strong on substance. The substantive issues raised by the hon. member, as far as I could discern, were that there should be a national development policy which would enable all Canadians to become home owners or build up an equity position to become home owners.
The bill does enunciate a clear national objective, which is to provide the conditions by which all Canadians will have access to decent accommodation whatever their income. To this end the bill, through its assisted home ownership program, will enable low and moderate-income Canadians to acquire home ownership with federal support. The bill also provides for 100 per cent loans and 10 per cent grants to be made available to non-profit corporations for the purpose of providing low-rental housing projects to meet the needs of the lower income groups.
The assistance provided in the bill for the rehabilitation of existing houses will also enable more of the lower income groups to assume home ownership and rehabilitate these houses in neighbourhood improvement program areas. Thus, the bill does not purport to make available only home ownership assistance to the exclusion of other forms of assistance for low-rental housing. I can, therefore, categorically assure the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) that these new programs of housing assistance are in addition to the public housing program and are not intended to replace that program.
These programs, as the minister said, are intended to widen the choices of housing available to the lower

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
income groups, and I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that it would be a tragedy if the public housing program was discontinued. That is not to say that there are not some imperfections in this program. There are, and these are being corrected, with emphasis being placed on lower density and scattered developments to prevent ghetto situations arising of the kind to which the hon. member for Calgary North referred. The emphasis given to the rent supplement program announced recently by the minister is another forward step to improve the living conditions of Canadians and will do much to prevent the isolation of the lower income groups and the attendant difficulties which so often arise on that account.
The hon. member for Calgary North drew attention to the high cost of housing, particularly in Toronto. This is certainly a situation that none of us can accept as being satisfactory. It is true in Toronto especially, but it is true also in many other urban centres. The hon. member mentioned that only 4 per cent of metro Toronto residents could afford housing and he quoted from the UDI brief to substantiate this. In fact, the UDI brief states that while in 1961 approximately 28 per cent of all income earners in the Toronto area could be said to have been able to buy a new, detached house, in 1971 only 11 per cent fell into that category, using the NHA average price statistic, or 4 per cent using a more realistic average.
These figures are based entirely on new housing costs and the perception of UDI officials of what is the average new house cost. I might mention that in Toronto, in 1971, the average cost of new, single family NHA houses was $30,939, which required an annual income of $12,700. On the other hand, the average cost of existing single family NHA houses there was $22,489, with new condominium apartments costing an average of $20,267. To support these costs required an annual income of $9,630 and $9,100, respectively. The latest figures available from Statistics Canada are for 1969 and show that 50 per cent of all families in Toronto earned over $10,000 and, therefore, qualified for a single family NHA existing dwelling or a new NHA condominium apartment. About 30 per cent of all Toronto families earned over $13,000 and, therefore, could qualify for a new single family NHA financed dwelling. I do not want to minimize the difficulties faced by the lower income groups in regard to home ownership, particularly in the urban areas. Toronto is the highest cost urban centre and I mention these figures to show that half the families there are in a position to assume home ownership in one form or another.
As the minister said, the bill is designed to meet the housing needs of the other income groups who would otherwise not be able to compete for housing on the open market. I think most members of this House would agree that the cost of land in Toronto is scandalous. There is no question about that. I have heard of some serviced land as far as 30 miles from the centre of Toronto where a lot costs $22,000. In Montreal, a similar type of lot would sell for perhaps $4,000 or $5,000. The difference in the price of these lots is perhaps to a small degree the difference in the cost of the services, but most of the difference is purely speculative profit.

It is interesting to assess the blame for all this and I should like to put on the record tonight how we got into the business of land assembly. In my view, the only long-range solution to high land prices that makes any sense are the steps announced by the minister in this bill concerning land assembly and the new communities concept. The minister has gone beyond that in his speeches in this House. He has said that he intends to use Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as an instrument of social policy. If you combine what we have here in this bill with the expressed intention of the minister, then you have the makings of a policy with the potential to force land prices down.
In 1950 a law was passed in this parliament which allowed for land assembly with the provinces and the federal government in partnership. Since that time the federal government has been willing to pay 75 per cent of the cost of land assembly programs in partnership with the provinces. As a matter of fact, in 1954 land was so acquired in Toronto and the Malvern development resulted from that assembly. It would be interesting to speculate what the price of Toronto area land would be today had the province taken advantage of the provisions available since 1950.
In 1958 or 1959 a further carrot was held out to the provinces to enable them to get into land assembly programs when the federal government made provision for assistance for trunk sewers as part of the sewage disposal plant and trunk sewer program. However, this did not prove very successful in encouraging the municipalities to get into land assembly, although that was one of the raisons d'etre for the program. In 1964 further amendments to section 42 of the act were passed which permitted the provinces to borrow up to 90 per cent of the cost of the land to be acquired for land assembly purposes. This lending apparatus was first used by the provinces in 1966 or 1967. It finally got under way in 1970 when in all the provinces of Canada a total of $15 million was spent on the acquisition of 2,500 acres of land. It is regrettable and tragic that many of our urban areas did not take advantage of these provisions in the law. Of course, there is blame on all levels including the federal level and all previous governments must take the blame.
I believe that the attitude toward CMHC and the National Housing Act is a reflection of our constitutional problem. For too long we tended to assume, since it was their basic domain, that the provinces should take the initiative. We left the field open to them, but they did not take action and we have ended up in the present situation. I wisl} now to turn to another issue raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. He made the point that the funds allocated for the new communities and land assembly program were insufficient, since out of the $100 million earmarked for these programs $93 million would be required for the Pickering development alone, which left only $7 million to meet the rest of the country's land needs. I must admit that I am somewhat at a loss to understand what the official opposition party's position is in this respect. On the one hand, the hon. member for Calgary North takes the position that the $100 million a year that we propose be set aside for land banking over the next five years is insufficient, yet on the other hand the Leader of the
March 19, 1973

Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) takes the following position as stated in an article in the Globe and Mail of May 31,1972:
A federal Progressive Conservative government would make a priority of a revolving fund of $100 million which could be used on a regional basis to set up residential land banking agencies according to opposition leader Robert Stanfield.
These remarks were made to the delegates of the Urban Development Institute at their annual meeting. This apparent ambivalence on the part of the official opposition party, where their leader takes the position that a total of $100 million will be the panacea to the land problem, is at variance with the hon. member for Calgary North who maintains that $100 million a year over the next five years is insufficient.
The funding allocation of $500 million over the next five years is a lot more than has ever been used in the past in the context of comprehensive provincial and local development plans which are directed explicitly to the principle of serviced land at reasonable cost. In the past, the provinces have used the funds allocated for this purpose in the capital budget of CMHC. The $100 million per annum is to be supported by a larger flow of funds for the extension of sewage trunk lines and sewage treatment plants, so that the federal commitment in regard to the development of land amounts to over $1 billion for the next five years.
If this is not enough, hon. members may be assured that the minister will come back here and ask for more. In view of the experience of the last few years, in which not a single province or number of provinces asked for nearly as much money as we are making available, that $100 million is certainly more than adequate, to start with anyway. It is not so much the money, however, that is important as the intent and determination to spend the money in the context of a type of development policy that until now we have not had in this country. We cannot simply buy our way out of difficulties that beset the land development process. We have, rather, to see it as an essential requirement of public policy to look to the orderly and harmonious growth of our cities and to develop strategies and programs at all three levels of government as a matter of continuous consultation and co-operation.
With respect to Pickering, the hon. member for Calgary North was correct when talking of the cost to the federal government, in acquiring these 25,000 acres, as being in the order of $94 million. However, what he fails to appreciate is that this development will take place over a three-year period starting in 1972. In fact, provision has already been made in the 1972 capital budget of CMHC for an initial allocation of $40 million toward the federal share of the cost of this project. This leaves a balance of some $54 million to be funded in 1973 and 1974 for this purpose which will be met out of the land assembly fund allocation to Ontario in these years. This, then, leaves a substantial balance, in the order of $73 million, for each of the next two years to meet needs elsewhere.
Another point that the hon. member for Calgary North raised was that the recommendations made by the Hellyer task force had not been acted upon and that this report was gathering dust. I am not sure where the hon. member
National Housing Act
was in 1969, but he may recall the amendments to the National Housing Act in that year which incorporated nearly all the recommendations made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) subsequent to his resignation from cabinet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did he resign?


Ian Watson: Thus, in the 1969 amendments legislative effect was given to such recommendations as freeing the interest rate for NHA loans, permitting five-year, roll-over mortgages, increasing loan ratios, extending amortization terms, reducing insurance fees, making loans for land assembly purposes, streamlining procedures by removing the necessity for order in council approval under a number of programs, and so forth. Other recommendations, particularly those governing public housing, did not require legislative amendment and were implemented as a result of policy changes. The discontinuance of the urban renewal program also largely resulted from these recommendations. Thus, nearly all the recommendations in one form or another were implemented by the federal government. However, we must admit that many of those recommendations fell under the jurisdiction of other levels of government and in most cases those recommendations have not been acted upon.
The other issue raised by the hon. member is that there should be municipal representation in the tri-level consultative process. This is the whole purpose of the consultative process, namely, to provide a forum whereby the three levels of government can sit down as equal partners and review urban problems which are a cause of common concern. A meaningful beginning has been made in this direction, as evidenced by the consultations held last fall, and this is to be followed up with further sessions taking place later this year. Negotiations are going forward with a view to the setting up of these meetings later this year. It was the expressed intention of the minister, as soon as he was appointed to his portfolio, to act with respect to these tri-level meetings and to increase the number of times that they could be held each year.
The hon. member for Calgary North suggested that CMHC, being a Crown corporation, is not accountable to the minister and should therefore be made a department so that the minister could control its operations. I point out to the hon. member that the enabling legislation for CMHC, namely, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, does provide in section 5(5) that the corporation shall comply with any directive from time to time given to it by the governor in council or the minister respecting the exercise or performance of its powers, duties and functions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I am well aware of the section to which he referred. Is it not possible that the president of CMHC or other members of the organization could say, "We will not carry out this order in council. We will not abide by it"? Would it not be better if the corporation were like any other government department? In the carrying out of government policy, it would be responsible to the minister. He would have greater control over it and there would be more liaison between that department and the minister. Would that not be better, instead of

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
permitting it to exist as an independent agency like the CBC or Air Canada?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I urge the member to read again section 5(5), even though he says he has read it. Unfortunately, judging by past action or inaction, ministers over the years who have been responsible for CMHC apparently did not read that section, either. There was a laissez-faire, hands-off approach to the administration of CMHC. That is not the case with the present minister. I do not think that will be the case with future ministers occupying his position. As this minister has announced, he considers that organization to be an instrument of social policy. Section 5(5) gives the minister clear powers to intervene and to direct the actions of CMHC.
In respect of the budgetary allocations to support these new programs which have been announced, it is axiomatic that the programs will not be fully effective if, indeed, they are curtailed. I should like to endorse the minister's position that this is a matter to which the committee should address itself in reviewing this legislation, and I am confident that in so doing members will assure that adequate funding is provided for this purpose. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with one aspect of the bill which will be, I hope, of special interest to the province of Quebec. I mean the provision for making loans available for rehabilitation, since the province of Quebec now has a restoration program in Montreal which has been extended to the whole province. Under the provincial program, only 25 per cent of the cost is given the owner for basic restoration work; he is expected to contribute the other 75 per cent out of his own pocket. The maximum amount provided for by this program is $8,000 and the minimum $1,000. The maximum provincial-municipal contribution is thus $2,000. Because of the relatively high contribution required of the owner, and because low income individuals are involved-they usually live in housing of inferior quality-and also for other reasons, the present program does not deal with the income of the occupants, nor with the resale value.
In order to reconcile differences between the Quebec program and the federal program planned, consultations at the official level took place between the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation and Quebec authorities for the purpose of developing a viable federal program which could be integrated in the provincial program according to needs. Following these consultations, the CHMC indicated its willingness to support the creation of a program calling for contribution of homeowners involved and offering federal assistance in the form of grants. It would be understood that federal participation would bring the total available grant assistance up to 40 per cent of renovation costs, or a maximum of $3,200, made available to the owner as a grant from the three levels of government.
Furthermore, it was understood that because of legislation concerning rent control in the province of Quebec no problem would arise in connection with assistance given to homeowners without definite rent control requirements
(Mr. Woolliams.]
under the federal program. Most residents of urban centres would therefore be protected.
With regard to the federal government's concern in connection with owner-occupants, namely that aid should be proportional to income and that there might be no profit on the resale of an improved unit, it was agreed, subject to further consultation to settle the form of these regulations, that an income ceiling would be set for a trial period, for eligibility for federal grants. It was also agreed that a promissory note would be required to ensure that the grant can be earned over a given period, to prevent quick resale profits.
Upon termination of the trial period, the two governments would carry out a further study to assess the program's efficacity, taking account of provincial needs. That is how the two programs will be co-ordinated in Quebec, so as to guarantee maximum impact in dealing with these needs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that this is the most effective-I should not say effective because we have not yet seen it in action, but the most significant housing legislation that has been introduced into parliament since the 1954 National Housing Act. It provides us with an opportunity to improve the living conditions of all Canadians. It will enable them to exercise their legitimate right to decent accommodation in a stimulating environment. We still have a way to go, Mr. Speaker, but this is a strong step in the right direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, since the field of housing is one of the most important in this country, I have much pleasure in speaking briefly on the second reading of Bill C-133, entitled "An Act to amend the National Housing Act".
This is a bill that reveals good intentions, and we should be very happy to see it. However, my limited experience of the implementation of the former act leads me to reserve judgment. Some of our many laws are good, in my opinion, because they are easy to implement, but we also have some that are not so good.
Besides, there are other acts whose administration can become a problem. Mr. Speaker, in that category I would place, for instance, the Canada Elections Act; in fact, one could imagine that what can be done, what can be controlled by the Chief Electoral Officer has nothing to do with what can be decided upon and what can be built following the personal endeavours of some organizers.
At any rate, this is more or less what happens as concerns the previous National Housing Act. On several occasions, I referred to the minister representations made by some of my constituents declaring themselves unsatisfied with the house they had bought through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and which had been built, supervised and financed by that same corporation.
I am still receiving letters from various constituencies in the province of Quebec, and among these, I should like to quote one that was sent from Vanier City on January 28, 1973:
March 19, 1973

The problems are the following: cracked foundation, which causes water damages in our basement; broken ceiling due to water leakage inside the rooms, and in one particular room, eight containers were needed to collect the water. Therefore, the ceilings have to be done over; the floor is loose; outside, broken perma-glaze; the walls are half insulated, and so one and so on.
This is the case of a young couple who bought a house. Having no child, the wife feels free to work outside. A storm occurs and there is nobody at home. It rains all day long and, in the evening, they find damages quite hard to evaluate. Some things can be repaired; there are others that can be dried, whereas, for others still, they had to call the insurer and claim damages. The insurance company refused to pay and the law supports it, because the damages to the property of these newlyweds and their furniture are simply due to faulty construction of the house.
This apartment is in a six-unit building which has of course a flat roof. Now, it was discovered that the drainage of the roof was set up at the highest point of the roof and this is an inexplicable defect.
But the most ridiculous thing of the entire matter is that it is absolutely necessary to catch the water seeping through the roof in tubs or pails, because if it falls in the basement it cannot run off. Indeed there is a screen on the floor of the basement but the water cannot go through, unless of course the drain, if any, is plugged.
So the owner asks to see the plans and specifications used to build that house to know where to make a hole and check the pipes, if any. However, it is impossible to see the plans since apparently the builder of such a house is not compelled under the legislation to produce them.
In this letter which I received, another paragraph read as follows:
We have been contacting the CMHC since June 1971, to no avail. It seems that the contractor, who is from Vanier City, is bankrupt. We have had no results with him either.
Mr. Speaker, this is a case from Vanier City. In my collection, I have a letter from Notre-Dame-des-Laurenti-des. The owner paid $1,150 for his lot. He signed a $14,000 contract for the building of a 25' by 37' house. That contract provided the following; landscaping, hot water heating system, oil water-heater, exterior and interior painting, screens, exterior door for the basement, that is an exit in the basement.
So the man takes possession of his house without any landscaping and no screens. He finds that he has to make a monthly payment to Imperial Oil which owns the water heater.
What he finds most amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that though he has paid $200 for the basement door, there is none. So he calls for an expert who tests all basement walls in order to find a spot which would sound hollow. To no avail, everything sounds solid. There is no door, visible or hidden. And when he took possession of his house, he had to pay additional costs for the double water mains needed to feed the heating system, he was told.
As this is a bungalow there is but one heating system which requires one pipe only. So the owner discussed the situation with a heating engineer who told him that in
National Housing Act
order to permit circulation a feeding pipe and a retaining pipe are needed.


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous!


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, according to invoices, such things are accepted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
At the present time Americans are concerned about the financial return of a pipeline for the shipment of oil from Alaska. So, I avail myself of this opportunity to suggest to the minister concerned to send to the United States a representative from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Probably this official could find a way of carrying oil from the North down to California, and using the same pipe to deliver molasses to the Eskimos. I am convinced that this system would be profitable!
Mr. Speaker, during the negotiations between the contractor, the Corporation and the purchaser, the notary had asked for $125 in cash, in order to get him the 3 per cent rebate paid by the province of Quebec.
We know that this form is available from the CMHC, Caisses populaires and banks. It may be filled up by a clerk within 10 or 15 minutes. However, to do this work, the notary had asked for $125. Unhappily, the new owner was not eligible to the rebate since his annual earnings were $100 more than the maximum amount allowed under the act. Then, this is another $125 lost!
Mr. Speaker, except for all I have just referred to, the owner is satisfied. Apparently, his house is quite comfortable. It is well located, the surroundings are fantastic in that area and his neighbours are very pleasant people.
He kept in touch with the CMHC for one year in order to get advice and guidance in his claims.
Considering the fact that he had to do himself the outside paint work, that he had not obtained the screens, that he had to do the landscaping himself and that he had not found the door yet, he met with officials of the CMHC to tell them that he was willing to pay at least for what he had received.
As the bargaining was not successful, after another year, he really got depressed. In the first place, he had to pay $200 to have a lawyer handle his problem but, unhappily, this lawyer died. After that, he managed to get his file and gave it to another lawyer who took up the matter seriously.
However, Mr. Speaker, the door has not been found yet. But it has been discovered that the contractor once went bankrupt and is now in business under a new name; his wife has been elected president of the company while he, being insolvent, became the treasurer manager.
Mr. Speaker, what are the criteria used by the CMHC to deal with contractors?
The budding of the house just referred to took place three years ago. But the most ridiculous thing is that this small company is still doing business with the CMHC. The case is definitely filed and the owner just paid $1,750 for legal fees plus $1,300 for things he never received.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give another distressing example. It is the case of a house built in 1963, pretty well built at a high cost, but which had shortcomings because

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
during winter months, water kept running down a wall and freezing in the cupboards.
The buyer had the wall examined by an expert who said that apparently the builders had failed to insulate the wall. And because they had to pull down one side of the wall to lay the insulation, the owner negotiated with his contractor for three years and a half without obtaining any result.
And as he loses his rights after five years he made haste to take legal action. During that time the owner had to change lawyers twice. The verdict has not yet been brought in and it is obvious that that house which was built 10 years ago does not have very strong walls.
Mr. Speaker, those who are dissatisfied with CMHC come by the dozen. Some bite their fingers-they would bite their forehead if they could-and there are even some who feel like phoning one another. Among those who admitted their mistake and regret having bought a house, some even admitted it publicly.
As a matter of fact, about one customer of Central Morgage and Housing Corporation, one can read in the newspaper Le Soleil of March 16, 1973, and I quote:
Mr. X was found in "contempt of Court" for refusing to remove a sign in front of his house saying: "Be more careful than we were before buying-
This is a customer of Central Morgage and Housing Corporation and the article is signed by Jean-Claude Rivard and Michel Truchon. They met the condemned man before he went to jail, and he stated, and I quote:
The jail house is certainly going to be more comfortable than my house-
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that such things should happen. CHMC should take its responsibilities, advise and help families with which it deals.
I am convinced that there are still honest people in the employ of CMHC but so many things have happened in recent years that one cannot help wonder. How many are there and who are those at Central Morgage and Housing Corporation who refuse to provide regular services?
Therefore, I feel it is my duty to second the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who is proposing that representatives of unsatisfied owners who dealt with the CMHC be called upon to appear before the appropriate committee. I think the time has come for these people to be heard.
In my opinion, if small investigations have been negative up to now, it is merely because they have not been made at the proper level. If the committee were in a position to meet unsatisfied owners, I am sure the truth would be known and that the necessary recommendations would be made.
I think there are enough honest people in our country so that a more equitable policy can be established for Canadian families looking forward to have their own house. A desire to own a parcel of land and a house is a natural thing which deserves fulfilment.
I suggest that a measure such as Bill C-133 can help Canadian workers get a good house provided the legislation is applied literally and the regulations are really humane.
The government sends delegates throughout the world for the purpose of promoting peace. I think this is great, but I think that if we first do at home all that is needed so that our people can get a house without having to worry, this will be the beginning of responsible action. If we are sincere when we talk about peace, let us first act in such a way as to avoid everything that could give rise to revolt at home.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join this debate to determine the direction of Canada's national housing policy. As a city-dweller, representing many thousands of people in the middle of Toronto who have been unable to obtain adequate accommodation at reasonable prices or who have had to fight for the preservation of their neighbourhoods against the incursion of unwanted high-rise development, I welcome the opportunity to examine why the federal government has allowed this sorry situation to occur and what the legislation before us might do to help alleviate the problems.
Let me say at the outset that my comments will be directed primarily to the residential rehabilitation and neighbourhood improvement aspects of this bill, and that I welcome these new programs. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) express like sentiments a few minutes ago. At long last the federal government appears to have overcome at least some of its bias against providing assistance for existing rather than new housing. For years this government has followed a policy decidedly favouring new construction. Rehabilitation funds have been virtually non-existent, and in our large cities this has tended to encourage the tearing down of older family housing and its replacement with nonfamily high-rises. With this has come the destruction of the very soul of many fine residential neighbourhoods throughout Canada.
Why did this happen? First, one might trace the blame all the way back to the highly centralized and irresponsible assumptions upon which the federal government proceeded historically in the making of national housing policy. The first assumption was that housing could be used as an economic lever to adjust the economy in periods of high unemployment and declining growth. There was no attempt to view housing as an important social policy in its own right. The construction of new housing was seen as a more flexible economic tool than the fixing up of old housing.
Second, the federal government tended to follow the bulldozer approach to urban renewal, emphasizing demolition in the city core and replacement with gleaming high rises of steel, glass and concrete surrounded by parking lots and unused green space. Until at least the mid-sixties this is what the federal government thought the people in the cities really wanted. Besides, it was easier and meant that the government really did not have to consult the people.
Third, there was the assumption that all aspects of housing policy, including the exact mix of the various

March 19, 19Y3

programs, should be determined only in Ottawa. The provincial governments were seen as incompetent to determine their own program priorities or to responsibly allocate public moneys to the various agencies or corporations who would actually provide the housing.
There was an even greater unwillingness to see the municipalities determine housing policies at the local level. Instead, we had the highly bureaucratized Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ottawa attempting through the approval process to control every aspect of housing right down to the quality of individual projects. This was paternalism run rampant, with a highly centralized machine purporting to cover the needs of an entire country with a single set of standards and regulations. What this led to was a general insensitivity to the fact that the different regions of Canada required different housing policies. Programs for new housing may indeed have been desirable in certain parts of Canada, but there are other parts of this country where a more appropriate mix would have been in order in view of the relatively large inventory of existing housing stock which was slowly deteriorating.
For a number of years there were home improvement loans under section 28 of the National Housing Act. However, this provision was not for direct loans by the corporation but merely the guaranteeing of loans made by a bank or an approved instalment credit agency. If the bank or credit agency said no, then the home owner was out of luck. Had the federal government been interested in conserving and upgrading existing housing stock, it would have been a simple matter for the minister to introduce legislation which would transfer section 28 to part I of the act so that direct loans could have been granted. But this government sat on its hands.
Indeed, this lack of federal action has been accentuated by a drastic reduction in activity under section 28 providing for home improvement loans. In the period 1955 to 1959, approximately 31,000 home improvement loans were granted per year. In the last three years the number of loans has gone down from 10,000 in 1970 to 9,000 in 1971, and in 1972 the number of home improvement loans for the whole of the country was down to 7,000. There has been no federal concern regarding this decline and no attempt has been made to investigate its causes.
I would submit that this failure to pay sufficient attention to rehabilitation of existing housing in the large cities of Canada can be traced back to excessive centralization of policy-making and administration. The government has failed effectively to involve the provinces and the municipalities in the determination of the program mix. Indeed, when some provinces in January requested block funding on a three or five-year basis in order to give them the sort of flexibility required to pursue, together with the municipalities, innovative programs in core areas, Ottawa said no. Similarly, when some of the provinces demanded flexibility in order that they might take into account their particular urban or rural needs, Ottawa still resisted. The old rigidity is to continue. This government is denying to the provinces and the municipalities the opportunity to set their own priorities. You either do it Ottawa's way or not at all. I would suggest that as long as the federal government persists in dominating the program mix to the
National Housing Act
extent that they have in the past, we will continue to have situations in Canada where programs lag behind public need. The top-down approach is inflexible, inhuman and out of date.
Now, no one doubts that the central government in Ottawa has an obligation to determine the dimension of housing problems throughout the country and to set national goals. This clearly is a federal function. I think this was clearly explained by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in his address last Thursday. But these goals must form the context and framework for the development of provincial and municipal housing programs best suited to the needs of each community in each part of Canada.
But here we are in 1973 with an expanded bill with a variety of patchwork programs to be rigidly administered from the centre. It is not that programs such as assisted home ownership, land assembly, new communities, neighbourhood improvement and residential rehabilitation are necessarily bad or undesirable. The problem is that the mix and balance of these programs will still be in the hands of CMHC. Too often that body is insensitive to local needs.
Let us examine the contemplated level of expenditures for each of these programs on a national basis. Let us try to find out what the minister had in mind when he conceived the program mix. The minister indicated to us, on Thursday that he will reveal the anticipated expenditures for each program during committee stage. But last June he gave some hint of the sort of plans he had when he was introducing an earlier version of this bill. He outlined the amounts to be spent in the first year of operation.
At that time he stated that there would be some $155 million allotted to assisted home ownership, some $70 million to land assembly and only $6 million to residential rehabilitation. Out of the total first-year expenditure of $457 million anticipated at that time, residential rehabilitation would make-up only 1.3 per cent, which gives some indication of the priority that this government is giving to existing housing. Even if one were to throw in the $80 million anticipated for the neighbourhood improvement program, this would bring the total commitment to existing residential areas up to only 18.8 per cent of the total federal funds to be committed in the first year of operation. Obviously, then, residential rehabilitation is going to get short shrift in the implementation of this bill. There are going to be thousands of lower and middle-income home owners anxious to fix up their houses to a minimum maintenance standard who are not going to qualify simply because there will not be enough money in the program.
This program purports to be an improvement on the old one introduced last June because it does not necessarily restrict residential rehabilitation loans to houses located in neighbourhood improvement areas. However, to go outside these areas there must be a designation by the governor in council, with the concurrence of the province, meaning that the built-in institutional restraints on these rehabilitation loans will be substantial. The program is still area-oriented. This is yet another example of paternalism. It will be almost impossible to get rehabilitation loans or grants into spot situations outside of the inner

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
city and into the older suburban or even rural areas which in many cases are equally deserving of attention.
Another weakness of the program is that it is only available for family housing units. Older people living alone, students requiring hostel accommodation and handicapped people requiring special accommodation all would appear to be precluded from participating. Also, there is some doubt as to whether the loans will be available for conversion of larger residences to multiple family use on the basis of a loan for each dwelling unit created as a result of the conversion.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the rehabilitation program, however, is the limitation of $2,000 as the maximum amount of loan that can be forgiven. Even if this amount were to be matched by the provincial government-which happily is no longer a condition of the federal loan as under last year's bill-the sum of $4,000 is totally inadequate to bring most older houses up to even the most minimum housing standards, considering that this amount must cover plumbing, heating and electrical systems as well as any structured work that must be done.
In my view, it would not be unreasonable for the maximum federal loan to be set at $8,000 to be made available at a beneficial rate of interest with up to $4,000 to be forgiven in repayment over the life of the loan, depending on the occupier's income. With this sort of maximum, the loan and grant ceilings could vary, depending on the condition and size of the dwelling and the number of people it was capable of housing.
Finally, I am concerned about some of the after effects of the rehabilitation program which do not appear to have been considered by the draftsmen of this bill. For example, would it not have been a feasible proposition to include as part of the federal-provincial agreements, where they exist at least, that the provinces and municipalities must implement five or ten-year tax moratoriums on properties which have been rehabilitated? Otherwise, substantial property tax increases in the future may well be a strong psychological hindrance to low or medium-income families becoming involved in the program. Also, in cases where rehabilitation loans go to landlords, the bill might have been more specific about a minimum period of rent control and restrictions on resale, rather than leaving these matters to be determined by way of individual contract with CMHC.
Turning now to a related program, the neighbourhood improvement scheme is a welcome replacement for the old bulldozer-type urban renewal schemes of the past, as the minister noted last Thursday. There is a new emphasis on citizen participation, and the development and enforcement of occupancy and building maintenance standards is a most desirable feature, although the definition of these terms may cause some confusion. I am quite sure the minister is aware of the confusion he has caused by the lack of definition of these occupancy and maintenance standards.
One deficiency of the program is that the federal share of improving municipal and public utility services and relocating noxious uses is limited to 25 per cent, which in my view is a derogation from the general 50 per cent

cost-sharing formula which otherwise forms the basis of the program. Also, there is no apparent reason residential buildings outside the neighbourhood improvement areas which are slated for acquisition and demolition should be subject only to a 25 rather than 50 per cent federal contribution. It is also significant that for demolition of buildings outside a neighbourhood improvement area, the government did not think it necessary to require the province or the municipality to have citizen participation. Regrettably, it is not in the bill before us.
A note of caution should be injected here concerning the pervasive and paternalistic role envisaged for CMHC under clause 27 of the bill. It would appear from this clause that the corporation will be asserting a right to have a major say in local planning decisions since the agreements between the corporation and the province will set out the criteria upon the basis of which neighbourhood improvement areas may be selected and prescribe the manner in which the selection of such areas shall be made. Moreover, such agreements envisage a federal contribution of 50 per cent to the formulation and selection of plans to be implemented in the neighbourhood, which in my experience implies direct CMHC control of the formulation and selection process. If any decision-making function should belong to the people at the local level, surely neighbourhood planning is the prime example. Yet this program will virtually guarantee federal intervention. The omniscient presence and controlling sanctions of big brother CMHC will only be too evident. Potentially, this is the top-down approach taken to the extreme.
On a more positive note, I welcome the provision of loans of up to $10,000 for the improvement of commercial premises in the neighbourhood. This will help many small businessmen who are obliged to relocate as a result of demolition or who wish to expand in an area undergoing rehabilitation. This is a very sound and sane approach to neighbourhood improvement generally.
Now let me ask a few questions about the government's crown jewel in all of its housing programs, the land baking scheme. Let me ask the minister what portion, if any, of the $100 million per year will be loaned out for acquiring and servicing land for housing in the middle of the cities. Will the government approve in-city land banking of underused industrial properties which are capable of conversion to residential use? Is the government prepared to recognize that in the larger cities it may be possible in some cases to create new neighbourhoods close to the downtown jobs rather than to overburden our transportation facilities by placing all the new housing in the suburbs?
In the downtown area of my home city of Toronto, for example, the development of the new Metro Centre will accommodate 50,000 jobs; the new Bank of Montreal building will accommodate 15,000 jobs; the new Royal Bank building will accommodate 10,000 jobs, and the Eaton Centre will accommodate 15,000 jobs. There will be
90,000	workers in these four projects alone. Yet the only project that has a housing element is Metro Centre, and for only 7,000 families. Where are we to get housing for the people working in all these jobs?
As the minister may or may not be aware, there is a substantial amount of underused industrial land close to
March 19, 1973

the downtown area of Toronto. With conversion this could accommodate the type of neighbourhoods people want. But the government must be prepared to allocate a significant portion of its land banking funds for this purpose. However, if the previous record of this government and CMHC is any indication, virtually all of the $100 million per year will go into suburban areas for the acquisition of raw, unserviced land. This, of course, will do little to alleviate the immediate housing shortage and the high prices.
Also, let me ask the minister what happened to the throne speech proposal to relocate downtown railway tracks to the edge of the cities. Surely, if this were anything but an empty promise the minister would have mentioned it last Thursday in the context of his remarks on neighbourhood improvement and land banking schemes. There is a great potential here since much of the land that would be freed from the railways could be easily converted to residential or recreational use.
I would hope that in the near future the minister could indicate publicly what downtown railway tracks in what cities are to be moved, and in each case the extent to which the land will be made available for residential and recreational purposes acceptable, of course, to the residents of adjoining neighbourhoods. I would suggest to him that he look at the CPR freight line running across midtown Toronto which goes through much of the residential heartland of that city and which should be a prime candidate for this relocation program.
Finally, to the opponents of neighbourhood improvement and rehabilitation who argue that it is too expensive as opposed to new development let me say this: Be careful how you determine basic costs. There are so many social costs involved in living a long distance from your job or in seeing your neighbourhood destroyed and being forced to relocate that accurate comparisons in human terms are virtually impossible. There is a very delicate social balance at stake here which involves something more than the determination of how many dollars per square foot. In my view, if the character and vitality of our inner cities are to be preserved, then we simply cannot afford not to rehabilitate and improve existing neighbourhoods. This is surely one of the keys to promoting and maintaining a stable urban society in Canada.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few observations on this very fine bill that really attempts to come to grips with the complex problem on how to make housing and community facilities available to every Canadian. This afternoon it was rather refreshing to hear positive remarks made by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) which were so much in contrast with the erratic performance the other night by his colleague in the Conservative party, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It is good that these remarks are put on the record for everyone to see how polarized can be views on the same subject within the Conservative party.
It seems, to me that the success of the housing policy, namely, how houses can be made available at a cost which is within the reach of all members of society, depends on
National Housing Act
three aspects at least. One is the supply of land in locations that are conveniently connected with a man's working, educational and recreational facilities. Second, it depends on the rate of demolitions which we have witnessed over past decades which were required for the construction of urban expressways. Third, it depends on the incentives that are offered for the improvement of existing housing facilities and neighbourhoods, particularly now in our metropolises.
Tremendous and interesting opportunities are offered by this bill with respect to home improvements and construction by co-operatives, and I welcome the support of the minister's program. But to be successful with the other two aspects of the reasonably successful housing policy of the minister needs a change in our methods of transportation which rely so heavily at present on the car. We need a considerable switch in emphasis in favour of public transportation.
We should move away from the construction of urban expressways, which had been the method adopted in our cities, and move toward an urban rapid transit policy such as we are beginning to witness in the 1970s in the movement of people between towns and cities. We need a policy that would far better utilize existing railway rights of way. When they are built, traditional urban expressways eat up thousands of urban dwellings and increase levels of pollution in built-up areas. They cause congestion in downtown areas. They demand space to park cars downtown where space is least available, and they cause the decay of our downtown neighbourhoods.
Clearly, that is not the way to develop a sound urban policy and with it a sound housing policy. The federal government needs the help of the municipalities and provincial governments because a change in favour of a vigorous public transportation policy in our cities will mean the reduction or elimination of house demolitions, the rapid movement of large numbers of people and less damage to the environment. This process would be accelerated if the federal government were to help municipalities and provincial governments interested in the development of modern urban transportation systems, as was hinted at by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few months ago when he spoke in Edmonton and mentioned this very aspect of federal intervention.
The understanding of urban Canada by the federal government and, in particular, by the Department of Transport is essential. In most parts of Canada we have very valuable and costly railway lines. They lie idle, or almost so, in many of our cities. These lines could provide relatively inexpensive commuter services within a city. How about the potential offered by the underused lines between cities and towns from Windsor to Ottawa, just to mention one region? This is why some of us were so enthusiastic about the content of the Soberman report last November when it was published, and about its recommendations. If our small towns are to provide the housing that is needed, if they are to attract industries and people and if the land around them is to be developed for housing so as to reduce pressure on the large metropolises, they must be linked with the rest of the country with fast and frequent transportation services. They should not be made into satellite centres or dormitory towns, a sterile

March 19, 1973
National Housing Act
and unnatural kind of concept, but into centres with a character of their own.
Land is cheaper in the rural areas of Canada, and so are houses built there. There is no point in raising the question of the cost of land in Toronto. It is obvious that when millions of people congregate in one area, the cost of land will rise there. I do not know what spokesmen for the opposition are really suggesting, as did the hon. member for Calgary North the other day, when they ask, "what would you do with this amount of money in Toronto alone?" Toronto alone could utilize fantastic sums of money and yet produce, in proportion, a small number of housing units which would not meet our needs. It seems to me that the answer is, rather, in reducing the pressures on metropolitan centres and providing incentives for people to settle in fully developed communities away from metropolitan centres and in the surrounding regions.
The other factor that strikes me as important in reducing the pressure on the metropolises, besides urban and inter-urban public transportation, is the success of our agricultural policies and whether we will be able to arrest or even slow down the process of urbanization because we will have been successful, through a set of federal and provincial agricultural policies, in permitting Canadians to live decent lives on the farms. This is why it seems to me that we Members of Parliament from urban Canada have a vital interest in the success of Canada's agricultural policies when we look at Canada as a whole.
Now I would like to make a few brief observations on the details of the legislation. First of all, I congratulate the minister on the fact that considerable adjustments have been made to the housing programs proposed last June. It seems most desirable that when it comes to the formulation of the regulations, the widest possible public discussion and consultation take place. We all know from experience how powerful and important regulations can be under any act, and this one is no exception.
It seems to me that a 25 per cent federal contribution toward the acquisition and clearing of land for the purposes indicated in section 27 does not appear to be sufficient to encourage the relocation of noxious, non-conformist uses in residential areas; and we have many of them in our downtown urban districts. Frequently, in older areas of the city, noxious uses present serious blighting influences the removal of which is essential to the success of an improvement program. Land thus released may afford the only opportunity to build new housing, an important component in the struggle to increase the housing stock.
The apparent confusion which arises from the use of the terms "occupancy and maintenance standard" and "minimum standard" is another concern. It would seem useful here to suggest that these two terms should be clarified in the definitions section. With regard to rehabilitation of existing family housing units, it is good that the federal contribution is not contingent upon it matching the provincial contribution. However, the amount of the loan that can be forgiven ought to be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 for the lowest income families. The experience of groups has been that estimates are extremely difficult to obtain for residential rehabilitation. It is impossible to establish the extent of the work until the job

is undertaken. It is therefore recommended that the minister consider that funding be provided for the development of neighbourhood work groups which would work on a salaried basis. It would also stand to reason that landlords benefiting from the grants and loans program should be subject to rent restraint agreements for a stated minimum period of time. Then comes the question of the multiple use of larger and older dwellings, which is a useful way to increase housing for individuals and families. There does not seem to be provision for grants and loans for conversion of larger residences for multiple use, yet the conversion of this kind of house is frequently a good economic use. Therefore, perhaps this is a serious oversight.
In the case of co-operative housing, the wording should be very carefully reviewed to ensure that non-profit funding is available for par value or non-profit housing cooperatives such as Alexander Park and Ashworth Square projects in Toronto. A percentage of the units produced through the non-profit program should be made available through a rent supplement program to individuals and families who are most seriously disadvantaged in the housing market. Supplements associated with non-profit neighbourhood corporations would ensure that no part of the supplement would add to the profit margin of a private landlord. It would seem also, Mr. Speaker, that any rigid requirement that a fixed percentage of residents must be committed to the co-op housing project before a loan commitment could be executed would be a roadblock to this program.
Finally, on the question of land assembly, long-term leases at rates below market to non-profit corporations would facilitate the production of non-profit and co-operative housing. Fifty-year Central Mortgage and Housing loans for the purpose of land assembly will enable leasehold arrangements over an extended period of time. The assembly of underused urban land in intercity areas, available through leasehold, would encourage the development of moderate density housing where it is most needed. The disposal of this land should be at the discretion of the local planning group and municipal authority. This is the point that I believe was made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). He noted that such criteria made for harmony in planned programs. Any requirement that land thus acquired must be disposed of by public tender would seriously interfere with the program.
In closing, may I say that two sections of this bill are very promising and exciting. The first is section 27.2 which, if adopted and implemented, would permit the construction and acquisition of day nurseries and neighbourhood recreation or social facilities. I believe this is a "first" in federal legislation. The second is sections 45.1 which deals with new communities and the acquisition of land to be used for transportation corridors linking communities. I believe this is a tremendous step toward emphasizing the importance of transportation in relation to a successful housing policy for Canada.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
March 19, 1973

Adjournment Debate



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Mr. Speaker, that is as I\nunderstand it.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) rises to ask a question.


Charles L. Caccia: Yes.


Ronald George Atkey: I wonder where the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) finds the provision for day nurseries in the bill before us. That is the term he used in his speech. I would be very interested to know where such provision is to be found in the bill or in the statement of the minister.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is on page 7, clause 27.2(a)(iv), "constructing, or acquiring and improving, neighbourhood recreation or social facilities.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I only have two or three minutes, but I wish to speak of some very important matters which should be brought to the attention of the people in Ottawa who make housing policies for the Northwest Territories. Up there we suffer from a very high cost of construction and an extremely high cost of land, serviced or otherwise; indeed, there are times when land is not available, serviced or otherwise, or even surveyed. This is creating hardship for the population of the Northwest Territories.
I should like also to comment on housing generally in the larger centres of the Northwest Territories where young people come from the outlying communities to find jobs only to find that there is no housing available, or very little at very high cost. You can pay up to $250 a month for an apartment, if you can find it. The cost of heating oil and electricity is $20 to $30 for a private home. Things like this are causing hardship to the people in those areas.
There is also what I consider to be a policy of planned legislative discrimination against northerners. This should be changed as soon as possible. People hired locally are not allowed to be housed in government housing even though they work for the government. I consider that to be planned legislative discrimination. If a person were hired for a similar job in the south he would be provided with housing, but if he is hired locally he is not. That is a disgrace to the Canadian government and should be changed as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Robert Knight Andras: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could have permission of the House to revert to motions in order to table a letter which my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and I sent to provincial welfare ministers. I referred to it in my recent remarks to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent that the hon. minister has permission to revert to motions for the purpose stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table a copy of a letter which my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and I sent to the provincial welfare ministers as referred to in my recent remarks in the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the acting House leader would confirm what we are going to do the day after tomorrow. It is my assumption that we will return to this legislation on Wednesday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is as I
understand it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the nutrition survey which was originally promised for this early spring is not ready at this time and will not be available until October. For many reasons it would have been desirable if we had had the results of it now. According to certain indications, when the Canada nutrition survey is brought in it will show that nutrition of Canadians generally is very far from what it should be, particularly among people of low income. Their standard of nutrition is disgraceful and their health condition is dangerous in many respects. Because there has been delay in the finishing and tabling of this survey, a very important report has come to hand. The National Council of Welfare, on March 8, released findings regarding the nutrition of people on low incomes, specifically people below the poverty line. It is disgraceful that a great many people must bring up children who are undersized, sick, disabled, mentally retarded and prone to disease. These conditions result from lack of money for food, for proper nutrition.
On March 9, following the tabling of the report of the National Council of Welfare, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) if he would be

March 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate
prepared, through Canada assistance, to make moneys available specifically for the nutrition of these families in order to make it possible for poor parents to bring up their children on a proper standard of diet. His reply was that already, through the Canada Assistance Plan, the provinces are able to ask for half of their budgets for such purposes. This was a proper reply and I do not find fault with it. But, Mr. Speaker, most of us, I think, want more than that-I certainly do-from the minister.
The minister is to meet the provincial ministers in April. I urge him to go to the meeting prepared to give leadership to the provinces and prepared to do more than simply say that Canada Assistance Plan aid is available. I hope he will sell the provinces two important programs, both recommended by the National Council of Welfare in the report. According to the National Council of Welfare, the most important thing that could be done is introducing a program of guaranteed annual income for the whole of Canada. As a more immediate program they propose that there should be more food dollars, that more money should be devoted to helping poor people including, specifically, pregnant women, very young children, school children and elderly people.
The facts brought out by the report are startling. One Canadian in four lives below the poverty line. One of these four Canadians gets welfare, the other three do not. Families on welfare across Canada, if they are to spend an average of 30 cents per person per meal, must spend half their entire welfare allowance for food, clothing, shelter, utilities and fuel. That is what they must spend just to be able to afford an average of 30 cents a meal per person. Do you think it is possible to obtain good nutrition for 30 cents a meal? Just try it and see how far you get, with prices the way they are today.
Someone said to me that surely it would not be practical to boost the food dollar allowances of people on welfare so as to enable them to obtain proper nutrition. Practical, Mr. Speaker! Is it practical to spend an average of $100,000 to keep a defective child in an institution for its entire life? Is that a practical way to spend the taxpayers' dollars. I doubt, it. To my mind it would be sheer lunacy if we were to allow things to go in that direction. I think the practical thing is to see that the nutrition of the pregnant mother and the young child is such that it is not born defective, disabled and having to become a burden on taxpayers for the rest of its life. The outlook is bleak indeed for the child who through no fault of its own is born disabled mentally, physically or both.
When the minister goes to the meeting with the provinces in April, I urge that he not only goes with the idea of what is available through Canada Assistance but goes prepared to urge that Canadians from coast to coast get behind the idea of a guaranteed annual income. Pending the implementation of that in full, we should be prepared to spend money on programs to get away from this penny-pinching attitude that we have which means dumping dollars down the drain. We should be prepared to look after the nutrition and good health of our people from their very beginning.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for

Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). One cannot do anything but agree with the sentiments she has expressed indicating her concern for those people in Canada who are undernourished. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) shares that concern with the same degree of sincerity.
I wish to point out, as the minister has already done, that under the Canada Assistance Plan, as the hon. member indicated in her remarks tonight, we do in fact provide funds to the provinces to the tune of 50 cents for every dollar that they spend on welfare programs. The provinces determine the rules under which that money is spent and the municipalities in turn administer the program. The division of responsibility is quite clear and the division of dollars is quite clear. We pay 50 cents, the province pays 30 cents and the municipality pays 20 cents. As the hon. member stated, any province is free to increase the food allowance section of any welfare payments and the federal government is committed under the Canada Assistance Plan to match that money in the way I have described.
With regard to a guaranteed income for low-income families, we can turn to the Speech from the Throne for this session of the twenty-ninth parliament in which it was indicated that a guaranteed income would indeed be forthcoming for those who are unable to work. In addition, we have indicated that there will be an over-all review of the social security structure in Canada. We all share the hon. member's views that steps be taken in this over-all review to see that the kind of problem she has brought to our attention is indeed solved. It is the intention of the government in the over-all review that will be conducted in April to review the whole picture to try to do everything we can, in concert with the provinces, to ensure that those people in this country who are in need are properly looked after.


PENITENTIARIES-FAILURE OF JOHN CHARRON TO RETURN TO COLLINS BAY FOLLOWING RELEASE ON ONE-DAY PASS-RECONSIDERATION OF PAROLE POLICY
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this debate is to focus attention on the way in which abuses of the temporary leave and day parole programs are a danger to the public. The issue is not "Shall these programs continue or not?" but, rather, "Can they be administered so that public safety is not endangered?"
A man is permitted unescorted leave to visit a relative. He is in prison for armed robbery. He carried a sawed-off shotgun. But he is deemed suitable for unescorted leave. He goes his way. He does not return until, after some weeks, he surrenders. The point's stress here is not that he is back in custody. The point to stress is that a man capable of violent crime and capable of abusing leave should not have been allowed to threaten public safety.
Another inmate is under sentence for the murder of a police officer. He is allowed to attend university classes on his own. One night he stops for a drink. He has too many and is arrested for driving while impaired. The point to stress here is that a man capable of murder and capable
March 19, 1973

of abusing leave should not have been allowed to threaten public safety.
In making this assertion, I am not unaware of the statistics the minister can cite in support of his programs. But I would ask that he give some attention to the statement of an expert before the committee on legal and constitutional affairs in the other place who recommended that day parole and temporary absence programs be studied by an independent, non-government research group with particular attention to five aspects of the program. Among the task of this group would be:
Measuring the offences, both as to number and type, committed while on temporary absences and day paroles. The figures given by the Canadian penitentiary system should be questioned as to accuracy since it has no research capability to provide adequate answers.
The minister should appreciate the need to give greater priority to public safety. In the desire of some people to give all the priority to rehabilitation lies the danger of these programs becoming discredited. The abuse of these programs must be understood in the whole context of growing public rejection of what impresses many as a "soft on crime" policy. People are stirred up about the way men can commit crimes, be freed on bail and then go on to commit worse crimes, such as the murder of an Ottawa shopkeeper this weekend. Three men were charged, all of them on bail on former charges of armed robbery and, in the case of one of them, attempted murder. People are becoming aroused about abuses of the parole program, too.
The need to take this matter more seriously was recognized by the minister's predecessor when the outcry following the release of a sex offender on temporary leave compelled him to toughen the criteria. He should have gone further, though, and I hope the present minister will.
What the hon. gentleman needs to do is to make further changes in the way these programs are being administered. He should give a greater priority to public safety and make unescorted temporary leaves and day paroles more difficult to obtain by anyone convicted of a crime of violence. He should consider making these privileges unavailable to offenders serving life sentences. In addition, he should recognize the need for the co-ordination of these two programs presently administered under different legislation by different authorities. This situation, too, is leading to abuse, as one expert informed the committee in the other place. I quote his words:
It is not unusual to observe a person denied parole one day walk out of the institution the very next day without escort with a temporary pass in his pocket.
The Speech from the Throne indicated the government intends to give the need for public safety greater recognition than it has during the past few years. It needs to. I respect a compassionate desire to rehabilitate offenders, but prudence is also a virtue and it is a virtue no government can justifiably lack. Let the minister bring more common sense into these programs. Good intentions cannot justify putting a single citizen in danger.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on February 12 the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) asked me what we were doing to apprehend John Charron who failed to return to Collins
Adjournment Debate
Bay penitentiary after being allowed out on a temporary pass, and whether we were reconsidering our policy to give temporary passes to parole offenders. First of all, Mr. Charron has been returned to custody at Collins Bay penitentiary. Second, the criteria for granting temporary absence passes to persons who have previously broken parole are under consideration at the present time.
As I told the hon. member on February 12, Mr. John Charron, who was an inmate at the Collins Bay farm annex, a minimum security institution, was granted a pass on February 4 in order to meet relatives. Although he was scheduled to return by eleven o'clock in the evening, he failed to go back to the institution. However, 12 days later he surrendered himself to the Kingston police and was returned to Collins Bay, where he was placed in the medium security institution there. I might add that the Kingston police levelled no charges against him, aside from being unlawfully at large.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding the temporary absence program and I should like to take a few moments to provide the House with an outline of this most important feature of our rehabilitation system. Temporary absences are authorized under section 26 of Penitentiary Act for medical, rehabilitative or humanitarian reasons for three or 15 days, with or without escort. No inmate is eligible for a temporary absence unless at least six months of his sentence has been served. Moreover, there are certain classes of inmates which are never eligible for absences-dangerous sexual offenders, for example, mentioned by the hon. member.
Before an inmate is granted such a leave of absence, however, he goes through a carefull screening process in which decisions are made as to his suitability for such a rehabilitative measure. Once officials have decided that the candidate's rehabilitation will be assisted by the granting of a temporary absence, which incidentally is issued only when there is a specific purpose, such as a visit to parents or to members of the inmate's family, the inmate is then released, under escort. At the beginning those on temporary absences are always accompanied by escort. Subsequent absences, if merited, may be without escort.
Let me reiterate that there is an important initial screening process in which the collective experience of the institutional officers with the candidate is assessed before an absence is granted. Secondly, there are criteria which must be met before an inmate receives a pass, including a community assessment in the area which the inmate intends to visit. Thirdly, there is close supervision of the inmate during his initial absence. Fourthly, his conduct during the course of the first and each subsequent absence is assessed carefully by prison officials.
This does not mean that I am satisfied with the temporary absence system. As long as there are failures, I will not be satisfied; and as the speech from the throne indicated, we are studying improvements that could be made in parole and the temporary absence system. I also want to point out that my predecessor had appointed a task force under the chairmanship of Justice Huggesson of Montreal. This was an independent task force which presented a report which I am presently studying. We hope we will submit some changes to the House shortly. I

March 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate
might also say that that report will be made public as soon as it is translated and printed.


PENITENTIARIES-WILLIAM HEAD-POSSIBLE CONVERSION TO MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTION-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) for being in the House tonight to hear my representation. On March 5 and March 13 I directed two questions to the Solicitor General concerning the change in grading of William Head prison from a minimum to a medium security prison. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the questions and answers. In brief, I requested the minister for assurance that this action would not be instituted without prior concurrence of the people of that area, and he replied that he could not give that assurance.
I would now like to tell some of the history of William Head prison and particularly some of the implicit conditions under which it was accepted by the local residents in the first instance. William Head prison was formerly a quarantine station. It is some 12 miles from Victoria, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It comprises 85 acres of beautiful waterfront property, bounded on one side by Weir beach, a public beach, and on the other by Pedder Bay, where the newly named Pearson College of the Pacific has acquired some 74 acres.
In 1958 a three man committee on correctional planning recommended that a trial project be started at William Head quarantine station. The aim of the project was to segregate first offenders and those with an evident desire to reform from hardened criminals. This was the major consideration, to separate the curable from the incurable. There was a certain amount of unease among the local residents of Metchosin and a petition was started. Their fears were allayed by government assurances. For example, the RCMP Quarterly, volume 26 of 1960, in recording the transition remarked:
Assurance was voiced that all inmates chosen were not dangerous criminals, that each and every man is carefully selected. Most of them will be tradesmen who are nearing the end of their sentences, and the object of the establishment is to serve as a prerelease centre, where the final and intensive effort is made to prepare inmates for re-entry into society.
On July 27, 1969, Superintendent Grant stated:
There is no intention of putting any kind of fence around William Head minimum security prison.
The final assurance to the citizenry was given when a minister of the Crown stated in 1959:
William Head is only temporary and will be discontinued when overcrowding at the main penitentiary at New Westminster has been relieved.
The institute started off rather well and there has been much favourable comment about it over the years. However, during the last couple of years there has been a change in the type of inmate. The drug culture product has been showing up in larger and larger numbers. While everyone can agree that rehabilitation is necessary for them, it is not the same kind of rehabilitation required or envisaged for the inmate which authorities had in mind

when this prison without bars was instituted. As a result, escapes or walkaways increased from three in the first year to 35 last year.
To compound the problem, the Solicitor General now proposes to introduce medium security risks to this rehabilitation centre. This will, I predict, have two deleterious effects. First, it will increase the number of escapes, and the escapee will not necessarily be the innocuous type of the past. Second, the security arrangements will need to be considerably strengthened, which will destroy the rehabilitation attitude of the institution.
A good part of the rehabilitative climate of this institution is engendered by the feeling of mutual trust and respect between inmates and staff. I visited the institution a week ago and was impressed with this helpful attitude on the part of the officials. The officials, and indeed many of the local residents, feel a certain amount of pride in the rehabilitative work being done and wish it to have the best possible chance of continuing its success.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in order, first, to give the institution and staff clear support to continue their rehabilitative work, second, to continue to receive the tacit support of the community and guarantee their security and, third, to try to maintain William Head as an institution that physically blends with its beautiful surroundings, I respectfully request that the Solicitor General not proceed with his plans to increase the security status of William Head prison but, rather, conform to the original pledge made to the people of that area. If William Head must remain the location for a penal institution, then it should be a rehabilitation-oriented minimum security installation with minimum risk inmates. It should remain as defined by a solicitor general's report:
An institution where those inmates are sentenced who require neither fence nor wall to keep them confined, who will respect the invisible boundary that surrounds them and who, in any event, are not likely to be dangerous in the community if they do walk away.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since there is a serious problem of overcrowding in our federal penal institutions in the western region, consideration is presently being given for the construction and/or acquisition, either by purchase or by lease, of physical facilities required to accommodate the increasing inmate population. A study of the present inmate population in our institutions indicates that an overpopulation condition exists in the institutions of maximum and medium security degrees. In these types of institutions in the west there is an actual shortage of close to 200 cells. However, the same study reveals that there are still available some 90 cells in minimum security institutions.
Because of the time period required to make maximum and medium security facilities available either by construction or by acquisition, which cannot be made available before the next year at least, it is urgent that consideration be given to the conversion of the William Head institution from a minimum security institution to a medium security institution in order to satisfy the present needs of the Canadian penitentiary service. From experience, minimum security institutions such as community correctional centres and minimum security correctional camps can be made available more rapidly, that is, within a matter of months.
March 19, 1973

The geographical location and the type of construction of the William Head institution lends itself to the execution of this plan. The conversion from minimum security to medium security will consist in the installation of adequate physical security facilities, such as security perimeter fences and windows, the construction of a gate-house and the raising of an observation post. It is also intended to increase the number of correctional officers by approximately 25. Technical scanning equipment and patrol vehicles, as well as a radio communications system, will also be made available. The necessary upgrading of physical security arrangements, the procurement of technical equipment and the staffing will be completed before any inmate of medium security degree is transferred to the William Head institution.
Adjournment Debate
There will be no increase in the number of inmates accommodated at that institution. The inmates to be transferred to the William Head institution will be of the medium security category, selected on the basis of their willingness and ability to participate in the rehabilitation programs to be developed, and the selection will be in accordance with established criteria specific to the William Head institution.
Finally, may I say in reply to the hon. member, that we have no evidence that the Canadian penitentiary service made any commitment that the William Head institution would remain a minimum security institution. There are no formal documents or informal evidence to this effect in our files. If the hon. member, on behalf of his constituents, has such evidence we would be pleased to examine the question.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
2383

Tuesday. March 20, 1973