1973-06-11

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 Queens Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
26446-1J
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 11, 1973


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the revelation of a secret regulation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission issued on March 1 advising UIC employees to cease their fundamental duty of advising potential unemployment insurance claimants of their rights and responsibilities. At the same time that UIC employees were instructed to withhold assistance, the administrative budget of the commission increased from $26 million in 1971-72 to $144 million in 1973-74. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the UIC instruction by way of regulations of March 1 be withdrawn forthwith and that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration be directed to investigate and report on this matter as well as on all other orders in council and secret regulations with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act which have been issued since the implementation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the increase in the Bank of Canada lending rate to 6 V* per cent. In view of the inevitable impact of this latest increase in mortgage rates which are already at
scandalously high levels, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House instruct the government to introduce immediately legislation which will require federally chartered financial institutions to allocate a prescribed proportion of their annual investments to housing at a rate not exceeding the prime lending rate.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I should like to move a motion which arises from a recent announcement by the Minister of Agriculture regarding increased compensation for cattle ordered slaughtered under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. In view of the fact these new rates are totally inadequate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture travel to western Canada and visit farmers whose herds are affected by brucellosis; this committee is to study the question of compensation rates, the control measures currently practised, and the grading of brucellosis infected animals at the stockyards.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the question cannot be put.

June 11, 1973
Farm Improvement Loans Act CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the tardiness in negotiations between Canadian National Railways and its employees, which is resulting in work slowdowns across the country, the latest one being in my home town of Capreol last Thursday evening where 200 CNR employees booked off for 24 hours. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport to contact immediately the CNR management with a view to urging that management demonstrate that it is prepared to bargain in good faith, through realistic contract proposals and a speed-up in negotiating procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent as required by the terms of Standing Order 43.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: First reading of Senate public bills:
June 7, 1973-Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).
Mr. Speaker:: I think I owe it to the hon. member for St. Boniface and to all hon. members to indicate to him and the House that the Chair has serious doubts as to the procedural acceptability of this bill, which appears to be a money bill that has come to the House from the Senate. Though approved by the Senate, it was sponsored by a private member of the other place, and it now comes to this chamber again sponsored by a private member.
The Chair feels that this bill, at least on the face of it, might very well be considered to be a money bill. If it is then it could not be put to the House at this time but would have to be struck from the order paper. If the hon. member for St. Boniface has views to express that might assist the Chair in reaching a decision on the point, I would be pleased to hear him or any other hon. member who might have views to express on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reserve the right to discuss this further and to express an opinion on the matter later.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking really on behalf of the hon. member, but I do understand that the Liberal caucus has been exposed to the science of creative intelligence dealing with transcendental meditation which the Liberal caucus will be considering next Thursday. Thus it may well be that the hon. member has lost his

understanding of the distinction between a parliamentary secretary and a cabinet minister.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to let the House know, through you, that the comments made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) are quite normal and not at all unusual, but he is always off the track.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, the Chair is quite satisfied to hold the matter in abeyance. Perhaps by tomorrow the hon. member will have had an opportunity to study the precedents and to look at the bill very closely. At that point he might try to convince the Chair that this bill is in order and should be allowed to continue on the order paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-6098
Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-6098?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-5413


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-5413?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-4704


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4704?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far great-
June 11, 1973

er number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-4276


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4276?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-4275


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4275?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-3655


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3655?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-2806


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2806?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
Order Paper Questions
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-1982


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1982?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was rejected because the Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-4776


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-4776?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-1344


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1344?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-1525


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-1525?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-2249


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2249?

June 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-2299


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2299?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-2441


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2441?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-2725


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-2725?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
REASONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REFUSAL OF LIP PROJECT No. H-3029


Mr. Latulippe: What were the reasons for the acceptance or refusal of LIP project No. H-3029?


Mark R. MacGuigan: This project was approved because it was one of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.


Mr. Stollery: With respect to the tractor-trailer driver course at the George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology in Toronto (a) how many students took the course from (i) September I, 1970 to August 31, 1971 (ii) September 1, 1971 to August 31, 1972 (b) what is the length of time of the course (c) how many people who have passed the course have obtained jobs as tractor-trailer drivers (d) of the graduate students of the course between (i) September 1, 1970 and August 31, 1971 (ii) September 1, 1971 and August 31, 1972, what percentage of the graduates are still tractor-trailer drivers (e) what percentage of graduates went to work for job brokers and what percentage of graduates go directly to employers?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Department of Manpower and Immigration does not purchase all the training places in this course, (a) (i) 91 manpower trainees; (ii) 132 manpower trainees; (b) generally 20 days; some shorter courses last only 5 days; (c) total number not known; surveys conducted at various periods of the year using different time frames indicate that between 52 per cent and 75.9 per cent of graduates contacted had found employment as tractor-trailer drivers or were working in closely related occupations; (d) (i) not known; (ii) not known; (e) according to a survey conducted in 1972: 8.7 per cent to job brokers; 91.3 per cent to other employers.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many students are enrolled in the tractor-trailer driving course at George Brown College, Toronto, reportedly with funding from the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	How much is the course expected to cost the Department in 1973?
3.	How many instructors have (a) had experience (b) not had any experience as tractor-trailer drivers?
4.	How many employers have indicated a willingness to hire graduates of the course?
5.	What is the length of the course?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. One hundred six in the fiscal year 1972-73.
2.	Thirty-three thousand seven hundred twenty dollars in the fiscal year 1972-73.
3.	(a) Three; (b) three not experienced as civilian tractor-trailer drivers but with military experience and instructional abilities.
4.	Sixty-eight employers are known to have hired graduates in 1972.
5.	Generally 20 days; some shorter courses last only five days.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand): 1.	How many American pilots were admitted to Canada during the past live years to do agricultural and forestry spray work?
2.	How does the Department of Manpower and Immigration check to see whether Canadian pilots and aircraft are available for this work before issuing permits to Americans?
3.	What companies or governments employ American pilots and/or aircraft?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. During the past five years 102 American pilots were admitted to Canada as landed immigrants. It is not possible to state what type of work these persons undertook after their arrival in Canada. No information is available concerning the number of American pilots who were admitted to Canada as non-immigrants to do agricultural and forestry spray work.
2.	As a result of the implementation of the new NonImmigrant Entry Records and Employment Visa Regulations on January 1, 1973, the Canada Manpower Centre in whose area the employment is to be located, now must determine whether the proposed employment by the nonimmigrant will, or will not, adversely affect the employment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents. In making this determination, the CMC will ascertain if
Order Paper Questions
Canadian citizens or permanent residents are available and willing to take employment in that occupation at a reasonable wage by reviewing its file of clients seeking employment. The CMC will also have the client files of other CMCs reviewed to identify suitable workers, depending on the mobility of the occupation. In the specific case of pilots, all regional offices and appropriate CMCs in Canada would normally be contacted for this purpose. Only if Canadian citizens or permanent residents are not available will the Department of Manpower and Immigration issue an employment visa for non-immigrants.
3.	No information is available on companies or governments that use American pilots and/or aircraft.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any near collisions of aircraft been reported since January 1, 1972 to control towers of airports operated in Canada by the Department of Transport and, if so (a) what were the dates of such reports in each case (b) what were the airports concerned (c) what was the identity of all aircraft involved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: No near collisions have been reported to M.O.T. control towers; however, the following is a list of incidents which were reported to M.O.T. towers, where an alteration in course or altitude was necessary:
January 18, 1972... February 7, 1972...
March 19, 1972..
June 8, 1972....
July 8, 1972....
July 11, 1972...
July 12, 1972...
September 9, 1972.. November 11, 1972 January 6, 1973. . .. January 8, 1973. . . . January 12, 1973... February 6, 1973...
March 7, 1973...
March 19, 1973..
March 23, 1973..
St. Hubert, P.Q	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
Montreal, P.Q	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
Montreal, P.Q. (over Roxton, P.Q.)....
Sept. lies, P.Q	
Sault Ste Marie, Ont	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
Langley, B.C	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
Kelowna, B.C	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
St. Hubert, P.Q	
Sept lies, P.Q	
Brandon, Man	
Vancouver, B.C	
Air Force Falcon and Air Force Otter during ATC strike CF CBL and CF ZWS
CF QDN and Alouette No. 1	
CF YLM and CF XCZ
Eastern Provincial flight and unknown aircraft
CF VMP and CF YOP
Air Canada 616 and USAF B52
CF TPM and unidentified aircraft
CF QEE and CF WTS
CF VXS and CF UYG
CF NZI and CF PMS
Air Force 948 and unidentified light aircraft
CF YLM and Air Force 30
CF WHM and CF YOP
Air Force 2937 and CF VSV
CF SNC and CF GWI


Mr. Matte: During the past fiscal year, what was the total amount of money paid by the federal government directly or to each province and territory under the Social Security Program?
Hort. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare): The following information is for the fiscal year 1972-73.
Newfoundland $ Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba
Old Age Security
54,462,476
19,664,058
110,673,713
84,001,213
628,336,409
881,733,169
141,348,596
Family Allowances $ 16,905,123
3,061,982
20,718,374
17,517,712
152,680,637
190,366,530
24,441,320
Youth
Allowances


[Stage Direction]
*23,600,000
28,829,136
3,712,939
Old Age Security
Saskatchewan	138,965,092
Alberta	173,838,862
British Columbia 289,801,088 Yukon	790,663
Northwest
Territories	1,525,634
Canada	$2,525,141,273
Family
Allowances
23,754,184
44,163,565
53,411,581
550,036
1,331,751
[Stage Direction]
Youth
Allowances
3,811,040
6,441,055
7,947,113
47,330
72,068
[Stage Direction]
* This represents an estimated payment. In accordance with an agreement under the Established Programs (Interim Arangements) Act compensation is made to Quebec, for schooling allowances, through tax abatement and equalization and adjustment payments made gy the Department of Finance.
4608
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The following information is for the fiscal year 1971-72, the latest year for which accurate figures are available:
		Unem-
	Canada	ployment
	Assistance Plan	Assistance
Newfoundland	$ 25,558,000	
Prince Edward Island	4,041,000		
Nova Scotia	21,857,000		
New Brunswick	20,229,000		
Quebec	*271,505,000	*540,000Ontario	211,035,000	53,610Manitoba	36,304,000	Saskatchewan	25,306,000	Alberta	42,808,000	64,273British Columbia	68,575,000	Yukon	159,000	Northwest Territories	-	1,009,839Canada	$727,377,000	$1,667,722
Blind Persons Disabled Persons *
Newfoundland	$ 237,807	$ 11,861Prince Edward Island	31,536	4,841Nova Scotia	324,426	169,477New Brunswick	271,601	901,210Quebec	*448,359	*1,086,693Ontario	73,246	138,534Manitoba	97,193	157,809Saskatchewan	28,390	29,172Alberta	146,150	628,201British Columbia	283,790	1,143,706Yukon	2,981	2,588Northwest Territories	17,090	15,831Canada	$1,962,569	$4,289,923
* In accordance with an agreement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act compensation made to Quebec through tax abatement and equalization and adjustment payments made by the Department of Finance.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each province, how many Indian young people entered (a) Grade Nine in 1969 (b) Grade Ten in 1970 (c) Grade Eleven in 1971 (d) Grade Twelve in 1971?
2.	Of those Indian students attending high school from 1969 to 1972, how many were enrolled in the two-year course and how many in the four-year course?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Indian Students Entering
1969	1970	1971	1972Grade	Grade	Grade	Grade9	10	11	12Prince Edward Island	3	1	_	_Nova Scotia	55	49	36	16New Brunswick	51	32	19	13Quebec	314	278	179	72Ontario	939	741	412	289Manitoba	530	322	212	91Saskatchewan	348	220	156	105Alberta	492	407	265	168British Columbia	678	570	389	2852.	There are no two-year courses in the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta. All academic high school courses were for a four-year duration. It is not possible to provide information for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, because of the structure of the secondary education systems.


Mr. Jelinek: What was the total amount of money (a) applied for (b) granted under LIP grants to Rochdale College and its occupants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Rochdale College did not apply for LIP grants but some of its occupants submitted applications for: (a) $160,796; (b) $25,857.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	How many immigrants from Portugal were processed (a) in the Immigration Office in Lisbon during 1972 (b) in Canada on applying in Canada as landed immigrants for landed immigrant status when in Canada in 1972, 1971 and 1970?
2.	What is the time delay between an immigrant indicating that he would like to apply to come to Canada at the Lisbon Office and the time when he is eventually interviewed by an interview officer in the office?
3.	In the event that the time delay is in excess of six weeks, is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration proposing to significantly increase the immigration officer staff in Portugal?
4.	Is it the Minister's view that immigrants from Portugal integrate well into Canada?
June 11, 1973

5.	How many members of the Minister's staff are presently involved in immigration in (a) Portugal (b) Italy (c) Greece (d) the Philippines (e) Jamaica?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) 7,284; (b) 1972, 1,502; 1971, 1,754; 1970, 1,497.
2.	The average elapsed time between receipt of an Application for Permanent Residence in Lisbon and an interview with an Immigration Officer is 70 days.
3.	No. More than 50 per cent of the interviews take place within one month of receipt of application, the balance being delayed by circumstances beyond our control such as incorrectly completed applications, voluntary delays on the part of the applicant, etc. An increase in staff in Portugal would in no way remove these delays.
4.	Yes. 5.	Canadian Staff	Locally Engaged Staff(a) Portugal	4	11(b) Italy	6	19(c) Greece	3	9(d) Phillipines	4	10(e) Jamaica	4	7


Mr. Dixvsdale: 1.	(a) What departments of the government are served by computers (b) which of these computer services are administered by the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What is the cost of supplying computer service to each department?
3.	(a) Is it the intention of the government to place all computer services under the Department of Supply and Services (b) what would be the estimated saving in costs resulting from this kind of co-ordination?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. (a) All departments of the government are served to some extent by computers. About one-half of all government departments operate their own computers with the remainder obtaining the bulk of their computer services from some 65 firms coast-to-coast in the private sector; (b) The Department of Supply and Services presently administers computer services on its own behalf which support its roles in fiscal accounting, pay, cheque issue, supply administration, and printing operations. In addition, the department administers a computer installation used exclusively in support of the Canada Pension Plan on behalf of National Health and Welfare. The department also, through its services component, provides computer accounting and payment services in support of the following programs of other departments: OAS/GIS, Family Allowance/Youth Allowance for Health and Welfare; Hospital, Capital, and Supply Inventories for Health and Welfare; Veterans' Land Act Mortgage Accounting for DVA; Hospital Inventory for DVA; Canada Manpower Training Program for Manpower and Immigration; Chronic Diseases Control for Health and Welfare; Warrant Redemption for the UIC.
Order Paper Questions
As a result of the recently announced EDP Master Plan referred to in 3 below, the Department of Supply and Services is developing plans to co-ordinate governmentwide computer services in the areas of: Personnel Management Information Systems, Inventory and Warehouse Management Systems, Financial Management Information Systems, and Text Processing.
2.	The total cost of providing computer services to all departments of government was estimated at $100 million in 1972/73. This includes equipment, personnel, and all other direct costs. The computer service cost elements noted above have not been reported separately by or within departments and therefore are only estimated. The recently approved Treasury Board EDP Policy, and EDP Master Plan, will bring about a financial reporting method designed to give visibility of computer service costs related to the departmental programs supported.
3.	(a) It is not the intention of the government to place all computer services under the Department of Supply and Services. The intentions of the government with respect to the co-ordination of computer services have been the subject of two Treasury Board projects which are now completed and whose recommendations have been approved and published in "The Report on EDP in the Federal Government of Canada, November 1971" and "The EDP Master Plan-An Action Plan for the Implementation of the Electronic Data Processing Policy in the Federal Government, December 1972" (b) not applicable.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date of the current advertising campaign of the Department of Multiculturalism?
2.	What is the expected expenditure?
3.	(a) What was the total expenditure on bilingualism and multiculturalism in 1972 (b) how much was expended on multiculturalism projects?
4.	What are the anticipated expenditures for 1973 for (a) bilingualism (b) multiculturalism?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In' so far as the Department of the Secretary of State and the Treasury Board Secretariat are concerned: 1. $230,745.
2.	$230,745.
3.	(a) Expenditures on Multiculturalism (including cultural agencies); 1972-73, $2,605,000. The total expenditures for bilingualism in 1972 are $134,090,000 as can be identified in the 1972-73 Blue Book of estimates, (b) Multicultural grants, $940,000.
4.	(a) The anticipated expenditures for 1973-74 are $163,385,000; (b) The anticipated expenditures in 1973-74 for multiculturalism by the Department of the Secretary of State and the cultural agencies will be approximately $10 million. To date the Treasury Board has allocated to the Department of the Secretary of State $1,541,000 in the Main Estimates and $4,294,000 in Supplementary Estimates for multiculturalism. The Treasury Board has allocated $1,066,500 to the cultural agencies in the Main Estimates and is at present considering Supplementary
26446-2j

June 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Estimates for the multicultural programs of the cultural agencies.
department of manpower and immigrationovertime PAY


Mr. Andre: During the months of January, February and March 1973, respectively, what were the total amounts paid in overtime pay to employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?


Mark R. MacGuigan: January 1973, $322,627.13; February 1973,	$290,351.07; March 1973,


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the total value of imports into Canada from South Africa (a) January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972 (b) January 1, 1973 to April 1, 1973?
2.	Of such amounts in said periods, what was the value of imports of South African grapes?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. (a) The total value of imports into Canada from South Africa in the calendar year 1972 amounted to $58,942,000; (b) in the first quarter of 1973 total imports from South Africa amounted to $7,775,000.
2. Imports of grapes from South Africa into Canada in the calendar year 1972 amounted to 2,969,770 pounds for a value of $605,000. In the first quarter of 1973, these imports totalled 302,100 pounds valued at $70,000.


Mr. Boisvert: Who prepared the last report on the Bank of Canada which was printed in the Canada Year Book?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: The last report on the Bank of Canada which was printed in the Canada Yearbook was prepared by: Department of Banking and Financial Analysis, Bank of Canada.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What were the names of the individuals or the group of individuals who applied for the grant to the Department of the Secretary of State in order to write up the history of the Japanese Canadians?
2.	What was the amount in dollars of the grant these individuals or group of individuals wanted to get out of the governmental fund?
3.	In each case, what were the reasons other proposals were turned down?
4.	If any, what were the names of those who successfully received the grant and what was the amount in dollars?

5.	If no one did, is it possible to submit another proposal for consideration and, if not, for what reasons is the history of the Japanese Canadians to be omitted from the series of Ethnic Histories?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: 1. Three applications were received: (a) Ken Adachi, Toronto; (b) Dr. John Howes, University of British Columbia, Margaret Prang, University of British Columbia, Mitsuru Shimpo, University of Waterloo; (c) James Frideres, University of Calgary.
2.	(a) $7,500; (b) $26,459; (c) $9,745.
3.	The academic panel which judged the applications received a submission from Mr. Adachi who has been working on a history of Japanese Canadians for a number of years with the support of the Japanese Canadian Citizens' Association. About half the manuscript, 400 pages, has been completed and the academic panel judged it to be of high quality. The panel decided that a project grant should be given to complete this work although it would be too large to be incorporated in the series. The other two applications were rejected because it was felt that it would be better to help complete a project which was well under way than to initiate a totally new, and competing project.
4.	The amount and the conditions of the grant are presently being negotiated with the JCCA and Mr. Adachi.
5.	See (3) above.


Mr. Cossitt: Are there any executive assistants or special assistants in the offices of any cabinet ministers who are not permitted or who are prohibited from handling or examining or seeing any files of a classified or security nature and, if so, what are their names, what are the departments involved and what is the reason for such a ban in each specific case?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It is not
considered to be in the public interest to provide information as to who does and who does not have access to classified information of the government of Canada.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	Is the government aware of the recent establishment of a municipal Consumer Protection Office in the Nepean Township of Ontario?
2.	Has the government been requested to assist in funding the Nepean CPO as an experiemental project and, if so, what decision has the government taken?
3.	Is the government looking into the possibility of assisting in the establishment of local, municipally-operated CPOs throughout Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. Officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had some general discussions with Nepean Township authorities prior to the opening of the CPO. An informal inquiry was made by Nepean authorities as to
June 11, 1973

the availability of financial support. If a formal request is made the department would be happy to study it.
3. The department is working out plans to establish consumer store front offices. One of the approaches being considered is to work in conjunction with local organizations.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to enrolling women in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: While the policy which has been in effect for many years has permitted enrolment of women in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for certain functions, the feasibility of engaging women in a regular police role is a matter that is presently under active consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare 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.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION OR EMOTIONAL AND LEARNING DISORDERS IN CHILDREN

Mr. Andre: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare acted upon any of the recommendations published on October 1, 1969, by the Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children, in a volume entitled One Million Children and, if so, which recommendations were accepted and what actions were taken by the Department?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT LOANS TO PROVINCES SINCE APRIL 30, 1970

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the government loaned money to one or more of the provinces since April 30, 1970 and, if so (a) by province and by year, what amount was loaned (b) through which banking institution?
2.	What was the interest rate of each loan and the date of maturity?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns



PROPORTION OF DIAND BUDGET DEVOTED TO INDIAN BANDS, 1968 TO 1972

Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	What proportion of the total Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development budget went directly to Indian bands in Canada in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What proportion of DIAND budget was devoted to research into specific Indian problems in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 and what are the titles of the studies undertaken?
3.	(a) How many of the previously referred to studies financed by DIAND, were undertaken by (i) Indians alone (ii) Indians and others (iii) others alone (b) which studies were undertaken by Indians alone?
Return tabled.



ADVERTISING FIRMS HIRED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 1968-72

Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the names of all advertising firms whose services were hired by the government and every Crown corporation in the fiscal years (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71 (d) 1971-72?
2.	What payments were received by each advertising agency during these fiscal years and under what votes were the necessary funds obtained?
Return tabled.



GRAIN SALES

Mr. Korchinshi: 1.	(a) How much grain was sold by the Wheat Board in each province in the past ten years (b) what types of grain were sold in each province?
2.	Where shipment of grain was made under the Livestock Feed Assistance Act (a) where was it shipped from (b) to what destination?
3.	How much and what type of grain was destined to each port in Canada in the past ten years?
4.	What amount of freight assistance was apportioned to each port under the Livestock Feed Assistance Act?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL EXPENDITURES TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES AND PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS, 1971, 1972

Mr. Stackhouse: How much was paid in 1971 and 1972 by government departments to advertising agencies and public relations firms?
Return tabled.



INVOLVEMENT OF CNR TRAINS IN ACCIDENTS, 1972

Mr. Godin: Were CNR trains involved in accidents in 1972 and, if so (a) how many accidents (b) on what date (c) what type of train was involved (i) passenger (ii) freight (d) were the causes of such accidents established (e) what was the cost of damage in each case (f) how many persons were killed?
Return tabled.

June 11, 1973
Oral Questions



FEDERAL BUILDINGS PUT TO TENDER, 1969-72

Mr. McKenzie: For the years 1969 to 1972, for each province, which new federal buildings or lease-back buildings were put to tender where the successful bidder was not the lowest bidder and what were the reasons in each case?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that one of the reasons frequently given to justify floating the exchange is to enable us to pursue our own domestic economic policy, can the Prime Minister tell the House very briefly why the Bank of Canada has been so quick to follow immediately the increase in the Federal Reserve Board discount rate by increasing the bank rate in Canada by a further one-half of one per cent, particularly when mortgage rates in Canada are already well above those in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is some parallel movement between rates in the two countries mainly, I suppose, because when our rates are noticeably lower United States borrowers will tend to come and use our funds for United States purposes. We try to discourage this as much as possible. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that there is not necessarily an exact parallel between the two movements. The Federal Reserve Bank has increased its rate five times this year for a total of 2 per cent whereas the Bank of Canada has only increased its rate three times for a total of 1 Vi per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Granted that the increase in the bank rate will work its way through the system and make it more difficult for small businesses and will certainly increase mortgage rates, can the Prime Minister point to any evidence at all that this increase in the bank rate will in fact reduce the demands upon the Canadian banking system for bank credit by Canadian firms or United States firms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the evidence will be apparent in the facts and statistics as they are published. The dual prime bank rate which the Leader of the Opposition may be referring to has only been operating for about a month or so and it is too early to say what effect it will have, but we are confident that the banks are following the directives of the Minister of Finance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister did not understand my question. I was asking whether he

could point to any evidence that this increase in the bank rate by the Bank of Canada would in fact reduce the demand for bank credit in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that bank loans have been going up very substantially this year, faster than in the equivalent period last year. I cannot give evidence that the increase has reduced the rate of increase in loans. But this is like other medicine, Mr. Speaker, in that if the bank rate had not been raised then probably the increase in bank loans would have been even greater.


Gerald William Baldwin: You usually try to get a good doctor.


Mr. Fairweather:: You should prescribe the same medicine for everyone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the one thing that is clear from the increase in the bank rate is that mortgage rates will be increased and this will vastly increase the difficulties of home builders in this country, I wonder whether the government will be so ready to come to the aid of mortgage borrowers in this country as it is ready to push up the bank rate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a sizeable available flow of funds for mortgages, and if we look at the last figures the annual rate for all areas of housing starts was 273,000 which was close to the 273,800 in the previous month, so there is no apparent shortage of funds for mortgages.


RELATION OF UNITED STATES ACTION TO INTENTION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, again in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I pose one or two questions to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the prime rate has already been increased by the banks today, I am informed, to 7% per cent and I asked the Minister of Finance last Wednesday, I think it was, whether he would permit the increase then suggested in the newspapers to be made, is it the intention of the government and the Bank of Canada to continue increasing the basic interest rate in accordance with what may happen in the United States so that all these interest rates will continue to go up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is correct to assume we are doing this because the United States is doing it. We are faced with somewhat similar economic situations and the objectives, I imagine, are pretty well the same, to ensure that there will be a sustained economic growth and that the rate of unemployment will continue to fall. So the two governments following the same objectives may be doing some of the same things but, as I pointed out earlier in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the parallel has not been exactly perfect.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the actions of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance and his replies add up to a return by the
June 11, 1973

government to a policy that is oriented toward fighting inflation by means of monetary policy as in the past and thereby contracting economic growth in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand the reasons for the increase in the bank rate if he looks back at the figures, and sees the remarkably high rate of growth of the economy in the past quarter and if he sees also that the increase in general bank loans since the month of January has been 30 per cent compared with something like 22 per cent last year for the total year. It is because the economy has been expanding very strongly indeed that there is not a tight money policy but a moderation of the rate of growth of bank credit.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government and the Department of Finance are convinced that this kind of blunt instrument will affect the situation in view of the fact that the larger corporations do not need loans because they can use their retained earnings, as they usually do, for their purposes and this increased interest rate will affect particularly small enterprise and the small businessmen in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do not assume that that necessarily follows. As I said a moment ago, by having a dual system of prime rates, one for big business and one for small business or for areas of the country of slow growth, we are convinced that the banking system will do its best not to restrict funds to small businesses and to the areas of slow growth. But I repeat, I have no evidence of that yet since the system was only instituted a month or so ago and it is too early to see if it works. If it does not, we will certainly have to take other measures.


ALLEGED INCREASE IN SHORT-TERM BORROWING FROM CANADIAN BANKS BY CORPORATIONS DOMICILED ABROAD
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Has the government any specific information regarding a great increase in the amount of short-term borrowing by corporations domiciled abroad from Canadian banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly do not have any at hand.


James McPhail Gillies: Inasmuch as it has been suggested that one of the reasons for the pressure on Canadian commercial banks is the existence of large open lines of credit for companies domiciled abroad, is the government willing to look to the banks and ask if there is anything they can do to slow down that particular type of borrowing as it does not really do much for the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is because of this borrowing abroad that, in a sense, we do have to have an increase that does not put us too far out of line with the American increase in the bank rate. However, so far as the suggestion is concerned I will take it under advisement.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are obviously a number of supplementaries sought by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, the hon. member for St. Catharine's and others. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, then someone from the party to my right, and then return to this series of questions.


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES-POLICIES TO ASSIST THOSE ON SMALL INCOMES WISHING TO PURCHASE HOMES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the Prime Minister's answer and in light of the fact we now have high interest rates, is the minister proposing any other policies to assist those on small incomes who wish to purchase houses and who live in large urban centres as the policies in Bill C-133 have been outdated or are in total conflict with the high interest policy enunciated by the Prime Minister today?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the hypothesis of the question, I would hope the House would give approval to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-133, the passage of which is eagerly sought by the provinces and those in the housing community and which will provide very real benefits for housing in this country. In addition, I could hope that either today or tomorrow the House would give second reading to Bill C-135 to establish a residential mortgage market corporation which will enhance the flow of money into residential mortgages and have an effect on interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not wish to have any argument with the minister, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that I asked a particular question. I have already given the undertaking that our party will expedite the report stage and give third reading to the bill. We are in accord on that. My point is this: In light of the fact the government has now articulated and enunciated a high interest rate policy and in light of the fact the minister has promised on several occasions to produce houses at a reasonable cost, and since this is in total conflict with the policy of the rest of the government, is the minister going to seek a new portfolio or resign?

[ Translation]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Some time ago I directed a question to him concerning the possible closure of the Saint-Marc de Figuery Indian school, and he had said that he would answer at a later

June 11, 1973
Oral Questions
date. Is he now able to say whether his department has taken a decision concerning the possible closure of this Indian school?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have taken no final decision at this time. When we do, I shall inform the hon. member, but before taking any action whatever, we shall certainly inform the communities involved.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
May I ask the hon. minister whether he can assure the House that a decision will be made as soon as possible so that schools can open on time next fall?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have a few supplemen-taries on the first question asked this afternoon. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and then the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


FINANCE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that today in Quebec City, when talking to the Investment Dealers Association, the governor of the Bank of Canada indicated that the move to increase the bank rate was based on tight conditions in the labour market in certain regions of Canada which, translated into simple English, I suppose means there are full employment situations in certain areas, could the Prime Minister indicate whether this is the position of the government and, if so, in what regions of Canada would these conditions prevail?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the speech that is referred to by the hon. member so I cannot vouch for the quotation he just gave. Perhaps I can answer generally by saying that of course there is frequent contact between the governor of the bank and the Minister of Finance, and that the monetary policy they are following generally is one which has the government's support.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the right hon. gentleman to indicate, or have the Minister of Finance indicate tomorrow or later today, the basis of the policy which has been taking shape for the last two months, and indicate whether in fact he can clearly define the position as based on a full employment situation, which appears to be the import of the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada in Quebec City? Further, if this is the position of the government, would he consider some special arrangement for the areas of Canada that have a 6.3 per cent unemployment
[Mr. Laprise.)
rate, or 570,000 people out of work, based on the latest statistics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With respect to the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker, such special arrangements are, of course, those which have been suggested to the banking system by the Minister of Finance, when it was suggested that they do not have the same rate, that they have a dual rate, and that there be a lower rate for the slow growth areas, that is, those with high unemployment statistics.


BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE INCREASE-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT MORTGAGE RATE INCREASES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact his statement in his earlier answer that the supply of mortgage money is exactly equal to the demand is the same as saying that the supply of Cadillacs and penthouses is equal to the demand for those things in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is really put in the form of an argument. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question to make it acceptable from a procedural point of view.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a very reasonable beginning. In view of the fact that housing is not a commodity just like any other commodity but is an essential requirement, would the government take steps in its future interest rate policy to distinguish between interest rates in general and interest rates that affect mortgages and make sure that the latter do not increase?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I did attempt to indicate in answer to a previous question was that there is no apparent shortage, that in fact there is a substantial flow of mortgage funds, and that is indicated by the fact that housing starts are at all-time records.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on a last supplementary. Hon. members will appreciate that we are still on the first question. After that I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the use of the word medicine by the Prime Minister. Why does the government persist in prescribing the same medicine for those who are suffering from dysentery as for those who are suffering from constipation, when it knows perfectly well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 11, 1973


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to a regulation issued on March 1 that affects all persons interested in unemployment insurance. Did he have prior knowledge of and did he approve the regulation put into force on March 1 which stated in part:
Commission employees do not have the task of informing interested people that it is time to make a claim or invite them to make such claims or make them aware of their eventual rights to such claims.
Was the minister aware of this regulation and did he approve of the same?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have time to examine the purported regulation to see exactly the context in which it was put. I am not fully aware of it at this stage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: While the minister is investigating as to the truth, would he kindly advise why it was necessary for the commission to issue such a regulation or to have such a regulation approved, in light of the fact that its administrative costs jumped from $26 million in 1971-72 to about $144 million for 1973-74, which regulation would be in direct contravention of the new enlightened Unemployment Insurance Act?


Robert Knight Andras: Most certainly it is our intention to take a much more personalized approach in conveying information to claimants and interested parties. I will be glad to look into the allegation of the hon. member and see exactly what this all purports to mean.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of his recent discussions with Ontario government ministers and officials regarding regional development in Northern Ontario, can he inform the House what action the government intends to take with respect to economic development in Northern Ontario?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the meetings to which the hon. member refers occurred last Thursday. Immediately following those meetings a working party of federal and provincial officials went to work. They have had one meeting. I believe there is another slated for the early part of this week. One of the preliminary matters they will be discussing is ways and means by which we can make a bigger impact on regional development in Northern Ontario.
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Can the minister inform the House whether agreement was reached with respect to designating special areas in Northern Ontario and the establishment of a Northern Ontario Crown corporation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we did not go into the specifics of whether the mechanism of a Crown corporation is the most appropriate. However, I think it is fair to say that so far as the government of Ontario was concerned it was in full agreement with us that priority attention ought to be given to Northern Ontario and to certain parts of eastern Ontario.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the government is prepared to take unilateral action if at any time the government of Ontario drags its feet with regard to economic development in Northern Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary.


IMPLICATIONS OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW LEGISLATION-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES-POSSIBLE CHALLENGE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the very considerable and obvious implications for regional development policies inherent in the proposed foreign investment review act, has the minister discussed this subject with the various provincial premiers and with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and has he any information on whether any province or provinces contemplate challenging the proposed legislation on constitutional grounds?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the second part of the question is concerned, no province has given me any such indication of intention. However, we did have very comprehensive discussions with a number of provinces on the whole question of foreign investment and also on the question of concessional financing which, as the hon. member knows, is of considerable importance and concern to eastern Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is the government considering the possibility of modifying its present guidelines concerning no-interest deposits which it leaves in reserve in chartered banks?

June 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is based on a statement by Lome Mitton of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission to the effect that the CNR is planning a large freight rate increase and a change in demurrage rules which, according to Mr. Mitton, will cause undue hardship in Atlantic Canada. Has the minister been made aware of these deplorable proposals, and what steps has he in mind to forestall what would be the tenth freight rate increase in Atlantic Canada in the last four years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there was no general increase in freight rates in the Maritimes. There might be some specific increases. I can inquire and see to what extent there has been and make a report to the hon. gentleman some time this week.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Regrettably there have been these freight rate increases which the minister will find in his files if he is not otherwise aware of them. Could I ask the minister whether this unpleasant matter was discussed at his recent meetings with the Atlantic premiers and whether from that summit meeting any pleasant news will develop?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the whole problem of freight rates in the Maritimes was discussed with the premiers. I am awaiting some reaction from the premiers of the Atlantic provinces before we reach some kind of understanding.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Moncton who has a supplementary and then the hon. member for Assiniboia who has a supplementary to a previous question.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the alarming development referred to the hon. member for Hillsborough, will the minister consult again with the Atlantic premiers to see if some other formula cannot be devised, rather simply adjusting freight rate subsidies, in order to arrive at some other form of assistance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is what we have been discussing but unfortunately we have not reached any conclusion up to now. I hope we can find a formula so that the Atlantic provinces can compete with the other provinces on the Canadian market.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the minister has travelled the length and breadth of the country for discussions with provincial governments, can the minister inform the House whether he is prepared to make a statement on motions outlining the kind of direction his department is going to take, or is he prepared to refer the latest report of his department to the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that we may be able to deal with this whole subject?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly more than pleased to arrange whatever appears to be the most appropriate technique for getting a full airing of the subject. I mentioned in answer to the hon. member for Nickel Belt that the working parties are now in the process of refining the original proposals that were made, and this should not take too long. When this is finished, then we can decide upon the best technique for getting a full airing of the matter either in the House or in committee.


William George Knight: In view of the fact that in dealing with this subject the Standing Committee on Regional Development and members of parliament have been concerned about the amount of information available to them as members interested in the subject, could the minister inform the House whether the studies done relating to the prairie region and other regions will be made public by his department or whether we will have to wait for hon. members to leak them to the press?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly said that I was quite prepared to make these studies public and so far as I know there is no lengthy impediment to that when the working parties complete their discussions with the provinces. The only reason they were not released earlier was that they did in fact form the basis of the discussions and it was quite inappropriate to give them out ahead of the provinces having received them.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION TO ENSURE ADDITIVES TO BREAD NOT INJURIOUS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the number of additives being put into bread to preserve its freshness, would the minister have his officials make an inquiry into the baking industry to ensure that these ingredients are not injurious to the health of the consumer?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly look into this matter.
June 11, 1973


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED GAS AND OIL EXPORTS THROUGH SARNIA TO MICHIGAN CAUSING SHORTAGE-RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED PRICE INCREASES
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate whether the tremendously increased exports of gas and oil from Sarnia into the state of Michigan could cause a gas shortage in Canada and Ontario in particular, and is this a factor in the announced intention of the three major oil companies to increase the price of their products in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I should like to check the accuracy of the facts about export from Sarnia, but I would be glad to respond to the hon. member's question.


POSSIBLE RESEARCH INTO FORMS FROM NON-CONVENTIONAL SOURCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONTARIO
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, and deals with the policy intentions of the government of Ontario on energy. In spite of the difficulties the French translators are having in translating the policy papers the minister is preparing, would the minister consider announcing right away whether he is willing to join with the province of Ontario in the research that is so necessary into forms of energy from non-conventional sources?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reflect on what has been said in the policy papers. There is a very substantial requirement for research on energy sources already developed. I am not sure whether under the circumstances we would prefer to devote research resources to new and novel sources or deal with some of the questions we now have before us, for example, the development of the tar sands.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister made an offer to the Ontario government to sell the stockpile of uranium reserves so they can build up their own supply for security purposes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir.


MEASURES TO COMBAT VENEREAL DISEASE- DISCUSSION BY CONFERENCE OF DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the admission of the minister recently that venereal disease has almost reached epidemic proportions, can the minister assure the House that measures to combat venereal disease will be on the agenda of this week's health ministers' conference?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, health ministers are not meeting this week. However, health deputy ministers, that is the Dominion Council of Health, will be meeting and this matter will be put on the agenda of this conference.

[ La ter:]


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister indicate whether the government has prepared any specific program or financial or fiscal arrangements to propose to the provinces at the forthcoming conference?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the forthcoming NATO council meeting will the minister support the plan of the new minister of foreign affairs for the Netherlands and other NATO nations to urge that NATO members do not supply arms to Portugal which might be used to suppress its colonies, Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau, in contravention of the resolution passed with the approval of Canada at the United Nations which called on the nations of the world to assist the national liberation movements of these countries in their struggle against colonialism?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since this is already the policy of the Canadian government I will have no difficulty whatever in supporting my colleagues.


KILLING OF TWO CANADIAN GIRLS WHILE VISITING VICTORIA FALLS-APOLOGY BY PRESIDENT OF ZAMBIA- PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House if an official apology has been received from the President of the Republic of Zambia? If so, has this apology been dispatched to the families of the two Canadian girls who met their tragic deaths at the hands of Zambian soldiers, and was any form of compensation offered to the families?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of a letter written by the President of Zambia to Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair, the mother and father of one of the girls killed in this tragic incident. The president says in part:

June 11, 1973
Oral Questions
I realize that nothing material could make up to you for the loss of one of your family . ..
Nevertheless, as an indication of my country's deep regret at the loss you have sustained and of the esteem we feel toward the Canadian people, I am asking my government officials to discuss with the Canadian High Commission in Zambia the question of ex gratia payment to you. I hope that you will accept this gesture as a further expression of my deep sympathy and that of the Zambian nation.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a copy of the whole letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a long letter could it be appended to Hansard rather than tabled?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter, see appendix.]


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's agreement to have the letter appended to Hansard. As a supplementary question may I ask whether the minister has dispatched an envoy to Zambia? If so, has he left, what is his name and has he reported anything further?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on June 5 I said:
I have also taken the rather extraordinary step of sending a special envoy to Zambia to underline the nature of the concern of the Canadian people and I expect he will be there shortly.
He has been there and has returned, having carried out his mission. I emphasize that he was not there to do any negotiating but simply to convey the views, as a Canadian, to the president so that he would understand.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the minister answered all my questions but the name of the person he dispatched.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the person concerned does not want his name to be used. However, I can assure the hon. member and the House that this was a Canadian of good repute, a private citizen who undertook this mission on our behalf. I feel he could only have carried out this task which the government asked him to assume so long as he remained anonymous.


SUGGESTED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ETOBICOKE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-HiSmber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the cutback last week in money for athletic programs to the Etobicoke Board of Education, which will result in the termination of all school competitive sports programs in that Toronto borough, and because of the fact the federal government is

responsible for sports, physical fitness and the well-being of all Canadians, can the minister advise the House if and when the federal government, through the minister's department, will assist this large segment of Toronto's young population?
[ Transla tion]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member put his question to the Ontario government.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES BILL-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING BUDGET FORECAST AND POSSIBLE DEFICIT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the bill that has been introduced respecting the Olympic Games. The Prime Minister will recall that his officials disagreed to the extent of some $100 million with regard to the budget forecast of COJO. Does the introduction of this bill mean that the officials of the government of Canada are now in agreement with the budget forecast of COJO or do these budget differences still exist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the disagreement was not so much on the expenditure side as on the revenue side, the revenue which might be available from the sale of Olympic coins. As far as I know, no great attempt has been made on our side to reconcile this difference. I believe it is still an honest difference. We still fear there might be a deficit and COJO believes there will not be. However, from the point in time that we got the assurances of COJO, the city of Montreal and the government of the province of Quebec that it would assume any possible deficit, the matter ceased to be one which we thought might prevent us from introducing the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not question the Prime Minister's words, but is he correct in saying he has received an assurance from the province of Quebec that it will assume the deficit or simply that the government of Canada will not be asked to assume the deficit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is correct. I believe that is the phraseology of the government of Quebec in a letter from its Prime Minister, namely, that the government of Canada will not be called upon in any way to bear any deficit.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that over the weekend Statistics Canada reported there was an

annual increase in corporation profits of 53 per cent, which I believe is the highest in 12 years at a quartely rate, is consideration now being given to withdrawing the corporate tax bill as well as the provision for fast write-offs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, has presented this bill as a medium and long-term measure. It is not meant to reflect the unusually high increase this year or the very low increase a couple of years ago.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact profits have been high for the past couple of years, can the Prime Minister advise us how high these profits will have to go before he will withdraw the bill to reduce corporate taxes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Transla tion]


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the large number of students who will be jobless this summer and the hundreds of Opportunities for Youth projects that have been turned down for lack of funds, can the minister tell us whether or not he has made representations to the Treasury Board with a view to obtaining additional funds that he might accept more projects? If so, does he expect a favourable reply?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I have not made that representation nor do I plan to at this point in time.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Pamser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It relates to the increasing problems being created for Canadians all across the country by unauthorized absences of people from institutions under the minister's control. Is the government anticipating another look at the situation to protect citizens against losses as a result of dealing with these people? I refer to two people who left the Agassiz institution in April, one of whom was being detained for offences relating to fraud. He is now travelling round the country with his partner passing out phony certified cheques, the latest incident being in Calgary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, on June 1 I announced a program to restrict temporary absences. In addition, we have taken measures to upgrade the perimeter security at most of our penitentiaries. We hope this will stop some of the unauthorized absences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The hon. member might ask his supplementary quickly and I will then recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: These people did not escape. They were let out to go to a dance. The purport of my question is to ascertain whether the government will assume any of the responsibility for this lack of administrative procedures on behalf of those people who suffer losses as a result of these people being at large?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that possibility. In addition, the sort of situation referred to by the hon. member has been tightened up. These people were on temporary absences. Temporary absences are being screened much more thoroughly than in the past.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of reports on the increasing danger to which the Canadian contingent in Viet Nam is exposed, has the minister received a full report on the situation? If so, can he also tell the House whether plans have been made to pull out of Viet Nam earlier than had been expected?
[ English]


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received a fairly complete report on recent developments in Viet Nam. As the hon. member and the House know from the newspapers, the men in our contingent were restricted to barracks at the end of last week because of the increased violence and increased shooting. They are no longer under the same restrictions. There has been a very sharp decline in the level of violence. We are watching the situation very carefully. I do not expect it will be necessary, and I hope it will not, to withdraw our contingent earlier than I had planned because that would mean there had been a resumption of large-scale warfare in breach of the peace agreement.

June 11, 1973
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


ROTATING STRIKES BY MACHINISTS-PRESENT POSITION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Are the two parties to the dispute, the machinists and Air Canada, any closer to settlement in this dispute which today is affecting nine cities in Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, they do not seem to be too much closer. The situation at the present time is that the union has indicated that unless the company adopts a more flexible attitude they are not prepared to meet for further bargaining. I am now indicating to both parties through the House that we are prepared to offer mediation services again in the hope the parties will come together right away and try to resolve the dispute.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.


DISPUTE WITH MACHINISTS-APPLICATION OF TERMS OF RESOLUTION ON BILINGUALISM ADOPTED BY HOUSE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the references made in the House during the recent debate on bilingualism in the public service to the effect that the points in that resolution would also apply to Air Canada and other Crown corporations, can the minister say whether say whether that resolution and its terms have been drawn to the attention of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Air Canada is surely aware of the resolution that was passed by the House and I hope the union, too, will be aware of it. Probably we shall have to send it to the union because there are some demands which are related to that very resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on his further supplementary, but I think it should be brought to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that other members did not have an opportunity to ask their questions within the time limit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Transport if he will urge both parties to pay attention to the terms of that resolution?


Jean Marchand: I am told that the Prime Minister is supposed to get in touch with both parties and I think that would be sufficient to express the opinion of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte rises on a question of privilege.
{Mr. Sharp.]


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your permission to acknowledge the contribution to the sporting world which has been made by Ron Turcotte of Grand Falls, New Brunswick and Mr. Lucien Laurin of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I am sure the multitude of Canadians who cheered the exceptional accomplishment of the winning of the triple crown by Secretariat and the rest of the team would wish that it be properly noted in the records of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barnett:: Perhaps I might rise on a point of order at this stage for the attention, in particular, of the government House leader. Would he consider calling as the first order of business either today or tomorrow order No. 7 in relation to Bill C-4, the first government bill on the order paper-it has been there since January 12,-with a view to having it dealt with quickly at second reading stage and referred to the standing committee for consideration and report?


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order. I have brought it to the attention of hon. members on previous occasions that when we have gone five or ten minutes beyond the question period, it makes for difficulty if hon. members arise on so-called points of order to ask whether a particular piece of legislation is to be considered, and a further five minutes of questioning follows. I think these questions ought to be asked during the question period. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a supplementary point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to say, in a conciliatory manner, that discussions have taken place in connection with this bill, and we on this side would be quite satisfied to have it referred to the committee after only a minimum of time in the House-practically none.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I find the offer of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate more appealing than the offer of the hon. member in the far corner. I will call this item on the understanding that it will be passed within a very short time and sent to committee. If we can work this out today, I will be happy to call the bill first thing tomorrow and get it into committee quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-133 to amend the National Housing Act as reported (with amend-
June 11, 1973
[Stage Direction]
ments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to the business now before the House. I trust it will expedite the report stage of Bill C-133. There are a number ot amendments of ours on the order paper, and I would ask the House to agree that Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, dealing with a ceiling on interest rates, be called at the same time. As members will be aware when I speak on this matter, there is agreement between the government and this party in relation to these amendments. When amendment No. 3 is called, perhaps 5, 9 and 11 can be called at the same time, because although the programs are different, they deal basically with the same problem, the same ceiling, the same rate of interest. So we would be left with No. 1, then the block consisting of 3, 5, 9 and 11, and the last amendment of ours to be called which is No. 13 on the bottom of the list.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will hear from the minister, but this might be a complicated way of dealing with the matter. As hon. members know, it is customary under the Standing Order for the Chair to propose groupings to the House. This has now been done by the hon. member for Calgary North. We shall determine whether there is some way of getting together on the basis of the suggestion put forward on behalf of the Chair by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am quite agreeable to the course of action the hon. member for Calgary North suggests. I might add there are four other amendments moved by representatives of the New Democratic Party which might also be grouped together, namely, amendments 4, 6, 10 and 12. If hon. members are agreeable to that grouping, it would mean we would deal with the amendments in the following order: Nos. 1 and 2, Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 grouped together, Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12 grouped together, then No. 7, No. 8 and No. 13.


Mr. Speaker:: Essentially, the proposition which I was to submit to hon. members was that amendment No. 1 be considered first, then No. 2, then Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 as a group, Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12 as a group, and that Nos. 7, 8 and 13 be considered individually or disposed of separately.
There might be a question when it comes to voting. Hon. members might like to make a suggestion as to the arrangements to be made in relation to possible divisions on any of these groups of amendments.


Gerald William Baldwin: It would be eminently satisfactory, in the event the debate on the various amendments did terminate before the end of the day, to defer the votes, if any, until after orders of the day tomorrow.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that we might deal with the amendments on the report stage today and begin third reading of the bill today. If the voting on the report stage were deferred until after orders of the day tomorrow the House would, of course, be precluded from proceeding to third reading today. Could I suggest that at the end of each amendment we defer a vote, if a vote is called for, until the end of the report stage, which I hope
National Housing Act
will be sometime later today, than vote on those amendments and afterwards proceed to third reading?


John Edward Broadbent: What the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has said is quite acceptable to us. I should like to return to the earlier discussion about the grouping of amendments. We are in entire agreement with the suggestion as to the grouping which is to be made. But I wonder whether the government House leader and the spokesman for the Official Opposition could not agree to a reversal of the voting order in relation to the two broad groupings, amendments 3, 5, 9 and 11 put forward by the Conservative party, and amendments 4, 6, 10 and 12 proposed by the New Democratic Party. There have been some discussions about this privately. The latter centre on the same principle but are somewhat broader in scope. I wonder, therefore, whether they could be moved first. I make this suggestion for the following reason: if they are defeated, for example, those of us who would perhaps like half a loaf if we cannot get the whole loaf would then be inclined to support the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. But the reverse is not the case. So, if we could agree to put the amendments in that order, it would make more sense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we are in a happier position than the New Democratic Party. I do not know what arrangements they may have but motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 will be very short and there will only be one speech. These are asking for a ceiling on interest rates. Basically, these amendments were approved by the committee. The new amendments merely change the wording, and the minister and I agreed to this after we had had some discussion with CMHC. I hope that we will get the co-operation of the New Democratic Party and that I can set out the reason for the agreement and the reason for these changes; I will be very short. Then we can go to motions 4, 6, 10 and 12; if there are any votes perhaps these could be deferred, and perhaps the vote on amendments 4, 6, 10 and 12 could be called first.


Mr. Speaker:: The thought of the Chair is that normally we should start with a grouping that includes motion No. 3, which would mean that after the House had in one way or another disposed of motions 1 and 2, the next motion to be put to the House would be motion No. 3, which would carry with it consideration of motions 5, 9 and 11. I think it would be difficult, unless there were agreement between members of the House, to put motion No. 4 ahead of No. 3.
My suggestion to the House is that we proceed on this basis, that votes be deferred, and that in the meantime there be further consideration of this somewhat difficult matter. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will now read the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North and, at the same time indicate, that the Chair has very serious reservations as to certain procedural aspects of the motion. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) moves:

June 11, 1973
Na tional Housing Act
That Bill C-133, an act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting the enacting clause of the bill, lines 1 to 3 on page 1 thereof and substituting the following:
"The Parliament of Canada, hereby declaring that it is the duty of The Government of Canada to provide, or cause to be provided, the maximal number of housing units for the maximal number of residents of Canada at capital and interest costs reasonable to their several means, and now to better ensure that this duty shall be discharged for the achievement of this goal, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this said act.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:1'
Hon. members will appreciate that this is a very unusual amendment. There are some precedents that raise the question whether it is in order. By way of preliminary comment, and so as to guide hon. members as to what my difficulty is, may I say that to my way of thinking the hon. member is seeking at this point to go behind the bill that is before us to amend the original statute, the National Housing Act, which of course is contrary to the regular established practice. That is really the difficulty that I have.
There are many aspects to the amendment that are interesting. It is a novel proposal which has caused me considerable anguish. I have looked at the matter from many angles during the last week or so since the hon. member gave his notice, and it is fair to say that I have some very interesting discussions with the hon. member himself. We have agreed to listen to argument today and perhaps try to reach a solution at this time. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the undertaking that this party has given with reference to the other important amendments to this bill I shall try to be brief. First of all, I bring to your attention that we are dealing with Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act. From listening to Your Honour's comment at the outset, there does seem to be some question that if I should move a preamble to an amendment to a bill, I might run into some procedural difficulty.
Let me come immediately to grips with this argument, and after I have answered it I will answer the question that was raised in the committee as the whether I would be able to amend an enacting clause. The last paragraph of my amendment is as follows:
Therefore, Her majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Those words are in all acts, and even in amending bills. But the point I must come to grips with in order to get a favourable and affirmative ruling is this: Can I amend a section of an act when I am dealing only with an amending bill before the House that has been brought in by the government? My submission is that this is not quite the case. What I am doing here is adding the enacting words that I have just quoted.
If the rule were such that I was foreclosed, in the sense that I could never move an amendment to a clause because it would change the bill, then one would never be in a position to move an amendment to a bill that amends an act. I submit that what I am doing is amending the enacting clause. If procedurally I can do this, then procedurally I must also be able to make an amendment to an amending

bill. I submit that I am of firm footing procedurally in this regard.
Whether I can move an amendment or an addition to an enacting clause is another matter, and may I deal with that briefly. May I refer to a letter that I wrote and is attached to the brief that I personally prepared on this particular question, whether an amendment can be moved to an enacting clause that is either an amendment to a bill or a bill itself. I should like to refer Your Honour to page 269 of Beauchesne, paragraph 361(3), which reads as follows:
The "enacting clause" is an essential part of a bill.
Pausing there, the enacting clause is an essential part of an amendment to a bill.
Under section 5 of the Interpretation Act, ch. 1, R.S.C., it must read as follows: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, enacts as follows."
When this matter came before the committee, the question Your Honour raised this afternoon was not dealt with by the chairman, if I may say that with the greatest respect to him. He merely referred to this sub-paragraph of Beauchesne and then referred to paragraph 402(2), which provides as follows:
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill, inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee, or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
The Interpretation Act, which Beauchesne refers to, provides as follows:
The enacting clause of an Act may be in the following form.
Beauchesne says it must be in that form, but the Interpretation Act of Canada, being Chapter 1-23 in Volume IV of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, does not go that far. It simply says:
The enacting clause of an Act may be in the following form:
If you look at Beauchesne, you will find that he says it must be in that form. I assume and presume that was written prior to the amendments of 1967-68 of the Interpretation Act, and that is why Beauchesne took that position.
Then I come to the second point to which Beauchesne refers. The words in the motion are:
The Parliament of Canada, hereby declaring that it is the duty of the Government of Canada to provide, or cause to be provided, the maximal number of housing units-
Surely that is what the amended bill is trying to do, that is providing more housing units. We have heard a lot of talk about capital today, so there must be capital provided with reasonable interest rates. In other words, really what the amendment to Bill C-133 is saying is that we are going to provide new homes. They may be in the form of public housing or the rehabilitation of old houses. We are going to lend money to municipalities and provinces to provide serviced land at reasonable prices.
One of the main witnesses before the committee had presented a brief to CMHC and stated that one of the weaknesses of Bill C-133 was that it really did not articulate the purposes of the bill. The minister at that stage said he would have no argument with what I have sug-
June 11, 1973

gested. The only problem I ran into at the committee stage was that the chairman of the committee said that, according to Beauchesne, the amendment must include the words I have cited. I think he overlooked the Interpretation Act which, with the greatest respect, says "may". Therefore, I am on pretty strong ground, because then you read the second part of Clause 4 of the Interpretation Act which says:
The enacting clause of an Act may be in the following form:-
All I am doing is adding a preamble to an enacting clause. Therefore, I say I have not done anything different from moving amendments to put a ceiling on interest rates, just as the amendments moved by other hon. members which are on the order paper would change other clauses. In my opinion, I am not moving a preamble to the original National Housing Act. I am moving a preamble to the enacting clause of Bill C-133, which is an act to amend the National Housing Act. I do not think I need say any more.
Let me conclude with these words. I think the problem I have to face I have answered. This is what the Chair has been saying to me, and this bothered me when the question was first raised. If this were merely a bill, not an amending bill, I might be able to do what I am doing, but as it is an amendment to an amending bill there is some question as to whether I can add a preamble to the amendment, because this is really a preamble to the main act.
I have merely added a preamble to the enacting clause of the amendment which is part of this amending bill, and in that fashion it would come as part of the bill just as other amending clauses would. I realize the difficulty, but I feel I am on sound ground because of this argument. I would ask Your Honour to remember, in making your decision in this regard, that if it is possible to amend any clause, then surely it is possible to do what I am attempting this afternoon. Thank you very much for your kindness in listening to me.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). We went through this procedure at the committee stage and the amendments were ruled out of order. I appreciate the hon. member moving the amendment now so it can be dealt with on the floor of the House, however, I have the same difficulty with this amendment that you have hinted you may have, Sir. Without in any way discussing the substance of the matter and, of course, if the amendment is in order we will have to discuss the substance, I think there is more to housing than a preamble.
I want to submit to you, Sir, that the amendment moved by the hon. member is out of order in that the hon. member is endeavouring to add a preamble to the National Housing Act, or to amend the enacting section of Bill C-133, but the hon. member has made it very clear that what he intends is merely to add to or amend the enacting section. If his purpose is only to add a preamble however to Bill C-133, or a preamble to the National Housing Act both are clearly out of order.
Let us refer to May's Seventeenth Edition which makes it very clear at page 559 that when a bill is introduced, and does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one, and what is incompetent at
National Housing Act
the committee stage must surely be incompetent here. Therefore, this amendment is by way of an amendment adding a preamble, and it would be improper for an amendment to Bill C-133 to endeavour to add a preamble to the National Housing Act.
The hon. member says he is not endeavouring to add a preamble, but is endeavouring to amend the enacting section. I say that is out of order because you cannot endeavour to amend the enacting section. Beauchesne, in Citation 398, says:
-no amendment can be moved to the granting or enacting words of Bills for granting aids or supplies to the Crown, or to the enacting words of other Bills. Those words are part of the framework of the Bill and are never submitted to the committee.
The hon. member by his own words says that is exactly what he is endeavouring to do here, to amend the enacting section. I suggest Beauchesne makes it very clear that you cannot amend the enacting section of a bill, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that amendment No. 1 is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to ask one or two questions. I suppose I have to ask them rhetorically although no doubt the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would like to be in the position to answer them. I am concerned where these words would go if the amendment were allowed, voted on and passed. The hon. member for Calgary North says these words constitute a preamble to the amending bill. Somewhere down the line an appropriate department would produce an office consolidation which would change the various sections of the act in accordance with the amendments that we pass here today. What will happen to these words and where will they appear? Will they be stuck into the middle of the act somewhere? I do not see how they can because these words are not part of any clause.
On the other hand, how could a group of lawyers making an office consolidation put these words at the beginning of the act since the hon. member himself has already said he is just seeking to add a preamble to the bill? I had hoped I might have some materials on my desk that would be helpful. I do not have all I wanted, but I have one volume of the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970, and I find that when the statutes reach this point the enacting clause disappears in most cases. This volume I have is Volume III. I have thumbed through it and in all cases but one I have noticed Section 1 is simply the title of the act, and the words:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
have been eliminated.
There is one exception, namely Chapter F-26 which had to do with the Food and Agriculture Organization. It does have a preamble which has been carried forward and includes the words: "therefore His Majesty"-this was passed sometime ago-"by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows". But, the hon. member for Calgary North can hardly claim his wording is a preamble to be put in at the beginning of the statute since he says it is not a preamble to the whole statute. It seems to me there are

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
so many problems that if the member really wanted to get these words in he should have made them a section of the bill to become a section of the act itself.
My friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and I have been chatting here trying to recall some other instances. I have sent for the National Transportation Act but have not got it yet. I think it had a preamble when it first came to us. I think we wrote some words by way of a preamble to the Canada Labour Code, but I do not have it in front of me. However, it seems to me those words were not in the form of a preamble but rather a declaration of policy and were put into the act in the form of a section. That is the problem which it seems to me to occur. The hon. member for Calgary North does not identify these words as a clause or as a section but merely as words to take the place of lines such and such in the bill. Where will they end up? Certainly, that is the procedural problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of becoming involved in this interesting debate, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Calgary North has a very interesting point. My colleague who just spoke indicated that when we were debating the changes to the Canada Labour Code-I do not recall the bill, but perhaps it was Bill C-229-there was a very unique move made on the part of the government, as a result perhaps of the interest of labour, to incorporate a preamble containing a number of "whereas" which in fact were brought into the bill.
I found some fault with this, but at the end of a very convincing argument I accepted what the government was attempting to do to satisfy the climate and tone. I respectfully suggest perhaps the Chair might refer to the debate which occurred at that time in order to ascertain what happened, because I believe the hon. member for Calgary North does have a valid point in attempting to set the climate and tone of what this bill is about in terms of housing for the Canadian people. I believe in that respect, keeping in mind the point I raised in respect of the Labour bill, that the Chair will find some reference to a preamble inserted in a bill. I do not recall in which portion of the bill the preamble was placed, but in any event it was placed in the bill. I respectfully ask the Chair to look into this matter for edification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we can bring this interesting procedural discussion to an end soon. Other members, including the hon. member for Calgary North, wish to reply. This is somewhat irregular, but I think there is a willingness on the part of hon. members to clear up the several matters as amicably as possible. The Chair will not stand in the way of the hon. member for Calgary North who wishes to continue the discussion from the procedural standpoint, but if he does so the Chair will have to allow the minister, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and others to make further comments in light of the additional comments of the hon. member for Calgary North. Having said this, the Chair has no objection to listening to the hon. member for Calgary North on this interesting procedural point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much for your graciousness, Mr. Speaker. I should like to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said he had

checked other acts. I, too, checked the acts. In the Canadian Bill of Rights there is a preamble, following which there is this wording:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
I might also refer to chapter 45, an act to extend the boundaries of the Province of Quebec. It starts out with "Whereas on the thirteenth day of July,"-this is almost a preamble-and ends with the words "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons". Then, in respect of chapter 32, an act to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, the same argument applies. Then, I look at chapter 40, an act to extend the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. This is all legislation of the federal government.
The second question my good friend from Winnipeg North Centre asks is, where would the words go. If I were amending clause 5 of a statute the words would go in clause 5 and not in clause 10. If I were amending clause 6, they would go in clause 6 and not in clause 9. So, if I amend the enacting clause-and the National Housing Act has an enacting clause-naturally this is where the words would go. In this connection, I would say that wherever there is a preamble, wherever there is an enacting clause, wherever there is an amendment to the bill-naturally if they are already in the bill they are not repeated-I can amend an amending bill and that is what I have done. That preamble, if permitted to stand and pass by the House, would go where any preamble goes, just as a waistcoat goes around your chest and not around your ankles.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my friends think I have said enough.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member for Calgary North has said indicates he is attempting to amend the National Housing Act by amending this particular amending bill. It is a well known principle of the House of Commons that one cannot do that, more particularly when one is dealing with a supply bill which would give the government of the day authorization to expend money. The citation from Beauchesne read by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is to the point I believe. I will repeat it for the edification of hon. members. It is citation 398 which reads:
... though no amendment can be moved to the granting or enacting words of Bills for granting aids or supplies to the Crown, or to the enacting words of other Bills. Those words are part of the framework of the Bill and are never submitted to the committee.
It seems to me this is a bill granting supply to the Crown, and that this is an attempt to go beyond the limits of the amendment by going to the heart of the act itself. As such, I submit that the motion should be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other contributions to the very interesting point, the Chair will attempt to make a ruling which I hope will be acceptable to all hon. members, including the hon. member for Calgary North. I think it
June 11, 1973

should be pointed out that this is a very interesting point.
It is not often that an attempt is made to amend an amending bill in the way suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North. As I listened to the arguments put forward by a number of hon. members I had the impression that some perhaps had missed the point that we are dealing with an amending bill and not an original bill.
The hon. member for Hamilton West for example, referred to a preamble to the Labour Code. Of course, what is in the Labour Code results from the fact that what came before us was a bill which included a preamble. Of course if there is a preamble before the House it can be amended, changed or deleted. But the point is that there is no preamble in the bill before us and the attempt is being made at this point to put a preamble in it which would, if carried, be transferred to the original act, the National Housing Act so that by amending the amending bill we would be amending the original act. This is the difficulty I have.
Again, I say that there would be no difficulty if this bill came before us with a preamble. Then, if any hon. members, including the hon. member for Calgary North, wanted to amend it, there would be no difficulty because it would be before us. However, at present it is not before us, no more than many other clauses of the original bill. We cannot try to amend clauses which are not before us and we cannot amend a preamble which is not before us.
The citations which I have to bring to the attention of hon. members are known, of course, to the senior parliamentarians to my left who have taken part in this debate, including the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). These are very relevant citations, I think.
Citation 398 at page 283 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is one which no one can overlook. I think. It reads:
Amendments may be made in every part of the bill, whether in the preamble,-
And I say that when there is a preamble before us, it can be amended.
-the clauses or the schedules; clauses may be omitted, and new clauses and schedules added; though no amendment can be moved to the granting or enacting words of bills for granting aids or supplies to the Crown, or to the enacting words of other bills.
In other words, we cannot amend the enacting clause of the bill. What the hon. member for Calgary North seeks, to do by amending the enacting clause and making it a combination enacting clause and preamble is to introduce a preamble which is not before us in the act. That, of course, would be a logical consequence of the action of the House if we decided to consider this amendment and if it were passed.
Another citation to which hon. member's referred a moment ago comes from May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, at page 519 and reads:
Where the bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.
It is very clear to me that there is no preamble before us. The only thing we have before us at present is an enacting
National Housing Act
clause, and that enacting clause cannot be changed in the way which is suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North. As hon. members probably suspect, there are many other precedents which could be quoted, but I do not think that this is what hon. members would want me to do. During the last two days I have looked at all precedents on which I could put my hands. I have sought the advice of the officials of the House and have asked them for their guidance in assisting the Chair in looking for precedents. There is not one single precedent that could be found which would justify the Chair in allowing the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calg^-y North.
A precedent has been brought to my attention in May's Eighteenth Edition at page 508, but this instance goes back to the year 1932. It is reported in May's that amendments were allowed to be moved to the enacting words of the import duties bill in 1932. I think what is important to mention here is that, in this particular case of the United Kingdom precedent of 1932, the committee was dealing with a financial bill, and it is well recognized of course even in our Canadian practice that in those cases the enacting clause is a combination of an enacting clause and a preamble. This is what was before the committee in the 1932 U.K. precedent. It was a financial bill which had at the beginning a combination of preamble and enacting clause and it was found by the chairman of the committee that an amendment could be brought to that form. In this case, it is not an ordinary financial bill which is before us, nor a combination of preamble and enacting clause. We have a very simple, straightforward enacting clause, and I suggest with great respect to hon. members that I do not think it can be amended in the way proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.
At the same time, I respect deeply the very interesting arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary North, but I would find it difficult to accept his contention. I appreciate the fact that he felt he should not push the matter much further because he did not want to take up too much of the time of the House. It may be that if he had not had this restriction he might have been able to come up with other arguments which might have led the Chair to reach another decision, but in the light of the arguments which have been effectively submitted for the consideration of the Chair I think I have no alternative but to say that we cannot proceed with this motion at this time. If the hon. member wanted to propose views for the consideration of the House which might have been based on the motion, I am sure that he would find some other opportunity when we come to the other clauses to make his views known to the House and considered by the minister and by hon. members. I think, therefore, that at this point we should move to motion No. 2 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by adding immediately after line 37 on page 3 in Clause 7 the following:
"(c) A housing corporation all of the shares of which are owned
by a municipality or by an agency of a municipality, .

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate on this bill or get us involved in procedural wrangles, but I wonder if I may speak to the amendment on a point of order and inform the Chair that at the committee stage this amendment was moved. The chairman of the committee expressed some reservations about it without in any way deciding definitively on the matter, and in fact the amendment was put and voted upon in committee. However, I suggest that you may wish to consider whether the amendment is out of order on the ground that it goes beyond the royal recommendation which reads in part:
... to provide in certain circumstances for loans to non-profit corporations for low rental housing projects of up to one hundred per cent of their lending value and for contributions not exceeding ten per cent of the capital costs of the project to such corporation;
My argument would be, if it appeals to you, that that is the wording of the royal recommendation and that by amending the definition of non-profit organization to include municipally owned corporations, the amendment enlarges the meaning of non-profit organization and changes the circumstances referred to in the recommendation. It is, therefore, a charge on the Crown which is beyond that provided for in the royal recommendation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Does anybody else have a contribution to make on the point of order raised by the minister?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. Not being either a lawyer or a rules expert I do not have their knowledge, but I will try to speak briefly on a couple of points which seem to me to be at least pertinent. First, there was a favourable ruling on this in the committee. There was actually a vote at that time and the amendment was considered to be in order. That, presumably, is prima facie evidence for continuing our discussion today on the acceptability of the amendment.
The rest of the argument that the minister made seems to me to be quite irrelevant. Having made those profound observations, I will sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a case of trying to offer a contribution without having done any homework on the specific point, because I had no notion that this amendment would be challenged procedurally. I think that the point made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), which was confirmed in advance by the minister himself, namely, that this amendment was allowed in committee and voted on, should carry some weight with Your Honour. You are under no obligation to rule the same way as has been ruled by a chairman of a committee, but I am sure Your Honour would agree that if you rule otherwise you would have to have strong reasons for doing so.
It does seem to me, from a quick reading of the Governor General's recommendation, that the provisions set out on page 3 of the bill, in new section 15.1, do not exhaust the terms of that recommendation. I find it difficult to follow the argument of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) that the proposal contained in this amendment goes beyond the reasonably wide set of terms

contained in the recommendation. For those reasons, in that the recommendation is very wide, and because the amendment was allowed in committee, I would hope Your Honour would make the same ruling here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is inclined to think, upon reading (a) and (b) of 15.1(1) that the proposed addition of (c) regarding a housing corporation, all the shares of which are owned by a municipality, fits within the class or kind that could be defined as a non-profit corporation. We do not want to give too narrow a meaning to the royal recommendation, or the recommendation of the Governor General. I frankly cannot see that the proposed amendment suggested by the 'hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is clearly outside the royal recommendation, and therefore I would rule that the amendment is in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that very sensible and obviously just ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. No member is allowed to comment on a ruling of the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that my remarks were being recorded at that time. When speaking to these amendments on behalf of my party I will be brief. We already have had long and serious discussions on this bill, and a number of the amendments proposed at the report stage were dealt with in committee. However, we want to make brief arguments in support of the amendments, hoping we can get some people to switch their votes and record them in a more sensible way than they did in the past. But we do not intend to drag out the debate.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit CMHC to make loans up to 100 per cent of the lending value of a rental housing project undertaken by a municipal agency. Unamended, the bill would provide 100 per cent loans to charitable non-profit housing operations and co-operative associations, but 95 per cent loans to municipal and provincial housing agencies as well as to private developers of limited dividend projects. If the amendment carries, municipal agencies will at least be in a better situation than private developers constructing limited dividend housing under section 15 of the act, which provides for loans for low rental housing projects.
We think it is desirable to put municipalities in a preferential position in terms of getting funds, when compared with private developers. We think this would be a financial incentive to municipalities that are hard put to raise funds for this kind of extremely important housing development. Therefore, I urge hon. members, regardless of party, to consider the substance of the amendment. It seems to me to fit clearly within the principle of the bill, and adds in a positive way to what I think is the central thrust of the legislation. Aid to municipalities in this respect is needed at this time.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, recently the minister attended tri-level conferences where the federal, provincial and municipal governments tried to determine ways and means of solving some of the national problems, the most important of which is the housing
June 11, 1973

problem. In the past, the federal government refused to recognize the status of municipalities in the housing field. This was one of the breaking points that prompted the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) to leave a Liberal government and join the Progressive Conservatives. I would have thought that the minister, after attending such tri-level conferences, would have been impressed by the logic of the arguments made at them, and would have readily accepted the sensible amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
As the hon. member has pointed out, if the bill is not amended non-profit organizations and co-ops will be permitted 100 per cent financing, and municipalities will only be permitted 95 per cent. The minister knows that municipalities have had difficulty raising funds. Now, he is placing a further impediment in their way, when they tackle housing problems. When I think of the amount of money he has allotted to municipalities for land banking, it really behooves me to attempt to persuade him at this time to take a more progressive view on this problem. I do not think he would like to be labelled as a person who is prohibiting the construction of housing across the country, as a person who is impeding the participation of municipalities in house construction. I hope he will take the initiative in showing municipalities his deep concern, and I would be most surprised if he votes against the amendment.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I consider the amendment which we are now studying to be perfectly logical.
A great many municipalities are having great difficulty in obtaining the funds they need to carry out projects which they have been considering for a long time. I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that, more and more, municipalities, of as few as 1,500 or 2,000 souls, wish to build homes for the elderly. A number of such projects have in fact been started in my constituency, one of which is now well under way. Others are being studied, but the really serious problem is that of financing. I suppose that if the amendment under study were adopted it would enable the municipalities to build these homes for the elderly in more favourable conditions.
There is another factor which should not be lost sight of. It is that it is becoming more and more desirable te enable senior citizens to live in a kind of motel-housing, where they feel more at home, where they have the feeling that they are still living in their former residences, when they were fully active. This amendment has been designed to allow municipalities desirous of doing so to go ahead with this venture. There is, quite rightly, some anxiety as to what is to be done in the near future with senior citizens in the areas where it has been impossible to build residences earlier.
This is why I support the proposed amendment. I hope that it will be incorporated into the bill and that our municipalities will benefit by it.
National Housing Act


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment has been set forth by my colleagues, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). It is to encourage the municipalities to build rental housing projects by making it possible for them to borrow from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation up to 100 per cent of the lending value of such rental housing projects.
Earlier, spokesmen for our party have pointed out that what we require-and this bill does not provide it-is a massive program of public housing to relieve the great shortage of homes for people in the middle and low income categories in this country. This amendment is an attempt to help do what the bill does not, which is to assist the group of people who really need housing and cannot get it except through public, low rental housing.
The government claims that the bill will help those on low incomes to buy their own homes. Many people would dearly like to do so; many in low rent housing projects would love to get away from what so many regard as ghettos of despair that brand them and their children as everlastingly doomed to failure. There is no way they can secure good, modern homes on the private market or indeed, for a good many of them, under the provisions of this amended bill without investing an impossibly large proportion of their income in the venture. The alternative, it seems to me, is to take steps to provide public housing on a much larger scale than at present, and to rescue it from the Cinderella status that past and present governments have given to it in this country.
European countries have been involved in public housing for many years, some projects in Britain going back to the nineteenth century. In most European countries, public housing is developed to meet acute housing shortages and to control the private housing sector. In Britain, according to Carleton University statistics, assisted housing accounts for 31 per cent of the total stock and in Sweden, for 40 per cent. In my own city of Vancouver, Canada's third and most rapidly growing city, a fairly recent survey made by the United Community Services concludes that present public housing stock is reaching only about one-tenth of the existing need in a worsening situation. Of the tenant sample, 93 per cent in the low rental housing have family income of less than $5,000; over half of them have less than $3,000 per family per year. The statement that, under the present bill, most people can buy their own homes is an invitation to disaster as far as the family budget is concerned. These people cannot do it, even under the provisions of the revised bill, and that is why we are offering this amendment. We want to encourage the municipalities to get busy and take up their full share of the load.
Public housing in Canada was conceived as an emergency measure and born of a war-time situation. It was never intended to provide more than boxes for beds, places where people in war industries could live. I will remember that the attempt to get the first meeting rooms for tenants at that time were strongly and successfully rebuffed by the minister then in charge of the matter. Public housing

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
has remained in that category, an unwanted child to be kept in a stunted state and put in the most undesirable light possible.
The former minister in charge of housing explained the rationale for providing public housing as a chance for the poor "to get the dental bill paid, the grocery bills paid and some of the debts cleaned off and you could save a little dough and get out of public housing." If one of those things is desirable it would be "to get out of public housing" because the people in public housing know that there is precious little chance of getting the dental and grocery bills paid and saving a little dough. These things are quite impossible in their circumstances.
In Canada the term "public housing" is a dirty word. It has always been applied to low rental ghettos and never to places like Rideau Hall or 24 Sussex Drive, where it could be applied with equal accuracy although with a more sweet aroma. What we need, it seems to me, is more and better public housing-public housing that will accommodate a wide mix of our citizens instead of cooping together in very narrow quarters families on social assistance whose lives have become a series of well-nigh insoluble problems for themselves as well as for others in the community. That is the reason for this amendment.
I want to go a little bit further afield, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will indulge me because I have taken very little of the time of this House in recent days, having been otherwise engaged. In introducing his bill at second reading, the minister spoke eloquently of the needs of people for housing going beyond the minimum needs of shelter. I want to quote him because the minister never said anything that was more to my taste than this:
In considering people's need for shelter, however, we cannot concern ourselves simply with a roof and four walls. Man is a social animal and we must look beyond his house to the community of which it is a part. The community, as well as the house, must be safe and healthy and must allow and encourage man and his family to achieve the fullest possible growth and development, physically, emotionally and spiritually.
I should like to take a few moments now, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the need for this approach, not only in the building of new public housing, whether by municipalities or any other agency, but in the making of older existing public housing projects more liveable. Those of us with such projects in our constituency know only too well that initially the tenants had nothing in the way of amenities except a roof, four walls and the barest necessities for housekeeping. We know that there have been precious few opportunities to discuss this matter and that is the reason I want to do it for a few minutes now.
Here were human beings, people with all the normal needs for space and privacy, recreational and personal development-tot lots and play spaces for their children, rooms for meetings and activity programs of all kinds- cooped together in little boxes for beds with an eating area thrown in as an extra. Being on low income, such families had neither the money to pay for transportation to cum-munity centres nor the money needed for the programs and sports equipment when they got there. No wonder there were complaints of broken windows, anti-social behaviour of various kinds, tension and trouble among tenants and with the surrounding community. The wonder

is that there was so little disturbance arising from so much heartbreak and sense of injustice.
Long years of struggle have succeeded in securing some of the more rudimentary recreation facilities in some of the projects. However, of what use is a hall unless there is also trained leadership for activities that are so badly needed in it? Lack of trained leadership and the frustration that results are the makings of mischief for teenagers whose abounding energies must have outlets, good or bad. It is these things which continue to give public housing the bad name it has today. As the member for a constituency with a number of public low rental projects, I have increasingly felt the need for the provision of proper recreational leadership in the projects. This is a responsibility of the federal government as well as the other levels of the government. Such leadership must not be imposed from outside. Rather, it must result from the co-operation of housing management and tenants' associations. Only in this way can the kinds of recreational programs needed in each project be determined and carried on successfully.
This sort of co-operation and programming would go far toward removing the stigma that is now attached to living in public housing. It is a stigma that arises from poverty, not merely poverty of material goods, but the starvation of the spirit that results from being unable to share in the creative experiences of play, handicraft, purposeful programs, growing experience and breadth of interest. Citizens not able to share in these experiences are cut off from others, no matter how fine the public housing may be, whether it was built by CMHC, co-operatives or anything in between. Co-operatives however, do not do that sort of thing. They consider the tenants because it is they, the tenants, who make the decisions.
More public housing, including a much greater social and income mix and more help for tenants in creating modern recreation of various types, is my reason for supporting this amendment which is designed to help our municipalities become more involved in helping people secure homes in communities of which they can be justly proud. It is in this light that I consider this amendment to he very relevant to the problem of providing good housing to low income people. Having seen the light, I hope the minister will do his very best to see that this amendment is accepted and put into effect in the later stages of this legislation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, from the committee proceedings and the speeches we have heard this afternoon, I realize that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has some appeal. I must admit that '.vhen it was moved in the first instance in committee, it had a good deal of appeal to me. At that time, I thought there would be no difficulty in accepting the amendment. However, after some thought and consultation, I feel there are good and valid reasons for the existing provisions of Bill C-133 and good and valid reasons for opposing this amendment which I know was moved with the greatest of sincere sentiment and for the same purpose I have, namely getting more housing built.
June 11, 1973

I wish to put this in context. This is an amendment to Section 15 of the act which provides for housing to be built by non-profit corporations. The provisions of the bill will change the National Housing Act to make the provisions of support for non-profit housing corporations much more generous than they are at present. Under Section 15 of the act, non-profit housing corporations may be given a grant of up to 10 per cent for the start-up costs of a housing project, plus a loan or mortgage for 100 per cent of the balance. These non-profit corporations, as they are defined in the section, refer specifically to those non-profit nongovernmental institutions which are formed for charitable purposes such as church, Kiwanis or service club groups and Metis associations such as those in Winnipeg or Edmonton, all of which are in the business of providing housing through the agency of a non-profit corporation. By reason of this amendment, co-operative housing groups which are formed to provide co-operative housing under this section are also included. Under this section, they would get a grant of up to 10 per cent and up to 100 per cent mortgages for their housing projects.
I hope this section will be used far more than it has in the past. Also, under Bill C-133, 95 per cent mortgages will be allowed to non-profit housing corporations owned by provinces or municipalities. The purpose of this amendment is to change the mortgage or loan amount available to municipally owned non-profit corporations from 95 per cent to 100 per cent.
There are good reasons for not supporting the amendment. First, I really do not think the present provision is unreasonable. There are very valid reasons for saying to municipally or provincially-owned corporations that if they are in earnest, they should be willing to put up 5 per cent of the value of the building or the project. I do not think that is a hardship on them. For example, they can do that by the provision of the land. It is a valid provision where there are other government owned housing corporations to require them to at least have some financial stake in the housing development. It is not unreasonable to put it at 5 per cent. I think it is a valuable measure.
It is essential that the percentage of loan support from the federal government to provincially and municipally non-profit housing corporations be the same. There should not be a difference between municipally and provincially owned corporations. It would truly be a mistake to put that kind of bias into the National Housing Act.
We are trying to do two things, support the work of charitable and co-operative corporations to the fullest extent and to make those provisions effective. Also, we wish to support provincially and municipally owned corporations in exactly the same way. There should not be a difference in our support.
We are trying to make the National Housing Act responsive to the housing needs across the country. Those needs differ. Provinces deal with the provision of housing in different ways. Manitoba uses a provincially owned corporation. Saskatchewan is in the course of setting up a housing corporation and also uses municipal corporations. At the present time, Ontario uses a provincially owned corporation but I have suggested our willingness to support them and Metro Toronto in a Metro Toronto owned
National Housing Act
housing corporation. Quebec uses a provincial corporation. It varies across the country.
It would be unwise to have a national policy that favours up to 100 per cent for municipally owned corporations but only 95 per cent for provincial owned corporations. That is a decision that must be made on the basis of consultation with the provinces and, through them, with their municipalities as to whether the needs in a particular area of the country can best be filled by a municipal corporation or a provincial one. There should not be a 5 per cent differential between one and the other. The provision and the support should be the same in either case. I argue very strenuously that we would be doing a disservice to some areas of the country if we said that the municipally owned corporations would get a greater degree of federal support than those provincially owned.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who spoke on public housing. In answer, I would say that this is not the public housing section of the National Housing Act, nor the public housing section of Bill C-133. I agree with everything she said as to the nature of public housing and the degree of support it should receive. I certainly have been trying to give public housing support of that kind.
The difficulty about the amendment is that the provinces could use it to circumvent the public housing provisions. They could do so by using this amendment to set up municipal corporations and get out of making provincial contributions to public housing development. I know this is not the intention of the amendment, but it is a possible effect. Provincial housing authorities could, if they wished, use the amendment to set up municipal corporations to borrow money from the federal government to the extent of 100 per cent, and take no further part in the public housing program provided for in sections 40 and 42 of the Act. With respect, this would be a most undesirable step. Therefore, though the amendment has obvious surface appeal, and though it has been moved with sincerity, it is not one I can recommend to the House.


Mr.   Eldon. M. Woolliams@Calgary North: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the mover of the motion and a number of members belonging to the New Democratic Party. I really do not feel the effect of the amendment would be as serious as the minister believes. What is meant, here, is an institution constituted for charitable purposes to help the average man or woman to whom the loans would be made. Then there is a desire to assist co-operative associations made up of men and women, people interested in constructing, improving or acquiring a housing project with the intention of providing houses for occupants, the majority of whom are members of the association. This is really a form of public housing.
What is the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) trying to do? He is asking authority for loans to be made to a housing corporation provided its shares are owned by a municipality. He does not want a corporation which is not serving the public interest to get the money. I agree that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. A province passes a city act or a rural municipality act and sets up cities or rural municipalities. This is

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
provided for in the constitution. Well, I suppose if you carry this question through as far as the minister would like to carry it, the British North America Act is our constitution; it is an act of the imperial parliament, so it could be said we are creatures of the imperial parliament. What I am saying is this; I cannot see anything really wrong with this amendment. If there should be conflict as to whether the amount should be 90 per cent or 100 per cent, that is an easy matter to change.
I do not want to get into an argument with the government on the broad field of housing policy, especially not today when the minister has been gracious enough to accept four of my amendments, but I should like to say this to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been using the constitution to stall all projects. When we press him to provide housing for the average man he holds up his hands and says there is a constitutional problem. I do not believe there is one. Take the province of Ontario. If Ontario was jealous of its rights in circumstances where the federal government was lending money to a corporation owned by a municipality, then the municipalities of Ontario are not obliged to form such a corporation. If Alberta feels the same way, there is no need for Calgary to form such a corporation. On the other hand, if there are rural municipalities which are prepared to form such a corporation-maybe there is no demand for a co-operative association, or it is difficult to find people who are sufficiently dedicated to charitable purposes-why should they not set up a corporation and get money which is basically intended for public housing?
The reason I am driven to the position I am taking this afternoon is this: we shall require a great deal more public housing. This is not one of the things I really want, but when interest rates are 10 per cent on CMHC mortgages, something has to be done. Take figures like these: in Halifax, houses which sold five years ago for $27,000 are now fetching $45,000. In Vancouver, a home which was selling five years ago for $25,000 is now selling for $49,000. In North York, a house bought in 1971 for $55,000 sells today for $75,900. And when we remember that only 4 per cent of the people on wages today can afford a new home under CMHC it is time something happened. We have been driven into a desperate position as a result, in my opinion, of the government's economic policies, policies which affect housing most.
So I am asking the minister to reconsider his position. I do not want for one moment to put the government on the griddle in a minority parliament. We are voting with the NDP and the Creditistes, but there is nothing wrong with voting with them any time the government is wrong. If the government is really nervous about the position in that regard, it can have the amendment passed on division. I do not think the fact that a municipality sets up a corporation and deals directly with the CMHC will make the provinces mad. I think the provinces are mad because the people are mad. The minister has tried. Every time I read the bill I see a little more in it. But what happened today? Interest rates went up. The bank rate set by Ottawa was raised to 6.25 per cent. This means an increase in the chartered bank rate to 7!4 per cent, one per cent higher. It means that mortgage rates are between 9 and 10 per cent. And there is no stopping this trend. It may be 11

or 12 per cent before we are through. Yet, goodness only knows, people must have housing.
Time magazine printed a great article in its June 11 edition. Everybody should read it for two reasons, first, because of the article dealing with housing, and second, because of an article about a superhorse called Secretariat. Everybody should read the article on the housing market and how it has gone wild. Read about housing in Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax. There is a national crisis in housing and I say it is the fault of the government. They should stop hiding behind the excuse of the constitution. I say that when there is a national crisis, in time of war, the government can take over everything. They can freeze wages, prices and dividends. Surely, there is a crisis when people cannot afford homes, cannot afford to pay the rent, even when the man and wife are both working. The man uses his salary to keep the family together and to pay the bills; the wife uses her wages to try to save for a downpayment on a house. Even with two working today, no longer can they save enough to get a downpayment.
On those grounds, I am forced to support the amendment, and I do not see why the minister is so upset about it. I do not think it will destroy the constitution or create any problems for the provinces. If the government serves the people of Canada I am sure that the provinces would be happy, and I am darned sure the people of Canada would be happy.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the minister and I respect the sincerity with which they were put forward. But, like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I did not find them particularly convincing. In terms of the housing needs of this country, I think we in Canada must muster all possible efforts from whatever source to fill those needs
I think that the municipalities are strategically in as good, if not better, position than any other agency or level of government to assess housing needs in their particular areas, and to move to correct those needs, if they have the financial resources at their disposal. I support the amendment because, unlike the minister, I think that to require, through some notion of constitutional nicety or the establishment of the bona fides of a municipality, that 5 per cent of the financing should come from the municipality is really putting an unnecessary obstacle in the way of meeting our housing needs. For many municipalities, this 5 per cent would make the difference, particularly when, as we well know, they are today confronted by a real squeeze on revenue and by increasing pressures on expenditure. I can well imagine a municipal council deciding not to proceed if the cost of doing so were in the order of $50,000, $100,000 or $150,000, as might be the case.
Municipalities have a very real financial stake in development, aside altogether from the 5 per cent question. They have to provide servicing and educational facilities for the people who live in housing communities. They thus have a continuing financial responsibility, against which the 5 per cent over the long run amounts to not much but which in the short run could prove an effective deterrent, since their principal source of revenue at the moment is a
June 11, 1973

property tax already overstrained by the pressure on expenditures. I think that the municipalities, with their intimate knowledge of the population needs in their area and their ability to effect zoning, are in a position to move more quickly than any other agency or level of government in the field of housing development, non-profit public housing, and would do so if only this parliament would provide them with the incentive and encouragement that I believe they need.
I think it goes without saying that, on the whole, the record of municipalities in this field is not particularly great. This is why we should provide every incentive possible and eliminate any possible excuse for inaction at the municipal level. A municipality would be able to respond quickly if a particular plot of land suddenly became available which might be suitable for senior citizens housing, or public housing, or limited dividend housing for either families or single people. Certainly, they would be able to respond more quickly than any other level of government, and to do so in a manner that would most closely meet the needs of people in the area.
Therefore, I hope that this House will support the amendment, which will provide municipalities with mortgage loans of up to 100 per cent of the lending value of rental housing projects undertaken by them. As for the constitutional difficulties-there are more than niceties here-they may be created if a province believes it is being discriminated against vis-a-vis the municipalities, but I really do not consider that these are substantive objections to this amendment. In view of the need to encourage municipalities to move in this area, the 5 per cent that we are quibbling about is a small price to pay.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that this amendment would be going through without too much debate, that we were not going to spend too much time on it. I feel it certainly has a great deal of merit. I am also aware that certain things may be constitutionally wrong with it. A great many of the small municipalities are not able to get enough housing constructed, and I can only add my voice to those that advocate we use every available angle and do everything possible to provide every means to enable the municipalities to meet their housing needs.
I am of the opinion that this amendment would be of great assistance to many small municipalities. As mentioned before by other speakers, the 5 per cent, which would be little or nothing to some of the more affluent municipalities, means a great deal to some small towns and villages. As I have mentioned to the House on two or three previous occasions, I had the privilege of being head of a small municipality for 26 years. When we were looking for additional funds for this and that, we always thought of the taxpayer as the person to look to, and if it meant an extra one or two mills we would not do anything about it. In this case the municipal governments would be able to take the bull by the horns and do something on their own. Certainly, they are creatures of the provinces and dance to their tune like little puppets. If they were able to bypass the province, although I respect and understand the position taken by the minister, a great many municipalities would jump for joy and bless the minister for enabling them to take direct action.
National Housing Act
Therefore, I hope the minister will say: "All right, it is worth it; whether it is constitutionally right or not, let us give it a chance". If it provides housing for even 10 municipalities in rural Canada, I think the amendment is worth supporting.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker indicated the method of disposition of the remaining motions at the report stage. He indicated that motions numbered 3 to 6 inclusive and motions 9 to 12 inclusive bear upon the question of the rate of interest of moneys lent under the provisions of the act and suggested that those motions be grouped in two for debating purposes. Therefore, the Chair now proposes that motions numbered 3, 5, 9 and 11, all of which contain a similar provision, be voted upon and debated as one question. Perhaps I should indicate that we are proceeding with the debate on motion No. 3 under Notices of Motions pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) at page iii of the order paper. The hon. member for Calgary North moves the following motions Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11;
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 38 to 45 on page 10 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Governor in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one-half of one per cent the rate of interest return that would be yielded in the market by Government of Canada bonds that, at the time the rate of interest is prescribed under this paragraph, would mature in twenty years, such return to be determined by the Governor in Council on the basis of the yields of the most comparable issues of Government of Canada bonds outstanding in the market; and"
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 5 to 12, on page 13 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Governor in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one-half of one per cent the rate of interest return that would be yielded in the market by Government of Canada bonds that, at the time the rate of interest is prescribed under this paragraph, would mature in twenty years, such return to be determined by the Governor in Council on the basis of the yields of the most comparable issues of Government of Canada bonds outstanding in the market;".
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 33 to 40 on page 22 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one-half of one per cent the rate of interest return that would be yielded
4632

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
in the market by Government of Canada bonds that, at the time the rate of interest is prescribed under this paragraph, would mature in twenty years, such return to be determined by the Governor in Council on the basis of the yields of the most comparable issues of Government of Canada bonds outstanding in the market, the pay-
That Bill C-133, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by striking out lines 33 to 40 on page 26 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"such rate of interest, if any, as may be prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one half of one per cent the rate of interest return that would be yielded in the market by Government of Canada bonds that, at the time the rate of interest is prescribed under this paragraph, would mature in twenty years, such return to be determined by the Governor in Council on the basis of the yields of the most comparable issues of Government of Canada bonds outstanding in the market,".
It is agreed that when the debate is concluded on motion No. 3 which I have just read, a vote will take place which will also dispose of those other motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I have the privilege of rising and knowing that the amendment to which I am referring, actually there are four, Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, have been agreed to by the government. I want to say at the outset that the purpose of these amendments is simply this. When the 6 per cent ceiling was removed from the Bank Act all ceilings fell by the wayside, including those under the National Housing Act. As a result, there has been no ceiling whatsoever in respect of insured or uninsured loans.
There are two kinds of loans made by CMHC. First, there is the uninsured type, and I will deal with that, which is made directly by CMHC for basically four purposes. Then, there are loans made by lending institutions such as chartered banks, mortgage companies or finance companies and these are insured or guaranteed by CMHC. I realize today that it would be impossible to set a ceiling on the rates of interest those lending institutions charge in light of the fact there is no amendment to the Bank Act and the Bank Act is not before the House at the present time. Therefore, no ceiling could be set on the interest rates they charge on the money lent through mortgages of various types for housing.
On the other hand, I was of a certain opinion when this bill was before the committee, and I stated so on second reading. I said that where loans were made directly by CMHC from money advanced by the Treasury Board of Canada, there should be a ceiling on the interest rates to be charged various municipalities, provinces and others benefiting from those loans. At that time I moved a motion covering the same section, and I want to put this on record. Basically this amendment is the same as the one we are dealing with now; that loans made under the authority of this section should bear interest at such rate as may be prescribed by regulation of the governor in council, but shall not exceed one half of one per cent above the rate the governor in council would approve under Section 37 of the Financial Administration Act.
Basically, my amendment at the committee stage was that whatever money the government borrowed for any purpose, when the money was advanced to the CMHC, the CMHC would not charge more than one half of one per

cent over and above what the government would pay. This motion No. 4 now before the House will replace that amendment. The only difference is in wording and I will deal with that. In my original wording I said: "according to Section 37 of the Financial Administration Act". That would cover any money that the government borrowed. Having talked to certain experts in the department and discussed this with the minister, I found that more than 95 per cent of money is really obtained by long-term bond financing. So, in light of that and to make the formula more simple, I substituted this amendment and it was approved unanimously by the committee. The amendment reads:
-Governor in Council, which rate shall not exceed by more than one-half of one per cent the rate of interest return that would be yielded in the market by Government of Canada bonds that, at the time the rate of interest is prescribed under this paragraph, would mature in twenty years, such return to be determined by the Governor in Council on the basis of the yields of the most comparable issues of Government of Canada bonds outstanding in the market; and
In other words, CMHC will only charge interest at one half of one per cent over the interest payable on those bonds. If the interest is 6 per cent on long-term bonds, then the maximum the CMHC could charge is one half of one per cent, so it would be 6'/2 per cent. It might be 6 Vi per cent or 6 Vo per cent. For the first time since 1967, these amendments will put a ceiling on interest rates, and goodness only knows, today's news and the news of the last three weeks would indicate the need for a ceiling.
On May 10, speaking on the cost of housing I said, as reported in Hansard at page 3642:
"Bring in your housing bill." I told him we have two or three amendments to it. I said that the bill is only a band-aid bill, but let us at least get the band-aid on the move. I gave him the undertaking that our party wants to see the Liberals on the move. We want to get the bill to the committee, where we will move our amendments, hope to get some support from government members, move the bill back into the House and get some action. It will not solve much, but it is better than nothing. The Prime Minister tries to say that there have been delays. I cannot say he deliberately misrepresents the facts, but I can say he wanders from the truth.
That was our undertaking, but when the government announced its priorities, Bill C-133 and Bill C-135 were left out. On May 18, as recorded at page 3912 of Hansard I said:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As we spent 10 hours in the standing committee piloting the bill on housing through, and as the leader of the House yesterday, in announcing the business of the House, left this piece of legislation off the list of priorities-it has no priority at all-would the minister now talk to his colleagues, namely, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and others to get this legislation before the House and get some action?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the list of legislation that the leader of the House announced yesterday was not an exclusive list of legislation to be dealt with.
In any event, it was left off the list of priorities so we forced it on, and it is now before the House so we will give it speedy passage.
Let me just deal with this ceiling on interest rates. There are four amendments and I do not intend to make a speech in respect of each one, I will deal with them all at
June 11, 1973

once. Motion No. 3 deals with neighbourhood improvement loans. These are loans for the purpose of improving housing in a neighbourhood. This clause appears in the bill at page 10. It reads:
Where the Corporation makes a contribution pursuant to section 27.4 it may make a loan to or for the benefit of the municipality in an amount not exceeding seventy-five per cent of the amount obtained by deducting the amount of the contribution . . .
These are direct loans to municipalities which may help a municipality clear out ghettos. When there is rehabilitation of housing, areas are cleared out which would spoil the rehabilitation or new housing. Our group had the privilege of visiting the city of Montreal. The mayor and his staff took us to various sections of Montreal where a splendid job is being done of rehabilitating houses and living quarters which had been reduced to almost semighettos. With the assistance of the city of Montreal and the province, an excellent job is being done. This bill will provide the means to do the same job. When money is being advanced like that there should be a ceiling on the interest rate. That ceiling should not be more than one half of one per cent over and above the cost of the money to the government in the form of long-term bonds. I appreciate the fact that the minister and his staff assisted us in this regard. They came up with a different wording, but it amounts to the same thing.
Motion No. 5 is in respect of rehabilitation and conversion of existing residential buildings. Agreements are made with the province for rehabilitation of existing buildings. I have explained what is happening in Montreal. The same thing will happen across the country in many other cities. In other words, the day of the bulldozer, we hope, is gone. We hope that there will be an end to the knocking down of buildings and that buildings will be rehabilitated with the government, through CMHC, putting up so much money, the owner putting up so much money and part of the loan being forgiven.
The amount provided by the bill is small. It deals basically with $4,000, $2,000 supplied by each of the parties. Surely that could be enlarged by Order in Council or by parliament. Once again the interest rate should not be exorbitant. The interest rate of one half of one per cent over what the government is paying on the money seems to be a fair and equitable basis for setting the interest rate on loans of that type. I may say that at least this is a start in the right direction, having a ceiling placed on loans of this type.
Motion No. 9 relates to loans to facilitate home ownership, loans made by the corporation direct to the province, municipality or agency for the purpose of assisting that province, municipality or agency in acquiring serviced land. I wish to spend a little time on this. This is good. According to all the articles one reads in the newspapers, and according to all the experts, the big problem that has caused the increase in the cost of buildings today is the cost of serviced land. We have the bureaucracy at the federal level, at the provincial level and then at the municipal level, and the developer who owns land or others who have land available for development surrounding or adjacent to the cities, when making application for the development of the land have to go through the
National Housing Act
bureaucracy at the first level, at the second level and at the third level. Sometimes this takes years. Serviced land is the whole problem. In the last two or three years, land has increased in value more than 100 per cent. Let me give you the following examples.
Nationally, the cost of housing has risen 90 per cent over the last decade. In Ottawa, it has gone up 96 per cent and in Toronto 120 per cent. The average house that sold for $16,000 in 1963 sold for $32,500 in 1972. Even in Montreal, where there has been a slump following Expo and where they had the October crisis, realty prices have still increased by 20 per cent. This article to which I am referring goes on to describe that lots which cost $5,000 in some centres now cost $15,000. In some areas like Toronto, the prices of lots in the last few years has increased from $5,000 to $25,000. This is for serviced lots. Surely, this part of the bill should do very much to facilitate the working out of this problem by the provinces with municipalities in order to get serviced land into operation immediately so that housing units can be started as well as apartment blocks, public housing, co-operative housing and other types. In order to do this, cheap money is needed. The cheapest money we can get surely is at one half of one per cent of what the government pays for it.
In some of these programs I would have liked to have seen no charge at all. I know this is what the members of the New Democratic Party wish. They know my position. I took the same position they did. However, the art of politics is the art of the impossible made possible. I knew that my friend the minister and his government would not have bought that package. So, as I have said, the art of politics is making the impossible possible. What is one half of one per cent if you can at least get a ceiling in the bill. I would have liked to have had no charge over and above what the money costs the government, but I have made a deal with the minister-I am not ashamed of it-with the approval of my party which at least gets a ceiling set for the first time on interest rates in respect of loans of this kind. An amendment restricting the interest rate to the cost of money to the government would not have gone through the committee, and I doubt that it would have got through this House.
So, I say it is better to take the formula I have accepted and have a ceiling written into the bill than to quibble about one half of one per cent and not have any ceiling at all, particularly when dealing with mortgage interest rates which are now between 11 per cent and 12 per cent.
The next amendment deals with new communities. This might be a good time to break off because it is five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

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:
26446-3J

June 11, 1973
Recreation Parks
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions-request for removal of ceiling on escalation of pensions of retired public servants, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and armed forces personnel; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Social security-suggested increase in family allowances and government contribution under Canada Assistance Plan because of welfare situation; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Energy-capability of Energy Board to judge application to transport natural gas in other than vapour form.
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, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South) moved:: That this House affirming that parks created are for people and for recreation facilities of people, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of (a) negotiating through its committees with provincial and municipal authorities to create large recreation park blocks in and around our burgeoning urban centres (b) setting up an organization or department to acquire park blocks near urban areas as a new national parks policy.
He said; Mr. Speaker, it has become trite to say that by the year 2000 some 90 per cent of our citizens will live in cities with a population of some 100,000. We may not appreciate that, but I suggest to the House and to you, Sir, that there is clearly no way to stop this tide. The government must take off its blinkers and recognize that we will have a problem and we must plan for that eventuality.
I moved to my municipality in 1948. At that time it was a rural municipality with a population of about 6,000 to 8,000 people. The census in my municipality indicated in 1971 a population of 178,000 people there. At the time of the election there were well over 200,000 people, and by the time the next census takes place my municipality will number well over 350,000 people. That is an indication of the burgeoning urban growth which is taking place around our major centres. The people in our society do not want to create ghettos in cities. They do not want our cities to become like New York or New Jersey. We do not want to live in a Chicago, a Tokyo or a Liverpool. We want cities that are open, cities where there is a place to breathe and a place to play.
I was fortunate to be brought up in the west end of Toronto. Many years ago the Howard family donated a large park in Toronto called High Park, and when I was a boy parts of that park were undeveloped and open; one could do things there. Things have changed since then.

The park is now surrounded by high rises. What we had and what does not exist any more is large park belts or large park blocks around our cities. It would be nice if our cities had benefactors such as Howard who could come forward and donate these large park areas. However, that does not seem to be the case in the rush and push of our society today. We cannot depend on the good nature of people. Perhaps such park areas could be created through taxation and other charges on our urban society, but what we must do is to make it possible for people in our large cities to have a place in which to breathe.
Our present national parks policy has as its aim the preservation of what is grand and spectacular in Canada. I suggest to you that what we really need for our urban society is a policy of serving rather than preserving. I spoke about this during the last election campaign. In many cases people are quite pleased with our national parks policy in terms of preserving the beauty and the grandeur, but really it is not much of a policy when you take Crown land from one jurisdiction and put it in another. This does not do anything. The park on Baffin Island is pretty interesting. It is a great place for the wealthy who have an aeroplane to enable them to go out and look at the walruses, but it does not do anything for the people. It is a reservation, not a park. Even the Banff National Park, which is visited by more Canadians than almost any other park in Canada is a once in a lifetime experience. Most Canadians will never see it, and some will only see it once. What we need is facilities close to where people live so that Canadians can enjoy the open air.
Sometime ago, in 1954, there was a tragic hurricane in the greater Toronto area called Hurricane Hazel which caused death and destruction in southern Ontario. But it is a foul wind that does not have some good in it, and as a result of that hurricane there developed the Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority, conservation parks on the Humber and Don rivers, and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. These conservation authorities have done a wonderful job, but they have been limited by the amount of money available.
The escalating growth in urban centres is such that it has exceeded the financial capacity of both the province of Ontario and the Ontario municipalities. I am sure I speak of other large urban areas in Canada as well. The Heart Lake conservation area in the county of Peel has a lake which is very nice, but try to get to it after ten o'clock in the morning on a weekend in the summer. You will find it closed because too many people are trying to enter. That is the case with almost every recreation area in every park and every bit of ground around the greater Toronto area. I am sure that the developers are required to supply 5 per cent to 10 per cent of their land for park purposes, but that is not enough. We need vast blocks of recreation land around where we live. That land does not have to have dramatic or spectacular scenery. We need space for our children to play on. I was very pleased during the past week to note that the province of Ontario had produced a plan for a green belt around Toronto. When I looked at the financial requirements for obtaining that land I noted that, even though that land was shown as a green belt in the plan, there is certainly no likelihood the province will
June 11, 1973

have sufficient funds on hand to acquire the property fast enough.
I want to commend the government for its plan for a waterfront park in Toronto, but I cannot commend the method by which they announced that scheme during the election. Certainly, there was a lack of consultation, and that is why the motion before the House today refers to consultation with municipalities and provinces. I am not particularly impressed with the suggestion that certain corporations will wind up getting well paid for the facilities and improvements on land that has been worn out long since. I sometimes wonder whether this is not just a form of a campaign contribution or a repayment to these corporations. However, the concept is right. The federal government has already entered into the plan of providing park areas near cities. What we really need is large blocks of land, 1,000 to 15,000 acres, available for kids to ride their trail bikes, or for snowmobiles in the winter time. The town of Mississauga set aside 150 acres for a snowmobile park during the past two years. Isn't that interesting! But that cannot compare with the trails that are around Northern Ontario or Quebec. It does not do much for a person crowded in an apartment house or a subdivision when he tries to use one of these toys, playthings, or recreation units, and there is nowhere to use it.
What we have is a situation where on Friday night the aircraft patrol reports enormous traffic jams, and the Sunday night news reports the carnage on the highway. Instead of using our money to build more four-lane highways to carry people hundreds of miles to cottages and recreational facilities, we might be better off using some of the social capital we have to build a place to get away from it all right in our cities or around our cities. There is nothing wrong with creeks in which to fish near our cities, nothing wrong with camping facilities near our cities, nothing wrong with trees and fields. They do not have to be the most spectacular places in the world. River areas, flat lands, and even land near airports, which the noise factor makes impossible to use for housing, can be used for outdoor activities.
Surely, it is the responsibility of a government that makes land useless for housing or industry to set aside that land for some kind of recreation, and thereby solve some of the problems associated with urban living. The federal government has been accused of not paying any attention to the needs of people in cities. My hon. friend from Burlington always says that the questions asked in this House are about Indians, wheat, oil and fish. It is about time the federal government demonstrated that it cares about the people who live in cities. One of the most viable ways to demonstrate its concern would be to set aside recreational lands around towns and cities, as a visible method of saying to people in urban areas that despite the congestion and growth, here it is possible to live; it is possible to breathe; it is possible to make a city a place that is a worthwhile place to live.
In co-operation with the municipalities, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs should pay attention to all of the quality of life problems in the city. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, through CMHC, talks only about housing. There is a great deal more to the problem of urban
Recreation Parks
living than just housing. The problem of recreation land is but one of the problems, but that problem is encompassed in the word "servicing." It is the responsibility of the government not only to make money available for sewers, and certainly the big pipe is important, but also to attack the total concept of urban life, to make urban life better than it is, to make our cities worthwhile places in which to live. One of the ways to do that is to launch an attack on the shortage of recreation land around cities. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse):
That this House affirming that parks created are for people and recreation facilities of people, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of (a) negotiating through its committees with provincial and municipal authorities to create large recreation park blocks in and around our burgeoning urban centres (b) setting up an organization or department to acquire park blocks near urban areas as a new national parks policy.


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the words of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). While agreeing with the purport of his motion, I think, however, it is relevant at this point to reflect on what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), who is responsible for Canada's national parks, has done since he first took office less than five years ago.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, he and this administration have established 11 new national parks since 1968, this number being as many as were created in the previous 50 years. It is an enviable record, showing the government's real concern for the continuing need to set aside unspoiled space for public enjoyment. Now, for the first time, every province and both territories of Canada are represented in a chain of 29 unique national parks.
Canada's national parks are indeed special places, and form a spectacular system now stretching from Point Pelee in the south to Baffin Island in the north, and from Terra Nova in the east to Pacific Rim in the west. Canada's national parks now preserve well in excess of 50,000 square miles, which is obviously a tremendous increase from the 10 square miles of Banff national park when it was first established in 1885. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should also state that our work is by no means done. There is still very much more to do, but we have indeed come a long way.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing four national parks, for there are more national parks in my riding than in any other federal constituency in Canada. And I just happen to believe that Okanagan-Kootenays' national parks, namely, Kootenay, Yoho, Glacier and Mount Revelstoke, containing some of the most breathtaking scenery in Canada and North America, are the most beautiful, although admittedly I have met some members of this House who are prepared to quibble over this fact.
I think it is worthwhile to recite the continuing policy of the government which is predicated upon section 4 of the National Parks Act which states:
The parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment. . . and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

June 11, 1973
Recreation Parks
I believe that the National and Historic Parks Branch has thus determined that it has a dual mandate. It must respect the needs of Canadians to enjoy the environment of the national parks, while at the same time it must protect and preserve them for the enjoyment of future generations.
Following on this, and to reiterate what the department has already publicly recorded, it takes the view that national parks are part of Canada's national heritage, and that the intensity and type of use must be regulated according to the wide variations in the sensitivities of different areas within parks. To cite an example, an alpine meadow can sustain very little traffic, but it may be possible to provide opportunities for many to enjoy viewing it. That is, recreation comes in varying interpretations, and we must continue to recognize this and to provide for it, for indeed there is today an ever increasing demand by Canadians and others for recreation. That is why another department of the government is working to strengthen Canada's tourist industry. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has proposed an increase of $5 million for the fiscal year 1973-74 over last year's expenditures on tourist promotion. Yes, tourism has become the largest and fastest growing industry in the world. In recognition of this it was on January 1, 1968, that the federal government created the office of tourism as a new wing of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In co-operation with provincial, municipal and private interests this government is committed to making sure that tourism gives Canadians all the social and economic benefits it possibly can. Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to learn that spending by tourists is our second most important source of foreign currency. With domestic travelling, tourism adds up to a $3 Vi billion business annually and provides full or part time employment for an estimated three-quarters of a million Canadians. It is estimated that out of every 100 tourist dollars, 18 go for lodging, 14 for food, 23 for gas and oil, 15 for fares and 30 for merchandise and entertainment.
Mr. Speaker, It is a fact that at present the government is working to maximize Canada's capacity to attract, receive and cater to the traveller. The government is promoting travel to Canada by overseas visitors and is working to increase travel by Canadians in Canada. I was quite astounded to note recently that a $10 billion Canadian tourism business is predicted for the year 1980. And I was somewhat pleased to recognize that we have taken many other initiatives to develop the tourist industry in Canada. For instance, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has allocated considerable money to develop tourist facilities in underdeveloped areas. Further, federal manpower authorities are developing new programs to deal with the lack of trained tourist management and staff in Canada's accommodation and food services industries. Moreover, the office of tourism plans to provide multilingual guides to major Canadian centres. It has also been working with Canadian airlines to devise ways to make travel within Canada at least as attractive as travel abroad.
Presently, the North American convention business is a $6 billion annual industry that knows no season. It is possible, I should think, for Canada to get more than its
[Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay).)
present $300 million share. To help do this, the office of tourism has joined private industry in increased convention promotion, has established a permanent convention representative in the United States, and has published Canada's first convention centre guide book.
It is expected that better transportation will open up the now remote parts of Canada by land, sea, and air, helping to encourage our visitors to come more often, go more places, and spend more time. The government is already working on more highways for tourists who use their cars as vacation vehicles, more airport facilities for those who come by air, as well as improvements to other travel means such as our east coast ferry system. I am confident that federal authorities will continue to make sure that the expansion of transportation facilities stays in step with tourist traffic.
Studies will be conducted, including special research on environmental considerations. For we do want tourism developed, but we do not want our environment destroyed in the process. We want to know what our natural resources and our facilities can safely and comfortably sustain in the way of tourist traffic.
We need stm closer co-ordination between the federal government and the provincial, municipal and private sectors and among the various federal departments involved in this major industry. That is why the annual federal-provincial conference on tourism will continue as a focal point, where the ministers involved can meet to exchange ideas and co-ordinate their activities. Presently, the office of tourism and the provinces are working together to develop a long range strategy-a master plan for tourism in Canada-to ensure sensible and balanced development in tune with the country's resources and industry's needs. A tourist advisory council, drawn from experts in the Canadian tourist business, will be set up to keep federal and provincial ministers up to date on the views of the industry.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who is responsible for Canada's national parks, for recently announcing that special Parks Canada scholarships will be available to graduate university students interested in Canada's historical and national heritage. I believe that up to 15 scholarships will be annually awarded for study in the fields of natural parks and outdoor recreation, and historical archeology and restoration architecture. I consider it laudable to hear the minister say "as Canada's national and historic parks systems expand to meet the ever increasing demands put upon them, a growing need has developed for men and women with both an interest and an expertise in this country's historical and natural heritage". Unquestionably, then, this scholarship program will assist greatly in encouraging students toward careers in the management, interpretation and development of Canada's national and historic parks.
I see that my time has almost expired but I do want to commend to all members of this House the motion before us. Hopefully it will meet with the approval of those present.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I think there is much in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) to command our support. It succeeds in articulating a very real request, as it were, on behalf of Canadians that the federal govern-

ment should be more visibly engaged in providing parks and recreational facilities in and around urban areas. Here I make a distinction between that kind of recreational or green space and the national parks system to which the hon. member who just spoke has referred.
The principal burden of this resolution, as I read it, is that there is a particular need for parks around the growing cities and that unless the federal government takes a more active role we may well reach a state where there is no space left for such parks. Indeed, in the area which both the member for Peel South and I represent, this is very largely the case today.
I think there is a very real need for consultation at the highest level between the federal government and the administrations in both the provinces and the municipalities in order to work out a program or schedule for providing parks. All of us would want to avoid the appearance of unilateral action, if not the fact of unilateral action, which we noticed when the federal government suddenly, and perhaps coincidentally in the middle of an election campaign, announced that some $80 million would be spent on providing Toronto with more waterfront park facilities. I do not think there is any room in the resolution, and I know that the hon. member for Peel South did not so intend, for the federal government to get into any kind of competition with the provinces or municipalities in the provision of park space. Rather, between those three levels of government there should be worked out a coherent and consistent policy which will ensure that as cities grow and sprawl outward, land will be preserved for the use of the residents now and in the years to come.
In that connection, it is perhaps worth noting that the word "park" connotes more than one use. There are parks which are equipped with recreation facilities, with play structures of one kind or another, pools, parking lots, service facilities, food outlets and so on. They are, for practical purposes, areas of recreation rather than green space. There are other areas aesthetically more important, where the wilderness is allowed to stand much as it has been; here people have an opportunity to come into contact with nature which has not in any large measure been redesigned or reorganized by man. [DOT]
As the hon. member for Peel South mentioned, around the metro Toronto area there is a growing network of conservation areas developed by the Metropolitan Toronto Regional Conservation Authority. In this area of park usage in the form of wilderness or for conservation there is special room for federal participation and initiative. There is a tendency to make parks too structured. There is a tendency on the part of some municipal parks and recreation departments to dump a lot of equipment into green space, to organize it and set up rules and regulations. After a while it ends up as play space and a recreational area but has not much in the way of trees or grass. Trees, grass and wilderness are just as important to the physical as well as to the spiritual needs of urban populations as recreational facilities in play areas.
There is now a tendency to assume that a park is where recreational facilities should go. Thus valuable, irreplaceable green grass areas are gobbled up by arenas, rinks and
Recreation Parks
community centres which might well be situated in other more built-up parts of the city because they bring with them the need for parking lots and more and more traffic. Before long, what was a relatively unspoiled park area becomes a scene of vehicular as well as human activity.
I hope this resolution will envisage some room for federal initiative to make it possible for provincial authorities as well as national parks' departments to exercise greater control over the use of land in provincial parks. In recent years there have been controversies surrounding land use in both Algonquin provincial park in Ontario and Quetico park. I do not wish to dwell on those controversies. I felt at the time, and still feel, that if the provincial government had more in the way of financial alternatives at its disposal it might be able more quickly and effectively to phase out land usage in park areas which are really not compatible with preservation of the wilderness, protection of wildlife and maintenance of the ecological balance.
I refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Peel South, namely, that there is room under this resolution for the federal government to provide some assistance to the municipalities so they can make recreational use of land which has in fact been rendered useless for all other purposes by decisions of the provincial or federal government. The land in the vicinity of Toronto international airport is a case in point. At a committee hearing some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) whether his department or the government would consider providing assistance to the borough of Etobicoke and/or the municipality of Mississauga to equip that land, which is now not suitable for any other kind of development, for recreational purposes and to provide financial assistance to the municipalities. The municipalities are hard enough pressed for funds without expecting them to undertake this kind of initiative entirely on their own.
In conclusion, I support the fundamental principles underlying this resolution. I hope it will provide a basis upon which the federal government can go forward, not to insist upon provincial or municipal acceptance of a preconceived pattern of parks but to engage much more fully in a process of mutual planning and joint consultation with the provinces and municipalities. In this way parks could be provided for recreation, structured parks if you like, and wilderness or conservation areas created. Assistance should be given to the provinces to enable them to hold the line against the spoiling of wilderness areas already set aside, and to enable the municipalities to make use of lands rendered largely useless for other purposes by decisions of various levels of government.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion moved by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). I was rather disturbed by and I would like to address my remarks to the convenient manner in which the hon. member moved his motion favouring essentially an urban parks policy and conveniently dismissing the assembly of 86 acres on the Toronto waterfront. The only criticism of the hon. member seems to have something to do with lack of consultation. I must say this is a little bit thick. It so happens that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) chaired a meeting at Toronto city hall which was advertised in the Toronto newspapers and attended by

June 11, 1973
Recreation Parks
some 200 members of the public. I was at that meeting. I did not notice the hon. member for Peel South, who pretends to have such an interest in urban parks, in attendance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree?


Peter A. Stollery: After I have finished, Mr. Speaker, if that is convenient.


An hon. Member:: Be courteous; say yes.


Peter A. Stollery: Perhaps I might be allowed to continue. There was not only one public meeting; there were two public meetings advertised at Toronto city hall. I could refer the hon. member for Peel South to the one put out by the intergovernmental waterfront committee. He may or may not have read it but it has been available to the public for some two months. At the second public meeting, which was well advertised in the Toronto newspapers, I did not see the hon. member for Peel South. Subsequent to these meetings and as a consequence of them a committee called the intergovernmental parks committee received 34 briefs from the public. I believe most of the civic groups in Toronto approved the way in which the consultation procedure was handled by the federal, provincial, metro and city governments.
I wish to emphasize that point. This measure, like all measures relating to provincial as well as to other forms of government, has to be part of a tri-level and, in the case of Toronto, a four-level consultative procedure. This is not a project you just lay on the population of Toronto. There is an appropriate procedure, and this procedure has been very closely followed. I must say that in addition to the public meetings there have been productive meetings of a policy committee and of a working committee made up of the four levels of government concerned. Indeed, I had the honour to chair several of these meetings as the member for the constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) was not there either, I suppose.


Mr. Paproski:: He was represented by Perry Ryan.


Peter A. Stollery: I should like to add that not one of our meetings has been held in camera. I want to make this clear to the hon. member for Peel South who obviously shows an interest in urban parks. The federal government has, in fact, involved itself in a bold experiment in engaging in this kind of consultative procedure. In conclusion, I

personally extend an invitation to the hon. member for Peel South to the opening of this park on July 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the motion and respond to the invitation of the previous speaker, because it seems to me that if we are to look upon the Toronto harbour park as the bold experiment to which he referred, we are entitled to take it as a precedent for future government action which will guide this government and its successors when embarking upon projects involving the development of parks, conservation and recreational facilities within large urban areas. For too long the rationalization which spokesmen for the government have given for their lack of interest in this field has been that parks and the like have not been the responsibility of the federal government. But if the Toronto harbour park is the type of project which the hon. member says it is, I would interpret it as being a precedent, a standard by which we can expect the federal government to act in the development of parks in other urban areas.
I should like to give one example of a location where there is need for action of this kind. I refer to the borough of Scarborough itself. If the federal government is entitled to participate in the building of a park in the centre of Toronto, then I presume it would be equally entitled to participate in the financing of park development along the lakeshore and in the southern part of the borough of Scarborough. Here we find a natural feature known as Scarborough bluffs which was named at the time Elizabeth Simcoe, wife of the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, seeing this majestic natural creation was reminded of the bluffs of her native Scarborough in Yorkshire and so referred to them. Along the southern shore of the municipality of Scarborough rises this magnificent natural creation. The local historian, R. R. Bonis, has referred to the bluffs in these words:
Majestic bluffs of clay and sand, carved for long centuries by beating waves and driving snow, chiselled by winter frosts, spring rains and freshet streams, hot summer suns and autumn gales.
But beautiful as the bluffs are, and rising as they certainly do, reminding one of gothic buttresses so that the sight of them has inspired people over the years to call them the cathedral bluffs, they are in danger through serious erosion. A study made as far back as 1913 showed they had receded 81 feet in the previous 50 years. They are still receding at the rate of 1.62 feet per year, partly through the action of underground seepage, partly through surface draining and partly through attack by rising water levels which this year have reached dangerous proportions. This erosion presents a threat to many homes on top of the bluffs. It is also causing serious concern to many in the community who regard the area as a centre for recreational and conservation purposes, one which should not be allowed to deteriorate in this way.
The conservation authority of metro Toronto and region has undertaken a redevelopment plan to save the bluffs from further erosion and to make recreational facilities available to the large numbers of people living in the area. A beach is being created at the foot of the bluffs, a small boat harbour together with a marina, is being developed,
June 11, 1973

connected with roads, parking areas and picnic areas. But this work is slow in progressing. It has taken more than ten years to develop the beach at the foot of the bluffs. The work could be greatly expedited if the federal government would seize this as an opportunity for the kind of action to which its spokesmen today have paid lip service. Much could be accomplished if the federal government would set aside some of the money it is taking from the Scarborough area and put it into a park development of this kind located where the people live.
I was interested to hear one spokesman on the government side refer to the parklands on Baffin Island and the like. It seems to me that the whole point of this motion is to persuade the government to see the need to develop parks where the people are, to put some of the revenue generated by people back into facilities which people can enjoy. It is one thing to see interesting coloured films produced by the National Film Board about the magnificent parks in the Rockies and elsewhere, and I do not at all question the value of government funding of such projects; but more and more the government should serve people who cannot afford long trips by giving them the opportunity to have parks developed within their own local urban areas.
As I have indicated, in the Toronto harbour park we have a precedent. I am glad that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) referred to this matter and I hope he is serious in his reference. The action taken in the heart of Toronto by the government is one that should be an example, hopefully, to its successors in the development of park and conservation facilities in the massive urban areas of this country.
We must recognize that most Canadians today live in big cities. Large numbers of these people do not have the financial means to travel very far. There is no point telling them that foreign tourists have spent so much money in Canada each year and that they should be encouraged to go to the Rocky Mountains or to Baffin Island. These people find it difficult to finance a trip for their families even within their own metropolitan area. This is why we must provide recreational and conservation facilities of the kind to which I have referred.
In times past the federal government might have been justified in saying that this was the responsibility of the municipality alone, or of the province alone. However, increasingly the federal government has accepted the sociological change which has brought with it the situation whereby the majority of Canadians are living in urban areas. Thus, the federal government must play an active part in the lives of people in those communities. Only recently the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) stated that the federal government was going to become actively involved in projects in big cities, that it was not simply going to be a banker for cities or provinces but would be an active participant in such projects. Therefore, I invite all supporters of the government to get behind the resolution and the principle it enunciates, and to recognize that since people live in big cities the government must put its money where the people are and finance recreational facilities to serve them.
Recreation Parks
With particular reference to development of recreational facilities along the shores of Lake Ontario, I should like to cite the judgment of the noted architect and urban developer, Buckminster Fuller, who when he made a study of metropolitan Toronto pointed out the irony by which through the years the majority of people seeking recreation travelled 50 miles, 100 miles, 150 miles north to the lakelands of the north, ignoring this great body of water at their very doorstep. Tens of thousands of people travel our highways at weekends and find themselves victims of traffic congestion, risking their lives and property, while all the time at the doorstep of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people there is this enormous recreational opportunity. Buckminster Fuller rightly said to the people of Toronto, "Turn your eyes back to Lake Ontario and develop your own waterfront".
In this regard I should like to say that the federal government has taken the right step in developing the Toronto harbour park. But now it has taken that first step after having been so slow, let it take a second step and become an active participant in the development of Scarborough bluffs and equally active in realizing the recreational and conservational opportunities that exist in other urban areas. We must recognize that more and more the Canadian people are living in urban areas, and where people are, government should go.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member commences with these words:
That this House affirming that parks created are for people and recreation facilities of people-
I should like to indicate that I believe the federal parks that have been established in this country over the course of many years have really been doing just that: they have been serving the people very well. According to the figures that I obtained from the National Parks Service, during the fiscal year 1972-73 14,013,385 people visited the national parks system. There can be added to that figure another four million people who also visited historic sites.
A number of members have referred to the fact that the situation is very complex in that municipal governments, provincial governments and the federal government have all become involved in the provision of various parks facilities. Constitutionally, the provinces have certain responsibilities and so have the municipalities. But beyond that I think all levels of government in Canada are trying very hard to meet the demand for park facilities of various kinds.
Because of this inherent complexity, basic avenues for achieving administrative co-ordination and operational definition of responsibility is being sought through the federal-provincial parks conference. One major objective of this conference is to work toward an integrated system of parks in Canada through information sharing and toward consensus on the nature of a complete parks system and related acquisition and development priorities. The target is to achieve a system in which provision of all recreation and conservation services are complementary to the greatest possible extent. This co-ordination has been supplemented by periodic bilateral discussions.
4640

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
Rapid urban growth, converting natural landscapes into cityscapes, has led to a diminishing of the easily accessible outdoor recreation opportunities in these regions. Concurrent increases in the demand for these opportunities has led to pressures on all parks systems in Canada, with the result that each level of government is seeking to expand its parks system in order to meet present and future demands for public open space.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
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 Bill C-133, to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the House moved to the consideration of private members' business at five o'clock the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) had the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke before private members' hour I was dealing with the ceiling on interest rates for these programs. I pointed out that similar amendments apply to neighbourhood improvement loans, rehabilitation and conversion of existing residential buildings, and loans made directly to provinces and municipalities in reference to serviced land.
My last amendment, No. 11, deals with new communities in respect of which the corporation may make an agreement with the Government of Canada and the government of a province to advance money for new communities, for the acquisition of land and to be used for rapid transit linking the new community to a larger community. Of course, the money may be advanced in the particular spectrum of greenbelts and parks; it may also be advanced to be spent on a new community for the installation of utilities such as sewage and water systems and for servicing land in these communities so that development can take place.
In summary, then, the amendment deals with interest rates. There are four programs that I have mentioned
which involve loans made directly by CMHC. This will be the first time since 1967 that we have had a ceiling on interest rates, or we will when these amendments are approved, as I believe they will be because of an arrangement between the minister and myself representing my party. Before leaving that matter I should like to say I suggested to the committee-and the record will speak for itself-that where the government borrows money and it is done through issuing long-term bonds, there should be no interest difference between what the government pays and what the provinces, municipalities and people taking out the loans pay. It was obvious in the committee that I would not be able to accomplish that feat, but I did accomplish a ceiling in that the interest rate must not exceed one half of one per cent. As I pointed out this afternoon, the long-term bond interest rate, the manner in which the government raises its money, might be 6 per cent, so that the rate on these loans could be 6 Vs per cent, 6 VS per cent or 6V2 per cent, but no higher. That represents a ceiling on loans made directly by CMHC to the provinces, to the municipalities and to the people concerned with housing.
I should now like to deal for a few minutes with what I said earlier today. I do not want to go back to the ruling in any way, but I was trying to explain why I was endeavouring to have the amendment accepted. On thinking the matter over, I think the direction I received from the Chair was inevitable. The reason I wanted the purposes of the bill articulated in some way was to give direction to CMHC as to what the minister is trying to do in the bill. In bringing in our amendments we are trying to assist in providing reasonable housing and shelter. This is all related to the provision of the maximum number of residences in Canada at a reasonable cost so that the maximum number of people will be accommodated. This is almost impossible with present economic conditions, high interest rates, the high cost of servicing land, and the high cost of housing which includes the 11 per cent building tax. This is why I would have preferred to see something in the bill to articulate that policy.
Let me refer to a statement made by Michael Dennis, special assistant to the Mayor of Toronto, when he appeared as a witness before the committee. He said:
I am pleased to appear before you because of my continuing interest in this area. Many of the basic policy directions contained in the bill before you arose from the recommendations of the task force which I chaired for the former minister and for CMHC.
He was asked by the task force to provide a direction for CMHC. He went on to state:
There are, however, very serious problems with the mechanisms chosen for implementing those recommendations. There are problems with the structure of the programs contained in the bill; there is, perhaps most importantly, the failure to articulate clearly and expressly the policies underlying both the existing programs and the new programs-
Those are the four programs I dealt with today which are included in the bill. Mr. Dennis then said:
-and to ensure that those administering the legislation will give effect to the will of parliament rather than their own interpretation of what is best for the country.
I realize officials of CMHC are present tonight, and I am not suggesting for one moment that they would interpret

June 11, 1973

the bill in such a way that would prevent meeting the purposes of the bill. However, personnel change. Recently we have seen a new president of CMHC. I would have felt better had there been something in the bill to articulate the very purpose of the bill itself, particularly in respect of interest rates not only on uninsured but on insured loans.
Although the minister has never expressed this to me, I am sure there are times when he must have difficulty- every minister has-concerning programs presented to cabinet. Therefore, it would have been safer if articulated somewhere in the bill was the principle that every Canadian would have a chance to hold equity in a home and some time during his lifetime would be able to own a single unit, if he so wished, with a little bit of landscape. Surely that is the ambition of every Canadian and it is not too much to ask in a country such as ours which is rich in resources. Much of our time we have been concerned about surpluses of resources. In a country with surpluses of resources we should be able to promise all Canadians that they will have this opportunity.
I should like to point out why I am concerned about interest rates. If a man today-and this would apply to the most modest bungalow in Canada-bought a home for $35,000 with a down payment of $10,000 and a mortgage of $25,000 spread over 40 years, which is the accepted period today-the government says we should spread the payment over a longer period-what would that house cost with a 6 per cent rate of interest? I have figured this out; it has been checked by our research people and, also, I believe by CMHC. I repeat that I am talking about a $35,000 house, which represents a very modest dwelling. If his interest rate were 6 per cent, the purchaser would pay $75,520. If his interest rate were 9 per cent-and tonight the CMHC rate in my own city, I understand, is 9lA per cent he would pay $101,080 for a $35,000 home.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the interest rate should rise to 10 per cent, he would pay $110,080. What frustration there must be in the minds and hearts of young people in Canada who know that the most modest house they would be able to buy-if they could find the $10,000 down payment, which many of them could not-at an interest rate of 6 per cent would cost $75,000, at a rate of interest of 9 per cent it would cost $101,000, and at 10 per cent it would cost $110,000.


An hon. Member:: You've got to have a rich daddy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and you need a Santa Claus.


An hon. Member:: A rich wife.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, a rich wife. Let us, within the same terms of reference, shorten the mortgage period to 25 years. The old plan was a 20-year one. With a 25-year mortgage and an interest rate of 6 per cent, a $35,000 house would cost $47,991, or in round figures $48,000. At an interest rate of 9 per cent, the same house would cost $62,100. In other words, the difference between a mortgage of 6 per cent and a mortgage at 9 per cent in respect of $25,000 is $14,000.
National Housing Act


An hon. Member:: Who can get such a small mortgage today?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am just giving examples. There is the problem. As I said in my opening remarks, I am moving four amendments which have been accepted. When I sit down I shall not speak on the other amendments, so I am trying to put forward my comments in one speech. I should like to refer to some of the problems that are pointed out in an article which appeared in Time magazine of June 11, 1973. The research is very good. The article reads in part;
For many young couples, a down payment of 10 per cent has become an ever-receding target. Says Ian Dennis, of Vancouver's Cumberland Mortgage Corporation Ltd.: "I know secretaries who are trying to live on their husbands' income and bank theirs toward a good-sized down payment. But even they never catch up. Housing has gone up 17 per cent in a year. Where are they going to get 17 per cent on their savings to keep pace?" Says Mrs. Ann Broadfoot of the Vancouver Real Estate Board: "I'm telling my own children they'll probably never own a single unit home." Many young couples have simply given up trying, and moved into house trailers, costing $16,000 or so-which depreciate instead of increase in value.
Calgary provides a vivid example of the rising cost of housing. A new three-bedroom bungalow that sold for $23,000 two years ago is snapped up for $33,000 today. The lot has gone up 20 per cent, from $5,000 to $6,000. The builder has added another $1,000 for standards imposed by the city-
The article goes on and on. Let us see what is said about spiralling inflation. Some classes of lumber have increased in price by 300 per cent, and most of it has increased by at least 100 per cent. The government sits idly by with its 11 per cent building tax. We might consider the difference between the effect of the 11 per cent building tax at the time of Walter Gordon and what it represents today. So really the losers in respect of inflation today are the people, while the gain is by the Department of National Revenue. It is up to the government to give direction. The article continues:
Clearly, with the cost of housing on the rise, more will have to be done to shelter people who cannot afford the prices. The trend to smaller families and more working wives has made Canadians more apartment-minded and this has brought some relief.
Even those who are apartment-minded find that their rents increase. An example is the man who one morning agrees to pay rent of $130 a month, and by noon is told it is $157. So the trend goes on and on. Speaking on the whole picture for a moment, surely the time has come for this government to recognize that there is in Canada a real housing crisis. That is why I supported the NDP amendment this afternoon. I appreciate, as does my party, that the time has come when municipalities will have to get into the picture, and I am glad that under the amendment, if it should pass the House, loans will be made directly to the municipalities in order to help people who need shelter.
We now need a new national housing policy not only in respect of interest rates, including direct federal financial assistance aimed at attacking the high cost of serviced land which is in short supply, but we should have a policy whereby every Canadian should as a right be able to obtain and live in suitable, reasonable-cost housing which has the amenities of landscaping. However, within the natural constraints of geography and necessary economic
26446-4J

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
and social limitations, the aim of government policy should be to generate sufficient housing stock of various forms so that all Canadians may exercise their freedom of choice as to the style and tenor of housing in which they live.
We need, above all, flexibility and adaptability which should be utilized when dealing with the various regions of Canada, taking into consideration the different problems and needs of each region. You cannot apply the same rigid policy to Newfoundland as to the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, western Canada, or indeed British Columbia.
We need the immediate creation of a new department of urban affairs. This department should not be handed over to the minister-I say this with the greatest respect-who is trying to do a good job. Housing should be the responsibility of a minister of urban affairs. We should make the CMHC responsible directly to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think that high interest rates have been one of the main causes of the high cost of serviced land. We should catalogue land banks by taking full inventory of all land surrounding urban centres which would be suitable for development and servicing. Above all, we should set up a planning secretariat made up of members of the federal government, members of provincial governments and municipalities across the nation so as to break down the bureaucracy which is slowing down development. We should transform raw land into serviced land so that development can take place now. Above all, as I said this afternoon, we need a liberal interpretation of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: For all too long the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and those around him have hidden behind the constitution. I can guess what kind of a fight ministers have had in the cabinet. The Prime Minister says all too often that certain things are the responsibility of the provinces and that he cannot rock the boat, yet I recall the great message which the Prime Minister carried across the country when dealing with questions pertaining to the cost of land and to housing. He said he was going to amend the constitution and make it serve the people, not leave those matters to legal interpretation. We need administrators who will interpret the constitution in times of crisis, such as the national housing crisis which we are experiencing now, to give power to the federal government to freeze prices, wages and costs. We need leadership to roll back prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says, "Oh, come on". He must be satisfied with present prices, but I am sure the people are not. That is what we need-above all now, with the high interest rates set by the government, by the Bank of Canada, by chartered banks and followed by CMHC on uninsured loans. To this is added the 11 per cent sales tax

on all building materials. I hope the minister will fight the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and tell him that it is time we repealed this unnecessary tax which is placing an extra burden on all Canadians who are purchasing a house.


An hon. Member:: Next.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He says, "Next". I do not know my friend's riding because he has never risen here to make a speech, but I say to him that I have made a careful study of this matter and I have no apologies to make to him who feels no sense of responsibility toward the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Think of what you say, don't say what you think.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very happy the minister has agreed to the amendments that are now on the order paper regarding the setting of a ceiling on interest rates. I hope that some plan can be worked out. I realize that we must work within the constraints of the international economic picture, but we must set a ceiling on all interest rates in Canada so that people can once again afford to buy shelter and live with their families in dignity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for seeking the floor before him, but I think it would be appropriate for me at this point to confirm what the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has said about these amendments in that they have been worked out between us. The government supports amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11. Having listened to the hon. member's speech, I would hate to think what kind of speech he would have made if I had not agreed to the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 relate to putting a margin on the interest rate that CMHC can charge over the government's long-term borrowing rate. We agree that it should be one half per cent and, therefore, speaking for the government, I have indicated to the hon. member for Calgary North both in committee and in the House that we accept those amendments.
I do not want now to answer every point the hon. member has made in his wide-ranging speech which covered all aspects of housing. He indicated at one point when I spoke about the one half per cent difference that he wished there were no difference in percentage between the government's long-term borrowing rate and the CMHC interest rate. We will have the opportunity to discuss that matter when the next set of amendments, Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12, are dealt with. I think there are very sound reasons why that suggestion should not be followed, and I know those reasons commend themselves to the hon. member and to members of his party.
With regard to the much wider issues that the hon. member raised, all I want to say at this point is that when we were discussing the very specific amendments which relate to the margin between the government's borrowing rate and its lending rate, I made it very clear in statements
June 11, 1973

in the House and to CMHC that in so far as I and the government are concerned, it is the social right of Canadians to have decent housing at a price they can afford. I indicated that was the position of the government when I put this bill forward; and of course it continues to be the objective of the government, one that we will seek to achieve through this bill and through other measures.
All I want to say is that I hope we can pass this bill-I know this is also the objective of the hon. member for Calgary North-so that together with other measures it can begin to make a contribution toward solving some of our housing problems. This bill makes a very positive contribution to solving some of those problems and to assisting low-income people in their purchase of housing. It is of positive assistance to land assembly schemes and to the repair and rehabilitation of substandard housing. It is a positive contribution to the development of new techniques in housing and in community development.
These measures are important, and I think that hon. members in the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have recognized the contribution which this bill has made and can make toward solving those problems. They have recognized that in committee and in the debate today. All I want to say is that I hope we can deal with the amendments which the hon. member has moved, which the government supports and accepts, and then get on with passing the bill so that all those who are concerned that Canadians be properly housed can have the act implemented as quickly as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: As usual, Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's speeches, whether dealing with interest charges or other aspects of housing, very interesting. However, he did not really deal with the substance of what is at issue in these amendments. That concerns the right, the legitimacy, the appropriateness of the government in charging borrowers of funds from CMHC an interest rate well in excess of the cost of administering the law. The practice has been to charge substantially more to the borrower than CMHC is paying for the money it lends.
Before the introduction of this bill there might have been some justification for that course, because there was not specific provision in the legislation to cover administrative costs. But there is provision in virtually every clause of this bill touched on by amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11 proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and my amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12. The hon. member for Calgary North wants to set a substantial limit on what the government can charge people for administrative costs. We say there is no justification for any difference being made between what the government is paying for its money and what it charges CMHC. I stress that all this has to do with administrative costs.
In other provisions of the bill we stipulate that we will provide CMHC with administrative money to cover its operations. If we are doing that in one part of the legislation, why duplicate it in another part? Why do we stipulate that an additional charge in this instance must be paid by the borrower? Why should we levy this cost on the
National Housing Act
consumer, in this case the person who borrows from CMHC?
Under the government's original proposal we would charge him 1 per cent, which on a $25,000 mortgage amounts to $250. If we accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, and there is an indication that the government will accept it, that $250 charge will be reduced to $125. I concede that to a borrower this means a saving of $125 but again I ask, why should there be any additional charge? If it can be reduced from $250 to $125, why it can't it be reduced to zero? I do not think there is one shred of justification for this additional charge.
There is another point I wish to make. Members of the Conservative Party in this parliament, and in previous parliaments, have raised the question of parliamentary supervision of government spending, citing many instances where we have lost control of effective checks, particularly on administrative expenditure. If those members accept our line of reasoning, which earlier today the hon. member for Calgary North acknowledged was in line with their own reasoning, why can they not take the further step and draw the logical conclusion that there should be no gap between what the government borrows money at and what it charges the person receiving a CMHC loan? We failed in the committee with an amendment, but the Conservative Party on this issue is showing marvellous intelligence and sensitivity to the well-being of the people of Canada. I ask them to accept the logic of their own argument, which dictates cutting out the gap altogether and reducing the charge to zero.
Earlier the hon. member for Calgary North said he was in agreement with what I am saying. We are in agreement with his argument, but the tactical decision he made was based on a minority government situation, believing he could persuade the government to cut the charge in half and saying that half a loaf is better than none. I tell him that the minority government situation gives him a clear alternative to that approach, which is to support the NDP proposal which would cut out the charge entirely. If the Conservative Party and the NDP join forces on this issue, we will defeat the government's proposal and what we want in this case will become part of the law of Canada.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier);
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "by more than one half of one per cent"
The effect of this amendment to the amendment is, of course, what I am proposing in amendment No. 4. I conclude by appealing once again to the Conservative Party to really implement their own arguments presented earlier by supporting this amendment to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In looking at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) the Chair has some reservations which are more on the procedural aspect than on the contents of the motion itself. The hon. member just said that his amendment to the motion of the hon. member

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has the same content as motion No. 4 which is already on the order paper and of which notice has been given by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. This is the difficulty the Chair is faced with at this time.
The hon. member for Calgary North was required, by virtue of Standing Order 75(5), to give notice of his motion to amend Bill C-133. In the same way, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has, within the same regulations and procedure, put down for consideration a set of motions to amend the same bill. The difficulty arises in relation to whether a motion to amend a bill is a substantive motion, or whether a motion of which notice has been given under the same Standing Order can be proposed as an amendment. One can ask himself, as to the use of the procedure under the Standing Order by which hon. members are asked to give notice, if they can be permitted at the same time, after giving notice, to use their substantive motions which are put on the order paper as a motion to amend the bill that is in front of the House and make a choice, after notice has been given, and move such a motion as an amendment to a motion that has been proposed under the same Standing Order, as in the case we have before us at this time.
The Chair has great difficulty in receiving the amendment presented by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. The question is, can we proceed by way of a motion of which we have already received notice from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby? It is a very difficult question.
This afternoon Mr. Speaker made a decision as to the order in which the House would proceed with the study of the various motions that have been proposed by hon. members to the bill before the House. It seems to me that the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is more or less a new proposal which cannot be attached to the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North if we follow the procedure laid down in Standing Order 75(5).
It is not possible, in my opinion, in the course of events to judge the decision that will be rendered when the debate is before this House, after which hon. members will have to make up their minds as to acceptance of an amendment which is made in the form of a substantive motion. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby seems to be trying to anticipate the decision that will be made by the House at a future time. I think he is more or less proceeding by way of anticipation. The motion of which he has given notice under the Standing Order to which I have referred is, to my mind anyway, a substantive motion. I doubt that I can accept it at this time, unless hon. members have other opinions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that you have given the matter considerable thought and you have put your thoughts on the record, but I hope you will be prepared to consider the matter further.
First, may I draw your attention to a well established rule which is set out in citation 202(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
To an amendment, when proposed from the Chair, an amendment may be moved; but only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a question.
As I say, Sir, that is one rule that is well established and almost anybody who takes part in any deliberative assembly knows it. You cannot move three or four amendments at the same time, but there can be before the House a motion, an amendment and one subamendment. The rule of relevancy has to be applied, and so on, but the right to move an amendment to an amendment is one of the clear rights of parliamentary procedure unless there is some rule to the contrary.
For example, when we are on the budget debate, I think it is, there is a rule that after one subamendment has been disposed of there cannot be another. There are a few cases like that, but there is nothing in Standing Order 75 that says that an amendment which has been moved under Standing Order 75(5) cannot be amended from the floor. In fact there is another paragraph which says it can be done.
I am again in the position of having to say that if I had thought this point would be raised I would have looked up some precedents. I am sure there are cases where amendments have been moved to amendments proposed at the report stage. My hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is interjecting, "Without notice". This is always true of amendments to amendments. Amendments in most cases require notice, but amendments to amendments are made, obviously, when the matter is on the floor and there is no opportunity for notice.
Your Honour has raised the question as to whether the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is not simply trying to anticipate what he has proposed under amendment No. 4. I remind Your Honour of the fact that this afternoon when Mr. Speaker was making proposals for the line-up of the debate today, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked that there be a vote on amendment No. 4 before the vote took place on amendment No. 3. I submit that he made that request out of sheer logic. He felt it was better to take a vote first of all on the ultimate proposition, namely, no differentiation in the interest rate, and if that were defeated, then of course there could be a vote on a proposition for a differentiation of one-half of 1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker did not see it that way and based his ruling on the chronology of the amendments. He thought the vote should come on amendment No. 3 prior to No. 4. That ruling had to be accepted, but I submit that what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is doing now is giving the House a chance to vote on these various proportions in their logical sequence.
In the first place, there is before the House the formula set out by the government in Bill C-133, namely, that there be an interest charge of one half of 1 per cent above a certain formula. Second, there is the proposal of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that it be one half of 1 per cent more than another formula. Now there is a third proposal, namely, that the interest be without any differential; in other words, nothing should be added.
June 11, 1973

If this amendment is allowed, there can be three votes in the usual reverse order which, I suggest, is the ultimate in logic. First, we would be asked to vote on the proposition that there be no differential. If that carries, that is the end of it. If that is defeated, we are back to the proposition proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North that there be a differential of one half of 1 per cent. If that carries, that is the end of it. If that is defeated, we are back to the proposition of the government. If the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is not allowed, we have to vote on the proposal of the hon. member for Calgary North. In view of his announcement that there is an organic relationship between the Conservatives and the Liberals, let us say that the vote carries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope it does carry. I am surprised at my hon. friends.


An hon. Member:: That was about the "organic
relationship".


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that motion carries for a differential of one half of 1 per cent, I wonder what the Chair will say when amendment No. 4 is proposed. I submit there will be a statement from the Chair to the effect that the House has already decided on a differential of one half of 1 per cent, and amendment No. 4 will then be out of order.
I believe there have been discussions today about the line-up of votes and combinations of motions. At one point there was a suggestion that if there was an affirmative vote on amendment No. 3, that would cover amendment No. 4. I submit we have a right to vote on these three propositions, the one in the bill in the name of the government, the one proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, and the one proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. We have a right to vote so that some vote down the line does not wash out the others.
I contend there is no prohibition against an amendment to an amendment at the report stage. We have done this on other occasions. As I suggested, under Beauschene's citation 202(1) we are justified in moving an amendment to an amendment. What the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby proposed is quite valid. If his amendment is now allowed he will not be able to put his amendment No. 4 because that issue will already have been decided.
There are, of course, other clauses in the bill which deal with the same issue. If we make the decision as between the one half of 1 per cent differential and no differential, we would follow suit and make the same appropriate amendment to the other clauses. If the principle proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, with a differential of one half of 1 per cent, carries we will carry that forward to the other clauses. If the proposal of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, that there be no differential, carries we would carry that forward to the other clauses.
Despite the thought Your Honour has obviously given to this matter, I ask that you consider it further. There is nothing in the rules that says there cannot be an amendment to an amendment at the report stage; on the contrary, there is a general rule that an amendment to an
National Housing Act
amendment is possible. I submit it is thoroughly relevant. The suggestion is for a certain quantum of interest. This is a proposal for a lesser quantum of interest.
I suggest the amendment is in order and the proper way to get the sense of the House, without having to backtrack, would be to accept the amendment so that we can vote on whether there should be no differential, whether there should be one half of 1 per cent differential, or whether we should accept the government's proposition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to the point of order raised by the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). First, the House dealt with this question earlier today; Mr. Speaker dealt with the question.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that voting on the present motion, the amendment and the sub amendment would be the correct way of getting the sense of the House. This argument was made earlier today by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby when he addressed Mr. Speaker. He said that rather than dealing with amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9 and 11, we should deal with amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12; that was the correct way of getting the sense of the House. The argument put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby this afternoon was that we should vote first on the question of a no interest margin, and then on whether there should be the interest margin proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Mr. Speaker rejected that argument. Clearly, it was before Mr. Speaker at three o'clock this afternoon and Mr. Speaker rejected that argument. Mr. Speaker said-and this is the correct way of getting the sense of the House-that the House would first deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North, which I indicated on behalf of the government we accept, then deal with amendment No. 4 and other amendments moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
In spite of what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is the dean of the House in terms of procedure and I hesitate to differ with him, I remind the hon. member that he made it very clear that Mr. Speaker dealt with this question earlier in the day. Surely the very procedure here makes a mockery of the rules. The purport of the amendment is to do what amendment No. 4 proposes. Without entering into the debate on whether one can make an amendment at the report stage, with all the formality of the rules which requires putting an amendment on the order paper 24 hours in advance, the hon. member cannot suddenly spring up without any notice or observance of Standing Order 75(5) and move a subamendment which is designed to do what the amendment was meant to do. Surely this is a circumvention of Standing Order 75(5). That is all it can be taken to be, a circumvention of the Standing Order and an attempt to anticipate an amendment, namely, amendment No. 4.
My third point-and I will argue this when we deal with amendment No. 4-is that I seriously suggest it is out of order as being contrary to the royal recommendation. It is clearly a charge on the public purse when one reduces the interest rate or margin between the long-term borrowing rate and its lending rate to zero. Obviously, Mr. Zero-

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: You were doing well up until now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, for the government to lend money at the same rate as it borrows it, with all the administrative costs involved, is a charge on the public purse. The only persons who can move an amendment imposing a charge on the public purse are ministers of the Crown, and even then the royal recommendation is required. For these reasons I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. gentleman suggests that the amendment by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby is out of order because it would involve public expenditure. How, then, does he find it possible to accept the amendment by the hon. member for Calgary North which also involves public expenditure?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Because, Mr. Speaker, the corporation's administrative cost is less than one half of 1 per cent.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am speaking now is to express amazement at the zero argument put forward by the minister. It seems to me that for a gentleman who before he came to this House was learned in the law, it was one of the most empty, absurd and bankrupt arguments one could imagine, to understate the case. He says we cannot deal with this now as a new amendment because it was dealt with by the Speaker earlier in the day. But the matter dealt with by the Speaker earlier in the day was a totally different matter. It involved the question whether amendment No. 3 should be voted on or dealt with ahead of motion No. 4. The Speaker, ruled, purely on the basis of priority, that No. 3 came before No. 4, and we did not quarrel with that reasoning.
However, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre made it crystal clear that this amendment is a totally different proposition. How could the Speaker have ruled on it when the question was in no way before him? It is elementary in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings that decisions must be based on material which is before the person who makes them. Here we are in a totally different situation.
One wonders as to the hon. gentleman's reason for supporting the argument that this amendment is out of order. He says notice is required. However, the rules make no such demand, as my hon. friend made clear. I do not understand why the minister should try to warp the rules in this fashion.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Speaker, after listening to what has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I understand why the whip said the chamber was full of second-class lawyers who couldn't hack their own profession.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Cheap!


J. Trevor Morgan: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is trying to get in by the back door what he

could not get in by the front door. He cannot mix procedure with substance, as he is obviously trying to do. The question is res judicata; it was dealt with this afternoon by the Speaker. All the hon. members in that corner are trying to do is abort Standing Order 75(5) and bring in through a procedural method what they could not bring in substantively. If they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma, they can blame themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret I must ask the hon. member to come to the point. The Chair would not wish him to get into an argument with other hon. members who, after all, have a right to seek to present amendments to the House. I do not think that passing judgment or reflecting on the reasons why amendments have been proposed is likely to help the Chair.


J. Trevor Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that the amendment is seeking to do procedurally what could not be done substantively. The matter is clearly res judicata, having been dealt with by the Speaker this afternoon. I believe Standing Order 75(5) is quite conclusive. Acceptance of any amendment of this type would make the rules ludicrous. The amendment cannot be accepted and it must be ruled out of order as not being possible at this time.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt of the hon. member's right to propose an amendment to the amendment at this time. Standing Order 75(8) makes this clear. However, it does seem to me to be out of order for the hon. member, having given notice of a motion under 75(5), to bundle it in with another amendment we are debating. If the hon. member succeeds in what he is trying to do, his main amendment will come up for discussion twice, once as a subamendment and the second time as amendment No. 4. I would argue that having given notice of his motion under Standing Order 75(5), it is not competent for him to move the amendment as a subamendment.
As to the procedural acceptability of the amendment, or in this case the subamendment, my hon. friend the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has pointed out that it is out of order since it is not accompanied by the royal recommendation despite the fact that it involves public expenditure by way of a cost incurred in collection, administration and disbursement. So the amendment is out of order on both those grounds.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the argument by the parliamentary secretary that the amendment to the amendment is out of order because it involves public expense and lacks the royal recommendation, amendments involving public expenditure being a Crown prerogative, is a specious one in the sense that everything done in this House involves expenditure. This particular amendment to the amendment, and amendment No. 4, will not occasion any visible expenditure other than in the cost of the administration of the National Housing Act, an act which must be administered in any event. That is not an argument for ruling the amendment out of order. What is really happening here is an exercise in gamesmanship. The hon. member, by moving the amendment to the amendment, is trying to do twice what he has already attempted to do once in amendments 4, 6, and so on. This matter, in terms
June 11, 1973

of voting procedure, has already been determined. It would be ridiculous for this House to vote on the same thing~twice. Since in substance the amendment to the amendment and the amendments set out as Nos. 4, 6, and so on are identical, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that your original ruling was in order and proper. Surely your recommendations and rulings are to assist in expediting the business of the House. This argument has lasted long enough already, and on that basis I suggest you rule the amendment to the amendment out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair is very grateful to hon. members-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would allow me a few words on the point of order since it is an amendment to the amendment in my name. A variety of things have been said about the motives of this amendment, most of which I will not comment on. But I will be very explicit about one motive, which is to get a vote in a procedurally appropriate way on the ultimate logic of an argument.
The point has already been made that during the course of this afternoon's proceedings I made the point that I thought amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 12 should have been dealt with ahead of amendments 3, 5, 9 and 11, and for exactly this reason. If they failed, we could then all support the Conservative amendments 3, 5, 9 and 11. Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, entirely on the basis of chronological order, ruled that we should consider amendment No. 3 and the others identical in principle, Nos. 5, 9 and 11, first. We accepted that ruling.
During the course of this debate it became recognized by myself that there was an opportunity, using the appropriate rules of the House, to move an amendment to an amendment. No notice is required of a subamendment. This motive was clear and unambiguous. I am a little surprised that the members of the Conservative Party are disputing this. It seems to me that they should welcome the opportunity to have a vote first on the broader question, which is clearly what my amendment to the amendment would do. If the amendment should fail-though I think hon. members would support us since they argued in favour of this idea-we would go ahead and support amendments proposed in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North.
It seems to me that government spokesmen have made a specious point in asking how we could vote on an amendment to an amendment and then vote on motion No. 4, that this would be a vote on identical points. This is a silly argument to advance. Obviously, if we vote on motion No. 3, my amendment to the amendment, and it carries, that obviates the necessity for any vote on motion No. 4. This same principle can be extended to motions 6, 10 and 12. Therefore, I suggest that is no argument at all.
May I conclude by urging that Your Honour, in your wisdom, find it entirely appropriate to consider this amendment to the amendment to be in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am very grateful to hon. members who have tried to help the Chair in this very difficult decision that has to be made. I think I should go back to some of the arguments made by hon members.
National Housing Act
The first argument was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who referred the Chair to citation 202 of Beauchesne. I do not question the point made by the hon. member that an hon. member has the right to move an amendment to a motion that is really an amendment to a bill in front of the House at this stage. The point raised by the Chair when the hon. member Tor Oshawa-Whitby moved his amendment was based on a very specific Standing Order which we have accepted and have been abiding by for the past three years governing procedure at the report stage of a bill in this House.
In making his point, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to try to convince the Chair that a vote on the motions put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North would exclude the possibility of further amendments at the report stage of which notice has already been given and which appear on the order paper for today. I do not agree with this point because it contradicts the rules of this House, and in particular Standing Order 75(5) which allows the Speaker to make a selection of order. I do not think a motion that could be considered be to be a nullity or contradiction of another motion on which the House had made a decision could be turned down by the Chair unless it was on procedural grounds.
To my mind, the mere fact that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby did give notice of motions 4, 6, 10 and 12 is an indication to the Chair-at least this is my interpretation-that this motion is a substantive one, notice having been given in accordance with Standing Order 75. In the same way, the motion moved in accordance with the same procedure by the hon. member for Calgary North is a substantive motion.
It is not my intention to comment on any future action of this House. I do not think at this time that I can be placed in the position of judging a decision of the House. The hon. member has heard the comments of the minister regarding his motion, but I do not think the Chair can base its decision on the mere fact that a motion that has some degree of support from members on both sides of the House might pass. This decision has not yet been made. It is also possible that some of the motions that we are studying at this time could be defeated, though this would not exclude debate of other motions. Neither do I think I should make any decision regarding what the House decides to do when it comes to discuss the motions of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby of which notice has been given.
I am sure that if I were to follow the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Standing Order 75(5) would become inoperative since on occasion hon. members move amendments that are almost identical one to another. In the past the Chair has not tried to limit them as far as this kind of amendment is concerned.
We have heard arguments by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan), by the minister, and by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that this amendment is in fact a substantive motion, and it was suggested that the Chair should not base its decision on the decision rendered this afternoon by the Speaker as to the order. I wish to assure hon. members that I am not looking at the

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on that basis. I am looking at it as a substantive motion of which notice has been given, and from the point that the hon. member is trying to attach another motion to the motion presently being studied by the House.
I feel that if we are to use Standing Order 75(5) to the best advantage of hon. members and to the best advantage of the order and practices of this House, the Chair cannot allow this kind of procedure to be followed. I do not know whether I have covered all the points made by hon. members, but in view of the point presented by the minister and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it would be impossible, after the vote had been taken, to postpone the amendment before the House.
On the point of there being a differential in the rates of interest, the amendment by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby does not call for that kind of differential. The practice we have been following gives an opportunity to hon. members sometimes to even debate a number of amendments in the form of a group proposed by an hon. member before votes are taken. I do not think there is any general limitation to the motion of which notice has been given by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
For all these reasons I think it is in the best interests of the House that the Chair rule the amendment which the hon. member is trying to attach to the motion before the House as substantive. I do not know if I have been clear, but for that reason the amendment cannot be accepted by the Chair.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on amendments Nos. 3 and 4 as they relate to the statement by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I am sure my colleagues and the minister would like to be in the position of not imposing a surcharge on money that is borrowed by people to subsidize housing. I am sure the minister appreciates that, being in the government for the time being, we must be logical and responsible; we must realize there is a cost of administering mortgage money and that in the private market this cost averages about one half of 1 per cent. I have referred to trust companies and others which are prepared to manage money at the rate of three-eighths of 1 per cent. I am sure they are efficient organizations. I know of one that has managed money at five-eighths of 1 per cent.
Knowing the efficiency of government departments, I can assure this House it is unlikely the government could manage money lending by CMHC at less than one half of 1 per cent as set out in the motion by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). We have to look at this question realistically and responsibly. I am sure we would all like to avoid a surcharge on the cost of borrowed money to be lent in the fashion required by Bill C-133, but it is clear to me that a surcharge of one half of 1 per cent must be charged.
I am happy that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North has limited that charge to one half of 1 per cent. In the past, the National Housing Act has been administered in such a fashion that the surcharge was what had been charged the borrowers, and bore no relation whatever to the cost of obtaining the money in the first place. For the first time in many years we will
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
have a ceiling on interest rates. I am happy that the minister has to some extent agreed to this suggestion. The government is prepared to limit its administrative costs. That is responsible action and I commend the minister for accepting the amendment.
When some hon. members of this House realize they have no hope whatever of forming a government, they can be as irresponsible as they want. I suggest that is the attitude of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. He says it does not matter what you charge because you can draw on the public purse. I suggest that people in subsidized housing want to feel they are paying their own way as far as possible. In this particular case we are limiting the cost of borrowed money to the actual cost. Some people have to live in public housing. Some people have to be subsidized. But what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wants is to subsidize everybody. Of course, that is a program of his party-subsidize everybody.


An hon. Member:: Socialism.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We do not really know what that party means when it suggests we should subsidize everybody. This money has to come from someone's pocket and there has to be some sort of surcharge to cover the cost of borrowing the money. If we were to subsidize everyone, this cost would have to come from the pockets of those people who are hard pressed now to make their mortgage payments. They are at the profitable end of CMHC operations.
Surely if the taxpayer is to subsidize anybody, he should clearly subsidize those who need rent subsidy. The taxpayer should not subsidize the cost of managing the CMHC, but that is the kind of thing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby suggests. I commend the minister for taking this responsible action as I know that at times he has no concept of what housing is all about. I intend to speak on that situation a little later. At least the minister has now come to his senses and has suggested he will attempt to stop CMHC from throwing away the taxpayers' money and will limit its administrative costs to one half of 1 per cent. I commend the hon. member for Calgary North for putting the minister in that position.
I am sure we would all like to see housing costs reduced to a minimum, and we know that the cost of administration contributes to these costs. We would all like to have electric cars; we would all like to run our cars without gasoline. But somewhere along the line costs have to be paid. This is a responsible party and we say that somewhere along the line the cost of borrowed money has to be passed on to those who use that money. If subsidies must be paid to some people, then let us pay rent subsidies or social assistance to people who actually need it. We have had enough of this blanket subsidy policy to everyone regardless of need. These subsidies are borne by the taxpayers who are now oppressed by heavy mortgage payments.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 11 proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) have a laudable objective, that is, to reduce the interest rate in respect of some of the
June 11, 1973

social programs the government intends to implement such as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the Residential Rehabilitation Program, the New Communities Program and the Assisted Home Ownership Program. What he said was that the spread between the rate at which the money is borrowed by CMHC from the Department of Finance and that at which it is lent by CMHC to these different programs should be no greater than one half of 1 per cent. For that reason I say it is quite laudable. However, I think I should remind members of the House that this does not prohibit CMHC from charging a spread of between 2 per cent and 2 Vi per cent on the rate at which it borrows from the Department of Finance and what it charges to some of the borrowers, and more especially the direct lenders who borrow from CMHC.
I think I should also remind members of the House that CMHC has shown a substantial profit for the past few years in respect of its operations. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) that any administrative costs that will be incurred by CMHC will be paid out of government moneys. I would point out that on page 11 of Bill C-133, in clause 27.6(l)(b) it is stated that the minister, out of moneys from time to time appropriated by parliament for the purpose, shall reimburse the corporation for losses sustained by it in respect of loans made under section 27.5, and shall pay to the corporation the costs and expenses of the corporation incurred in the administration of this part. This is the reason the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and members of the New Democratic Party were insistent that there should be no spread between the interest rate that CMHC must pay to the Department of Finance and the rate it could charge for the different social programs it has instituted.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) has said that some of the trust companies he knows administer moneys at a spread of three-eighths of 1 per cent. If I remember correctly, I asked the president of CMHC what it costs CMHC to administer loans. I am relying on my memory of what he said in committee, but it seems to me he said it was one-eighth of 1 per cent. When we get into the committee we will attempt to get from the president of CMHC and the minister the actual cost of administering loans. I notice that the minister is cogitating on what I am saying. However, I am sure the president of CMHC said it was one-eighth of 1 per cent.
One of the three main elements of the high cost of housing in Canada is the interest rate. When one thinks of the banks, which pay depositors 4 per cent and 4 'A per cent and then lend money at 9'A per cent, we can appreciate the substantial differential in respect of what they pay the depositors and what they charge the mortgage borrower. CMHC has been just as guilty, in many instances, in respect of direct loans in areas where borrowers cannot otherwise borrow money.
If the hon. member for Calgary North were really to tackle this problem he would bring in an amendment which would provide that all mortgages in Canada should bear an interest rate of not higher than, say, 6 per cent, or we could even go so far as to say no higher than the prime lending rate of the banks. This is what we should really be doing, because the hon. member for Calgary North knows
National Housing Act
that much of the money loaned out by the banks and by the lending institutions carries a rate of interest of 9 per cent or 9V% per cent and, possibly, in the near future 10 per cent. The hon. member is concerned about how this reflects on the high cost of housing for Canadians, but his amendment really affects only some of the social programs which the government operates; it does not affect about 95 per cent of the mortgage lending which prevails in Canada. The average borrower pays a rate of interest of 9 Vi per cent for loans from the banks, while the people who put their money on deposit receive 4 Vi per cent. If that is not usury, I do not know what is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), would not want to leave the wrong impression. I know he is not suggesting for a moment that I could move an amendment to the Bank Act or to the Interest Act. I hope he is not leaving the impression that I have picked out just a very small section of the problem. I am sure that is not the impression he intended to leave, and I hope he will correct it if he did leave that impression.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is a point of debate rather than a question of privilege.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North will agree that the substance of his amendment will affect only a few people in Canada because it affects only the social programs set up by CMHC such as NIP, RRAP, AHOP and the New Communities Program. It really does not strike at the main problem of high interest rates in Canada.
I have said that where the banks pay their depositors 4 per cent and 4 Vi per cent and are charging mortgage borrowers 9 per cent and 9'A per cent, the spread is too great. I would hope the hon. member for Calgary North would join with us at some time to really tackle this problem in a very effective and direct way. The way to do it is by amending the Interest Act, making it mandatory that any interest rates affecting mortgages in Canada will not be higher than, say, 6 per cent or the prime lending rate the banks give to preferred customers. As I said at the beginning, the amendments set forth by the hon. member for Calgary North are laudable because he is attempting to solve this problem. It is quite a serious problem, because even one half of 1 per cent in respect of a $25,000 mortgage amounts to $125 a year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not misquote the amendment. It says that it cannot be greater than one half of 1 per cent. It does not have to be one half of 1 per cent.


John Gilbert: No, but it probably will be. On that basis, one half of 1 per cent on a $25,000 mortgage amounts to $125. The member is attempting to help people on low incomes, but $125 a year amounts to at least one week's wages of a borrower. By reason of the amendments of the hon. member for Calgary North, which appear to be acceptable to the minister, people in the low-income bracket will be paying a minimum of $125 just for administrative costs. That amounts to at least one week s work, which is quite a striking amount.

June 11, 1973
National Housing Act
If the hon. member for Calgary North has persuaded the minister that the chargeable amount should not be one half of 1 per cent but should be zero, I think that being a reasonable person I should move a further amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "one half" and by substituting therefor the phrase "one quarter".
The reason for that is, that if we accept the representation of the president of CMHC, Mr. Hueglin, that it costs one-eighth of 1 per cent to administer a loan, we should be as close to that figure as possible. I believe that one half of 1 per cent is too far distant. At least one quarter of 1 per cent is very close to one-eighth of 1 per cent, and I am sure that after the hon. member for Calgary North put forward his amendment, and after he said he would like to see the amount reduced to zero, which the NDP have proposed, he is prepared to agree that the figure should be as close as possible to what the president of CMHC says it costs, that is, one-eighth of 1 per cent. Therefore, I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North and members of the Conservative Party are persuaded that one-eighth of 1 per cent is better than one half of 1 per cent.
They have put into a motion an idea which will result in a saving to low-income people across the country. I am sure the people in Newfoundland, people in the Maritimes and people in the depressed areas of Quebec will give full credit to the Progressive Conservative Party for bringing forth this idea concerning low-income people as related to some of the social housing policies of the government. We in the NDP will take only a small amount of credit for reducing the amount from one half of 1 per cent to one quarter of 1 per cent because we have been told by the president of CMHC that the cost of administering a loan is roughly one-eighth of 1 per cent. Having said that, I doubt it is necessary for me to continue because I am sure members of the Conservative Party are fully persuaded and will vote the right way when the amendment is put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I presume the intent of the hon. member is that the subamendment, if carried, apply to the different motions that we are now considering. Am I correct?


John Gilbert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will now hear, no doubt, representations on the point of order that is bound to arise.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a point of order. On the evidence of the president of the corporation, to reduce this to one quarter of 1 per cent is a charge on the public purse. By the time the costs of the Department of Finance are taken into account, and the costs of CMHC, one quarter of 1 per cent is a cost on the public purse which is not covered by the royal recommendation. However, I am quite happy to argue the merits of the subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the minister, by making that assertion, has not in fact made his point. He may argue that cutting this figure from one half of 1 per cent to one quarter of 1 per cent may result in fewer dollars coming to the public treasury, but since one quarter of 1 per cent is still above the estimated cost of one-eighth of 1 per cent, no charge on the treasury is involved. I submit therefore that so far as that part of the rule is concerned, the amendment should be considered to be in order.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) make a very sound remark that the art of politics is to make possible what seems impossible.
This is perfectly sound, but if we were to begin by making possible what is possible, I think that it would be even more so. Now, I have listened with great interest to the interventions-
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is not speaking to the point of order but to the substance of the motion before us. The Chair would ask for a moment to consider the point of order that has been raised.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to express-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Bellechasse will excuse the Chair, but the Chair needs a moment to reflect upon the point of order presented by the subamendment of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).
The minister has helped the Chair immeasurably by not pressing the point with regard to the royal recommendation in relation to the subamendment offered by the hon. member for Broadview. In my opinion, the main question before us is as to what charge should be levied in connection with the moneys that are raised and used for the several purposes set forth in the act that we are considering.
To my mind, the principle that we are considering is the spread between the cost of borrowing and lending, and what is charged then becomes a detail. The hon. member for Calgary North with, I gather, the support of the minister, is of the opinion that one half of 1 per cent is the appropriate figure. The hon. member for Broadview and certain other hon. members believe that that spread should be one quarter of 1 per cent. It seems to me that it is not a question of reaching into the principle of the amendment but, rather, a question as to detail. For that reason I find that the subamendment is in order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly, before ten o'clock, on the merits of the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North and supported by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn) in a very responsible way.

June 11, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: We are now engaged in discussing whether the interest rate should be one half of 1 per cent or one quarter of one per cent. I think the House and the public are being quite misled about the purpose of these amendments. What the amendments are designed to cover is the difference between the government's borrowing rate and its lending rate. If it borrows money at 6 per cent, it will lend it out-under the programs which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) outlined in his speech-at one half of 1 per cent more than that, which I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, is an amount designed to cover the costs of administration of that lending operation by the government. To say that the government is making money, or that the corporation is making a profit at that half of 1 per cent is not in accordance with the facts.
The costs of administering the housing program of the government are covered not only by loans but by appropriations by this House, by estimates that are passed year by year. These include the costs of covering the sewage treatment program, of covering the subsidies on public housing, of covering housing research and development projects. All those figures, and they have been documented in this House many times, show that there is no profit in CMHC, in any meaning of the word "profit", in that any money it may make on any direct lending activity is far exceeded by the amount that you and I, Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers, put into programs subsidized by the government and the corporation.
This is an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. I want the hon. member to listen to this because I think it is important that he understands it clearly. The amendment before us says that, for example, on neighbourhood improvement loans there shall be a difference between the government's borrowing rate and its lending rate of one half of 1 per cent. The NDP say that it should be one quarter of 1 per cent, as though that is going to make a great deal of difference to these loans. Nowhere is there mentioned that in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program there are very substantial grants and contributions provided which far exceed one quarter of 1 per cent, one-eighth of 1 per cent or three-sixteenths of 1 per cent. All we are saying is that where there is a loan involved in the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the costs of administration will be covered in this margin of half of 1 per cent. That is what the hon. member for Calgary North is saying, and that is what the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) is saying.
I think the House had better understand that we are also saying in proposed new section 27.2 on page 7 of the bill that we will make grants, contributions which are not loans but are outright gifts, to municipalities for neighbourhood improvement of up to 50 per cent, which is one heck of a lot more than one-eighth of 1 per cent. These grants of 5 per cent are to meet the costs of selecting the neighbourhood, acquiring and clearing the lands for the purpose of providing open space for community facilities-50 per cent of the cost of acquiring or clearing land to be used for medium and low-density housing, 50 per cent of the cost of constructing, or acquiring and improv-
National Housing Act
ing neighbourhood recreation facilities, and 50 per cent of the cost of developing occupancy and building maintenance standards, 50 per cent of the cost of making loans for commercial improvements, 50 per cent of the cost of relocating individuals who are affected by the neighbourhood improvement procedures, and grants to cover 25 per cent of the cost of improving municipal and public services, such as water and sewage, and 25 per cent of the cost of acquiring or clearing land otherwise connected with such a project.
That, Mr. Speaker, is where the subsidy should be, and the legislation provides that that is where the subsidy will be-an explicit subsidy by way of grants and contributions toward the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. All this legislation is saying is that, for example, in neighbourhood improvement programs there will be a system of grants or contributions which are outright gifts, and that is where the taxpayers should be providing subsidies, and that there will also be a system of loans that will be lent at the cost of those loans which we estimate at one half of 1 per cent.
It is the same thing with repair and rehabilitation. All we are saying is that in terms of loans the money will be lent at just one half of 1 per cent of the cost of borrowing to cover administration, but also in the legislation dealing with repair and rehabilitation we are saying that there can be very substantial grants, and it is spelled out in the legislation that such a contribution can be $2,000. However, in the committee we amended that to say that the grant could be set by regulation, so that now such a grant could be $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000. That is a great deal more by way of clearly stated, explicit subsidy than one half of 1 per cent or one-eighth of 1 per cent. That is where the House and the public are misled in their understanding of what is behind these amendments.
What we are saying is that where there is a loan under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program for repair or rehabilitation, in assisted home ownership or land assembly, the loan will be made at the cost to the government, namely, one half of 1 per cent. This legislation provides that the subsidy involved be by way of subsidized interest rate, or by way of very explicit vote year by year in this House by way of annual appropriation, by way of estimates approved by the House. That is the case with neighbourhood improvement and that is the case with repair and rehabilitation. It is also the case with assisted home ownership programs where we are not saying we will just charge them interest at our borrowing costs. Here we are also saying that the income of the person will be subsidized by $300, $400 or $500 a year to purchase a house, which again is a great deal more than one-eighth of 1 per cent.
That is the kind of subsidy we are prepared to pay by way of explicit declaration of this House, through passage of the annual estimates, toward the Assisted Home Ownership Program. Again I say that that is what is at issue in these amendments. We are not saying that we want to make money on the lending of money. What we are saying in this bill and in these provisions is that the subsidies are by way of subsidized interest rate, by way of explicit subsidies which are spelled out in the legislation, by way of grants and contributions.

June 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Secondly, one hon. member mentioned that sometimes we lend money at a great deal more than it costs us. The only instance of that is where we are engaged in direct lending activity where the lending institutions will not go. I find it hard to see why the doctor in Whitehorse or somewhere else in the Yukon territory where the banks will not lend him money for a house should get a subsidized interest rate. I would much rather lend it to him at the market rate. I would prefer, where we are engaged in an activity using the taxpayers' money by way of subsidy, that it should be directed toward public housing, land assembly or assisted home ownership. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. That is the reason I supported those amendments and why I do so now.
I think the debate has gone off course. The purpose of this legislation is to provide very substantial subsidies, but to do it by way of explicit grants and contributions rather than by charging one half of 1 per cent, one-eighth of 1 per cent or three-sixteenths of 1 per cent, all of which are small potatoes when one compares them with the real subsidies that we are proposing in this legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 3661, I put the following question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
Now that the government has committed itself to the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of pensions paid under the Canada Pensions Act, will the President of the Treasury Board take the necessary action so that the 2 per cent ceiling can be removed from the annual escalation of pensions paid to retired public servants and to retired RCMP and Armed Forces personnel?
The reply of the President of the Treasury (Mr. Drury) was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and the House know, the government is very sympathetic to this proposal but has stated on previous occasions the notion or idea that the change in the escalation rates, both in the Canada Pension Plan and the Superannuation Act should be coterminous.
I may say to the President of the Treasury Board that I have had several letters asking me what he meant by that word. However, I think it is fairly clear that what he meant was that action with respect to these two pieces of legislation, in the government's view, should be taken at the same time.
Sir, this is another in a long series of appeals that I have made to the President of the Treasury Board to remove the 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of pensions paid to federal superannuates. If necessary, the series will be continued on and on and on, but one of these days I hope my appeal is going to click. From the smile I see on the face of the President of the Treasury Board, I hope it might be tonight.
When we discuss this issue it is always possible for extraneous points to be dragged in; in fact, sometimes I may drag them in myself. I am not, therefore, tonight going to speak about related issues that are of equal concern lest that put the President of the Treasury Board off the track. I want to focus my attention on this one point, namely, that there is no excuse, anything in the law or any statement or commitment that has been made, for the proposition that removal of the 2 per cent ceiling in the case of retired civil servants has to wait until the same action has been taken with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.
I remind the President of the Treasury Board that the annual escalation of pensions under the Old Age Security Act-and this applies both to old age security and to the guaranteed income supplement-and also the annual escalation of war disability pensions and the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act, is now geared to the actual percentage increase in the cost of living. I submit the claim that the increases in the pensions of retired public servants should somehow be tied to the increases in the Canada Pension Plan, rather than have the same thing as is done with respect to these other four payments to which I have referred, just does not stand up. It does not make sense.
Sometimes when this matter is discussed the President of the Treasury Board points out that there are other groups than the three I have named. I submit these are where there are many thousands of persons involved, namely the retired public servants and retired personnel of the armed forces and the RCMP. They feel very strongly that since the 2 per cent ceiling has been removed in the case of the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the war disability pension and other pensions paid under the Pension Act and allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act, the same should happen with respect to pensions paid to retired public servants and related groups.
This matter is entirely under federal control. The changes that have to be made in the Canada Pension Plan are by the nature of the legislation such that provinces have to be consulted, and therefore the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has a bit of an excuse for holding us off, but I hope for only a few more weeks. But that does not apply to federal superannuates. We are talking here about persons whose employment was exclusively with the federal government. We are talking about a pension arrangement that is exclusively federal. No one else needs to be consulted, and because the government has already removed the 2 per cent ceiling from the other four kinds of payments to which I have referred, it seems to me the time has come to do that with respect to the pensions of retired public servants and the other related groups.

June 11, 1973

I realize that the next time for these pensions to be escalated is January, 1974. Maybe I shall be told to keep my shirt on and it will be done before that. However, I have been around here long enough to know that if one keeps his shirt on, it takes a long while to get these things through.
In the hope this will have been changed so that the escalation that takes place in January, 1974, will be to the full extent of the rise in the cost of living, I appeal to the President of the Treasury Board to announce here tonight that the government will do what it says it is prepared to do, to what it says it regards sympathetically, and do it without waiting until action is taken with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.
I understand and welcome the government's sympathy. I understand that the government is with us. I understand that the boards and bodies that deal with these matters have made recommendations that call for implementation at this session. In fact, it looks as though everyone is in step but the President of the Treasury Board. I hope he will get in step tonight.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's eloquent appeals, the latest one tonight. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, this is his latest and he hopes it will receive a positive response. I will not say that the appeal has fallen on deaf ears, but perhaps the expression in the press would be "it will not have the result the hon. member hopes for".
I think the hon. member is as fully aware as I am that between now and the end of the normal period of the session there is a very crowded schedule. While the suggestion is that everyone is in favour of it except the President of the Treasury Board, and consequently it will have quick passage, I listened to the debate tonight on a bill on which I understand everyone is also in favour, but we do not seem to be able to make much progress.
I admit that by handling the Canada Pension Plan and the amendments to the escalation of civil service, armed forces and police superannuation, it will be proceeded with at an earlier date and more expeditiously if the two are done together rather than at separate times, one now and one later in the year. The hon. member pointed out that it would be difficult to make this operative before January. I am-glad to say we still have some period of time before that date.
The principle of escalation at a rate higher than 2 per cent for the Canada Pension Plan is being strongly advocated by the federal government in relation to the provinces. The government feels the same way about escalation at a higher rate than 2 per cent in respect of this particular superannuation plan. However, while the hon. member says there is nothing in law to prevent the two being put together, I thought it was clearly understood that when the question of escalation of the superannuation plan was discussed with the employees, the phesent contributors to the plan, it was made quite clear to us by the employees that what they were agreeing to was the same rate of escalation as the Canada Pension Plan. I thought there was a clear understanding that in return for their contribution of one half of 1 per cent to match the
Adjournment Debate
one half of 1 per cent put up by the government, the escalation benefit would be limited to the same rate as the Canada Pension Plan.
There is, therefore, not an overriding or compelling reason for keeping the two in step. But there is at least the element of obligation entered into when we introduced the joint financing by present contributors and the government of the present plan. I should like to repeat: I do not think any time will be lost. The hon. gentleman suggests that I am the only one who is opposed to this. I am not opposed to the proposal, but merely to the timing of the introduction of the bill at a time when the House calendar is, as I think all hon. members realize, very crowded indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be done this year? He said yes, Mr. Speaker.


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN BECAUSE OF WELFARE SITUATION
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the minister, of whom I am a shadow, is here tonight to reply to me. On March 12 I asked the minister the following question:
Can the minister tell us whether, in the light of what he called the disgraceful welfare situation in some of the provinces, he is prepared to assist by an early introduction of legislation to raise family allowances, hopefully before Easter, and by increasing beyond 50 per cent, the government's contributions to the Canada Assistance Plan, at least with respect to those areas and provinces where there is acute need as noted in the hon. gentleman's address?
Since that question was asked we have been told that the family allowances bill will be presented to the House before June 15. For some weeks, I and others in the chamber have been urging the minister to move more quickly toward the introduction of the legislation. It was my hope that as a measure of income redistribution this measure need not be delayed of implementation until January 1, 1974.
On May 8, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advised my colleague from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that had the FISP bill been passed into law last September the plan could have been put into effect by January, 1973. Surely, if under that administrative monstrosity such speedy delivery could be made of the allowance cheques, much more rapid movement could come from the contemplated measure of the minister. When the minister presented his orange paper on social security he ranged far and wide over a broad spectrum of issues affecting the health and welfare of Canadian citizens. He advanced numerous propositions which will involve multitudinous conferences and discussions. To mix my colours, if not my metaphors, the orange paper is a blueprint for possible, and possibly distant social change.
Nor do I demur from the suggestion that we need a thorough examination of our social welfare programs. But what of the interim? What of the thousands of Canadians who cannot cope with a cost of living which is rapidly

June 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
going out of control or, to be more precise, painfully calling for controls? We agree with the need for long-range planning and, if necessary, a drastic recasting of our whole system. But we must not have needy Canadians suffer during the lengthy process of consultation and planning which may be necessary to bring about such sweeping changes.
An expedition of the family allowances bill would help. The Government of Canada could also offer a better deal than 50 per cent under the Canada Assistance Plan. By these two measures some interim help could be given. Such help is urgently needed by far too many of our people. I would be surprised if any of the provinces would object to their people receiving increased family allowance cheques at a date earlier than January, 1974. I call, at this late hour of the day and at this late hour of the social welfare debate, for urgent, pressing action.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member how much I appreciate his rhetoric and style, which is always a matter of amazement to me, coming from a culture that is not given to the use of such flowery language. The points raised by the hon. member have been raised before. I agree with him that it is obviously important in the field of social policy and the reform of social security that the need for long-term planning should not be an obstacle to immediate or early action.
I should like to point out to him that during the last few months this government has unhesitatingly shown its agreement with such a principle. First of all, we have
increased old age pensions to the tune of over $300 million, and we have announced our intention to introduce legislation in the next few days or couple of weeks to add another $1,200 million in increased family allowances in this country. This represents almost a tripling of the October amount of money paid in the family allowance field. I think this is a pretty clear indication that we are not just going to sit while we have this review with the provinces; on the contrary, we have shown a very clear determination to take action where the need is most obvious.
I might add that we have also asked for an amendment of the Canada Pension Plan, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, which will also increase benefits to people in need in this country. Therefore, the argument that no speedy action will be taken while we are going ahead with this review seems to me to have no foundation in this particular case.
As to the other argument about contributions by the federal government to the Canada Assistance Plan, we are already contributing 50 per cent in this field and there is no assurance that a greater contribution on the part of the federal government would necessarily mean any greater payment to certain individuals in a particular province. As a matter of fact, when one looks at the figures province by province, one realizes that some of the lower income provinces are more generous than other more wealthy provinces. Also, much depends on the determination of provincial governments to pay their own share and to help people in need.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
June 11, 1973



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
7th June, 1973.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair:
I am writing to tell you of the deep personal grief which I have felt, and which is shared by the people of Zambia, at the tragic death of your daughter Christine.
It is a matter of deep regret that this innocent young girl met her death as a result of the current serious confrontation between my country and the minority racist rebel regime in Rhodesia-an issue on which my government has already expressed its firm position.
I am not writing to you with these issues in mind, as serious as they are. I am writing as a parent, solely for the purpose of expressing my profound heartfelt sympathy upon the tragic loss of your daughter. The people of Zambia join with me in expressing deep regret at her death.
I realize that nothing material could make up to you for the loss of one of your family. I emphasise too that a
member of my security force acted in accordance with his duty in the tense warlike conditions which have existed along the Zambezi River for many months.
Nevertheless, as an indication of my country's deep regret at the loss you have sustained and of the esteem we feel toward the Canadian people, I am asking my government officials to discuss with the Canadian High Commission in Zambia the question of ex gratia payment to you. I hope that you will accept this gesture as a further expression of my deep sympathy and that of the Zambian nation.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Kenneth Kaunda President of the Republic of Zambia. Mr. and Mrs. D. R. Sinclair,
130, Dublin Street,
Guelph,
Ontario,
Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 12, 1973