1974-03-26

TRIBUTES TO RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON THIRTY-FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a very agreeable event. Today is the thirty-fourth anniversary of the election to parliament of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Being a member of this House for 34 years is in itself a tremendous service to the country. But I rise today not simply to speak of the length of the right hon. member's parliamentary service nor to dwell on his accomplishments during those 34 years, although I would like to emphasize that he continues today, as he has during the years, to be a vigorous, eloquent and effective champion of the rights of Canadians, the rights of the dog, the rights of the underdog-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was a bit of a Freudian slip, recognizing the fondness of the right hon. gentleman for his dog. But I do wish to congratulate the right hon. gentleman who continues to express himself so effectively and non-controversially in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He is the dean of the House in terms of length of service and, I think we can all agree, the dean of the House in terms of parliamentary skill-a continuing example for all of us of an effective and able parliamentarian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply wish to take this occasion to express personally and on behalf of the members of this caucus, and, I am sure, of members in all parts of the House, our congratulations and very good wishes to the right hon. member for Prince Albert on this auspicious occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted on behalf of all of us in the New Democratic Party to join in these warm felicitations to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Some of us remember very well the day that he was first elected. I
was defeated on that day by one John Turner. However, he was not Minister of Finance and within a few years he was dead.

I should like to underline what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has said about the contribution of the right hon. member in having been here these 34 years and also to underline what was said about the contribution he has made in particular fields, notably in the defence of civil liberties and fundamental human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to say that we are sorry that his wife, Olive, is not in the gallery, but I see she is behind a post.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are sorry that she has had a bit of illness to cope with in recent months. We hope she is making good progress and we wish to Olive and John the very best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues and on my own behalf, I am very happy to join all hon. members in congratulating the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Mr. Speaker, I should particularly like to emphasize the right hon. member's integrity and his important role in Canadian politics.
It has often been said that he was not understood in Quebec or that he did not understand Quebec, but 1 know that since the time when this was said, even Quebecers have come to recognize in Mr. Diefenbaker one of the greatest politicians of Canada, a man full of vigour and energy whose example we should all follow.
I should like to add that the first time I voted in a federal election, in 1957, I voted for this great Canadian.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the senior member of this party in terms of date of election to the House of Commons I should like to associate myself and the members of the government party with the words that have been expressed so well by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). As the member of this party with the longest service I certainly have no intention of emulating the record of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I am sure that the Leader of the

March 26, 1974
Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert
Opposition will attempt to co-operate with me in achieving that objective.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am willing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the applause that came from this side when the Leader of the Opposition expressed his sentiments with respect to the right hon. member for Prince Albert is eloquent testimony to the esteem in which he is held on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others who have spoken for their all too generous words. Coming from an oil province, I always like to make an effort to pour oil on anything of a controversial nature, and I will continue to do so in the hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his discussions with the premiers this week will be able to make that oil available to all of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Thirty-four years is a long while. Not a day passes in this institution that I do not learn something concerning the greatness of parliament. It is hard to express oneself under these circumstances because there is nothing a member can desire more than to be regarded by all, without regard to party, as one dedicated to the House of Commons.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of another John Turner. I recall very well that in those days Shakespeare and the classics were regularly drawn upon by members as they spoke. One evening there was a great argument about what Shakespeare had said and had not said, and that John Turner from Manitoba arose and said: "I really have never made very much of a study of Shakespeare, except one line-to beer or not to beer, that is the question".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That evening he fully lived up to his remark about the alleged words of what he called "Mr. Shakespeare".
The older I become the more I have an affection for this institution and for its membership. We as Canadians can be proud of the fact, not unctuous in our declaration, that this country has not seen anything like what has happened under another system of government in a country for which we have so much regard.
The hon. member who spoke for the Social Credit Party I must say began right in 1957. At my age one does not look ahead; one lives from day to day.
I conclude my expression of deep appreciation to the members of this House not with a warning but simply with the illustration that others have served far longer. Sir Wilfrid Laurier served for 47 years and Sir John A. Macdonald for 48 years, which of course included a long period in the parliament of Upper and Lower Canada. Therein I see an objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: To all of you from the bottom of my heart I express my deepest appreciation. I thank the government House leader for his all too kind words. Both of us have been here a long while, and my expectation is that each of us will endeavour to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Duquet.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and. Proceedings.]

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with regard to the Veterans Land Act. Hon. members are doubtless aware that in its present form the act provides that the director may not accept any application for a new establishment after March 31, 1974. This provision was inserted in the act by parliament nine years ago.
For many months I have been giving consideration to the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: -whether the act ought to be further extended. On March 12, I undertook to review the matter again. I have done so, and I now wish to announce that the government will introduce a measure to extend the operation of the act for one year to March 31, 1975, to enable any qualified veterans who may have been caught by the present deadline to make their applications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, although I thank the minister for making this statement I must say I certainly cannot commend or congratulate him on the very narrow concession he has made to the veterans. It just indicates that there is a complete lack of compassion on the part of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: All they are doing is playing politics.
March 26, 1974


Jack Marshall: -when they only offer this narrow concession in response to our motion. It is very evident that the government does not understand the needs of the veterans in only extending the Veterans Land Act for one year. There are still hundreds of thousands of veterans whose attempts to build under the Act by acquiring a loan have been stultified because the loan ceiling is not high enough. It is possible to obtain only $15,000. They cannot build because it is impossible to buy a half acre lot for $15,000 less 20 per cent. Those veterans who did not get a certificate by October, 1968, are still denied the opportunity to do so.
I had hoped, as I am sure all hon. members did, that the minister would have done what all veterans want, namely, introduced legislation to repeal section 31 of the act, to raise mortgage loan ceilings and reduce the minimum lot requirement commensurate with today's increased costs. However, the government is not doing that and there is no way in which we can accept the proposed legislation without action being taken on these other matters. Otherwise, there is no point in extending the Veterans Land Act. We reserve the right to amend the legislation when it is introduced to insert a provision that renewal will take place 90 days before the expiration of the deadline on March 31, 1975.
Last Wednesday the minister indicated at the committee meeting, as he indicated to the press, that the government would have to raise the loan ceilings and reduce the minimum lot requirement. I can assure hon. members- this was confirmed by the administrator of the Veterans Land Act in the committee last Wednesday-that the veterans land administration will be in existence until the year 2000 because they will have to handle cases until then at least. They now have a backlog of 1,240 cases.
Accounts are being repaid at a rate of $69 million a year and of that amount some $26 million is interest. So the fund is self-sustaining and is not costing the taxpayer any undue additional amount. Why not show compassion and fulfil the commitment that has been in effect over the past 57 years? Why does the government have to break faith with the veterans who were promised that the veterans charter would be in existence as long as there was a veteran alive?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who understands the problem, will support the stand of my party, and I know he will. If the legislation is introduced it will be accepted only under the following conditions: that renewal will be made 90 days before the expiration of the deadline, that section 31 will be repealed, that the loan ceilings will be increased commensurate with today's increased costs, and that the minimum lot requirement will be amended so that it is commensurate with the needs of veterans who wish to live in cities.
I am surprised that the government does not show the compassion it should. I hope it will realize it has a duty to the veterans and will come up with legislation that will be acceptable and will give the justice to veterans that they deserve.
Veterans Land Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) I wish this announcement included more than it does. It is my view that any veteran who qualifies under the Veterans Land Act should be entitled to take advantage of that qualification as long as he lives. Therefore I hope this is only an interim extension to March 31, 1975.
I also agree that something must be done to protect the rights of those veterans who did not get their qualification certificates before October 31, 1968. There is also the question of the amount of money available as a loan under the act, and the problem of lowering the minimum lot requirements. These are other changes that should be made in this legislation.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we now have a chance in this session of parliament to fight for these other things. The legislation forecast in this announcement will, I take it, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs after second reading where, as I say, we will have a chance to argue for these other improvements that we think should be made in the Veterans Land Act. As a result of this announcement the rights under this legislation will not die this coming Sunday. It gives us another year, a year in which a number of veterans will be able to get their loans, and a year in which we can continue the fight for a further extension. On that basis we welcome the announcement. We shall do our best to see that the legislation is dealt with expeditiously, bearing in mind our right in the standing committee to seek other improvements.
This announcement prompts me to say that I am proud that two weeks ago tonight we did not bring this parliament to an end.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Otherwise we would not now have this opportunity in this parliament to amend this legislation before March 31, 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the same token, Mr. Speaker, any serious effort to bring this parliament to an end tonight would be a disservice to the veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We believe we should stay here to see this extension of the deadline enacted and to use the opportunity to win still further improvements.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, we shall first allow the Liberals to rejoice for a little while, and then I shall proceed with my remarks.

March 26, 1974
Privilege, Mr. Stanbury
Mr. Speaker, I was very happy this afternoon to hear the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs announce the extension of the time limit in the case of this act. I was especially happy because veterans from almost all over Canada had started complaining of our apparent lack of consideration for them.
As usual, the hon. minister is now faced with a money problem. As Social Crediters, we keep saying that human beings should not be compelled all the time to submit to money considerations. This is why I support the minister's decision to extent the time limit for this act.
I have before me a telegram which was sent to Mr. Caouette by one of my constituents concerning this matter:
Thanks a million for having asked government to extend application of act granting loans to veterans for housing construction. We understand from our information that loans will not be granted beyond March 30, 1974. Second World War veterans were never informed of this.
I draw this last sentence especially to the attention of the minister: this letter claims the veterans were never advised of this. I go back to my quotation:
We veterans ask that period be extended beyond said date. Wish to know all aspects of the matter. Millions of dollars of veterans' money lie dormant in government coffers. Why not have them benefit from this money instead of government distributing it as it sees fit. Veterans of Canadian Legion generally displeased.
Branch 53, Drummondville, Quebec.
I will now read you the postscript:
P.S. General malaise must be felt in all other branches of Canadian Legion throughout Canada.
The letter was signed by Dr. Maurice Laperriere of Drummondville.
That is to say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this matter stirred a general outcry throughout Canada and that the government should have the highest regard for those who carried arms to defend our country.
It is normal that Canada should better the fate of all who fought for the ideals we believe in.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am happy that, because of its minority situation, the government was forced to give the people more consideration.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to correct and clarify information I gave yesterday in response to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). I now understand that the form to which the hon. member referred is the child care expense schedule. I am advised that if this schedule contains basic information on parent, child and payee, the claimant's return and any refund are generally processed without delay, subject to any missing information being later requested and reassessment being possible if a claim cannot be substantiated.


HOUSING
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the vacancy rate in the lower mainland of British Columbia is now less than one per cent, and whereas the government has not yet embarked upon a meaningful public housing program for the lower mainland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs be directed to meet immediately with his British Columbia provincial counterpart with the view to providing immediate emergency housing to alleviate the present crisis situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the current labour dispute between the Great Lakes Carriers Association and the Seafarers International Union of Canada, and in view of the danger that a protracted strike poses for the Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this House direct the Minister of Labour, prior to contemplating any back to work legislation, to fulfil his responsibilities under Part III, section 32 of the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that the employers pay the statutory overtime rates of pay outstanding and due to the employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


INCIDENCE OF LUNG CANCER AMONG URANIUM WORKERS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the extreme energy shortage being experienced throughout the world,

and because uranium more and more will become one of the chief sources of power, and because of the high rate of uranium induced lung cancer now being sustained by people who work in the uranium mines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Labour use the powers presently vested in him to eliminate the incidence of uranium lung cancer now affecting over 130 people working in the Elliot Lake area.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him, in a specific instance, which minister is expressing government policy, the Minister of Supply and Services who continues to advocate at least consideration of a very rapid large-scale development of the Athabasca tar sands, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has described this massive scheme of the Minister of Supply and Services as "not feasible for practical or political reasons"? Would the Prime Minister tell us which minister is expressing government policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to answer this question yesterday. I can only repeat the same lines of my answer of yesterday or the day before. This tar sands project as advocated by the Minister of Supply and Services is not part of the government's energy policy. Government energy policy has been enunciated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and by myself at various occasions. This other idea, as I told the House a couple of days ago, is one in which the minister has shown a great deal of personal interest. It is one in which I find an advantage in having him explore it further and discuss it with other people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the statements by the Prime Minister and, indeed, by the Minister of Supply and Services that the cabinet has not yet agreed to a policy on the tar sands-that is what the Minister of Supply and Services says and the Prime Minister seems to confirm it- and in view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says, "Well, that is not correct", indicating that the government has adopted a policy on the tar sands and indicating that it is quite inconsistent with what is being said by the Minister of Supply and Services, are we to
Oral Questions
understand from the Prime Minister that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not correct when he suggests outside the House that the government has adopted already a policy with regard to the rate and scope of development of the tar sands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the interest shown by the Leader of the Opposition in the government's position on this matter.


An hon. Member:: Don't blow so early in the day!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to reassure hon. members opposite that things are going all right in the cabinet. It is my judgment that the Minister of Supply and Services can continue to make these speeches and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can state government policy.
I understand the concern of the opposition, but it would be more helpful to me as leader of the government if they were, for instance, to give guidance on their position with regard to a fair price for oil to be given to Alberta. This is the problem we will be discussing tomorrow between first ministers. It would be nice if the opposition, rather than drawing a red herring across the path, were able to state their policy on oil before we meet the provinces tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, talking about red herrings, I must say the hon. gentleman opposite is certainly a master of that art.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I put it to the Prime Minister very bluntly, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressing government policy when he says that the plans being advocated by the Minister of Supply and Services are contrary to government policy? May I ask the Prime Minister how many government policies there are at the same time? Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources speak for the government in terms of energy policy, including the tar sands, and are we entitled to accept his statement as to what constitutes the policy of the government in that area?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition read the words which are the answer to his own question. He read words from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the Minister of Supply and Services-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -indicating that there had been no policy decision by the government on the type of program of which he is the proponent-

March 26, 1974
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Would the real minister please stand up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I really find it incredible-


An hon. Member:: We do, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that on the eve of a conference that is to decide the future oil and energy policy of this country, when we have, for instance, the premier of Ontario saying that a $6 price for oil is enough-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the premier of Alberta wanting more-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that the Tories have no idea what it should be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I am not sure that we should continue this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. It does not appear to the Chair to be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not really sure what it is that hon. members are trying to accomplish by all this noise, but I would invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he has a supplementary, to put it and then I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Prime Minister regard as trivial that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says there is a policy with regard to the tar sands and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services deny that this is so? Does he regard that as a trivial matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I do regard as trivial is the opposition hiding its head in the tar sands when it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in answer to a question on this subject by the hon. member for Trinity the Prime Minister said, as found on page 812 of Hansard:
If the hon. member is asking whether that is a statement of government policy the answer is no, but if the hon. member is asking whether this is an idea which is being explored and looked at, certainly with my authorization, by the minister, the answer is yes.
Has the Prime Minister authorized the Minister of Supply and Services to investigate this proposal which

was first advanced by Mr. Herman Kahn of the Hudson Institute? Is this not a subject which comes properly under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and why has the Minister of Supply and Services been asked to look into it when it does not come under his ministerial responsibility?


An hon. Member:: He is the minister of trivia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made this clear. I have authorized the minister to speak on this subject to any audience that wanted to listen. I have not gone out seeking audiences. The minister has received invitations-


An hon. Member:: Which minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has received invitations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has received invitations-
An h on. Member: We are talking about this poor fellow
here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is speaking in Toronto today at a meeting which invited him to speak on the energy problem. The Minister of Supply and Services has received invitations to speak on other subjects. He has my authorization to speak on those subjects. I repeat to the NDP what I just said to the Tory Party. I find it passing strange that in the past month we have not had one serious question or suggestion from either opposition party on the very vital questions which are going 10 be decided tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, just taking time to say that the Prime Minister's statement is absolutely inaccurate with respect to this party, may I ask the Prime Minister this question. I am not asking him what invitations his ministers get. I am asking him about his own statement yesterday that he authorized the minister, and I use his own words, to "explore and look at" this matter. Is the government seriously exploring and looking at the proposition as stipulated by the Minister of Supply and Services that there ought to be some $20 billion borrowed to build plants at the rate of $1 billion apiece, that 30,000 Koreans be brought in for the purpose of building them, and that repayment be made in oil, thereby committing Canada to the export of $20 billion worth of oil? I ask the Prime Minister whether it is that kind of plan formulated by the Hudson Institute that he has authorized the minister to investigate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier. The minister has my authorization.
March 26, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings will be recognized for supplementaries, but we will finish the first round of questioning and then return to the supplementaries on this subject.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the encouraging answer I received yesterday from the Minister of Finance about additional funds that would be made available to the Minister of Manpower for LIP projects and of the explanations the President of the Treasury Board gave the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates last night, may I once again ask the minister if he has discussed the matter with the President of the Treasury Board and whether they agreed to allocate immediately more funds to the manpower minister for that purpose and, if so, when he will be able to make his decision known to the House?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing the matter at length with my colleague, but I must add that there is never enough money to meet all the requirements.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is giving us the real reason for the first time, I would ask him very earnestly the following question: which of the two came first, man or money?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question is hypothetical.


ATHABASCA TAR SANDS-GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Will the minister tell the House whether his proposal for the development of the tar sands was well received by his audience in Calgary yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the minister must have gone to Calgary yesterday at public expense. He was on time which was taken away from the House of Commons and therefore was on his public duties. Consequently, he has a responsibility to answer for his acts to the House. Perhaps Your Honour
Oral Questions
will allow me to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What about the trip to your riding last week? Were you well received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member with his experience will appreciate that the question as asked in the first instance is not in order. I would hope we could not get involved every day in asking ministers and other members whether speeches they made outside the House were well received or ill received by their audiences. That is hardly in order. I am certainly anxious to be fair to the hon. member and I will allow him not a supplementary to that question but another question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Has the moratorium that the Alberta government has placed on further exploration rights in regard to the tar sands any relation to the type of proposal that is being discussed publicly by the Minister of Supply and Services and others? Was this discussed by the Prime Minister when he had lunch with the premier of Alberta? Perhaps at the same time the Prime Minister could tell us if it is once again his policy, as it was during the foreign policy review, to play one of his ministers off against another in public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a question. That is debate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You played yourself off against yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, for generations in this country, as in other British parliamentary democracies, there has been a rule of cabinet solidarity. In the first year of the present Prime Minister's term in office he changed that rule and allowed ministers to speak publicly on different sides of an argument. Surely it is the right of this parliament and the Canadian people to know whether we have in this country at the present time a continuation of the principle of cabinet solidarity or whether in fact we have another principle-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will not prevent the right hon. Prime Minister from responding to the hon. member's point of order. If the hon. member will recall what he said, his question was, is it the policy of the Prime Minister to play one minister against another. That may not be exactly what he said but I am sure the hon. member, in fairness to the Chair, will admit that was the sense of it. The hon. member for Calgary North.


ATHABASCA TAR SANDS-SPEECH BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES IN CALGARY-PRIOR APPROVAL BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether he submitted the script of the speech he delivered in
862

March 26, 1974
Oral Questions
Calgary to the Prime Minister and did the Prime Minister endorse the contents of that speech before the minister delivered it in Calgary?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I did not, of course, submit in detail all the contents of the speech. However, I find that in Calgary the people are more openminded than the people on the opposite side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not going to play ducks and drakes with me. I asked the Minister of Supply and Services a simple question. Did he submit the contents of the speech he delivered in Calgary to the Prime Minister prior to delivery and did the Prime Minister endorse the contents?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I gave a very simple answer to a very simple question to a very simple mind. I hope the hon. member understood what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North rises on a question of privilege. He will, of course, be recognized. But I am sure hon. members will want to go along with the Chair in that, after we have settled the question of privilege now going to be raised by the hon. member we should try to go to the next question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would only quote one thing to the minister: "Oh wad some power to giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!" The simple minister sitting over there is the former Solicitor General. His record speaks for itself throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day one receives applause twice. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services arising out of the question asked earlier relating to cabinet solidarity. Is he to be identified as the pea in the Prime Minister's shell game in this regard?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I thought the right hon. member knew nothing about cabinet solidarity until today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Are you the pea? That is what I want to know.


Some hon. Members:: We want George.
[Mr. Woolliams. *


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman must be very happy that hon. members seems to be enjoying themselves so much on his anniversary.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from a report in this morning's Globe and Mail that interest rates are scheduled to rise once more by one-quarter of one per cent, specifically, mortgage rates. This will have the effect of increasing the price of the average house by about $1,000. Can the minister tell us whether the government plans to take steps to prevent this increase as it pertains to mortgage rates?


John Napier Turner: I have read that report. As yet, it is speculative, and I do not think I should like to comment at this stage.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House whether he has any plans to modify the AHOP program so that its provisions might become operative in the financial sense in the big cities? At the present time, as the minister knows, because of housing costs and the regulations which govern the present program it is, in effect, inoperative in the large cities.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to have something to say on that subject in the speech I shall be making in the debate this afternoon which I think will interest the hon. member. In terms of tight markets such as Toronto and Vancouver, and in answer to the hon. member for New Westminster, may I say I have an appointment on Friday afternoon with the minister of housing of British Columbia.


INDUSTRY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of which I gave him notice some time ago. I hope he remembers. What steps is the minister taking to ensure an adequate supply of paper at fair prices
March 26, 1974

to meet what has become a critical situation in the publishing trade because of supply shortages and high costs?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: We have met with representatives of the industry. I have met with the presidents of the leading companies and I believe the problem of supply has been largely settled in favour of the Canadian user.


Mr. Fairweather:: Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report this morning to the effect that there is to be a 12 per cent increase in April in the cost of quality paper? If so, how does this fit in with the minister's somewhat optimistic reply?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is a separate question, the question of price.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I asked about both.


Alastair William Gillespie: The paper industry, like every other industry, has been faced with increasing costs, increased pulp costs especially in the case of the fine paper industry. This industry, historically, has operated on a very low profit level. One would hope that with a return to reasonable profit levels new investment will go forward.


TRANSPORT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the intention of the government to have the result of the CN-CP study showing the feasibility of an Arctic railway referred to northerners through their elected members and also to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that hon. members may assess the full implications of this proposal?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not studied the report yet. I do not know if it has already been submitted. This report was asked by the Minister of Transport. I will discuss this matter with him and report to the hon. member.


NATIONALIZATION OF BRINCO-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Answering a question I asked him recently, the Prime Minister told me that the nationalization project of BRINCO by the government of Newfoundland was of no interest to the federal government. But yesterday, spokes-
Oral Questions
men for Newfoundland stated that the federal government was very interested indeed in this nationalization and that meetings have taken place between both levels of government on this subject. Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he did meet the officials concerned on this matter and what the government position is regarding that project.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, both versions are acceptable, according to me. As far as I am concerned, I never tackled the subject with the premier of Newfoundland. I still maintain that such political decisions are to be taken by the provincial governments, whether we do or do not agree with them. On the other hand, there would be many consequences for the province if it acted that way, consequences of a financial, constitutional or other nature regarding federal-provincial relations and there may be some discussions on this subject. I even see some ministers who agree with me.
There have probably been discussions between the officials concerned, but certainly not at the government leaders level, and obviously not to ask for our consent or our veto.


HOUSING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As Canadian shelter costs have risen 42 per cent since the present government gained power, the highest increase in six years ever recorded, and in view of information from Statistics Canada that the index for shelter moved up .9 per cent in February due mainly to higher mortgage interest rates, would the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal in the House on September 11 last to order a roll-back of mortgage rates or at least prevent any increase in mortgage rates that may be forthcoming?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the
question was seriously put, as I am sure it was, I have no doubt the questioner would wish to add words to his preamble to indicate that since our government came to power more houses have been started and built in Canada than in any other period of our history.


SUGGESTED RAISING OF CEILING ON NATIONAL HOUSING ACT LOANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I might direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Inasmuch as the aggregate sale value of homes in the Toronto area has jumped by $10 billion since the Trudeau government came to power, an 80 per cent increase, would the minister tell us whether he intends to raise the $30,000 ceiling on NHA loans so that such financing may become more meaningful in our urban centres and thereby hopefully trigger lower interest rates, bearing
27398-55J

March 26, 1974
Oral Questions
in mind that in Toronto alone it now costs $47,000 on average to buy a home that used to cost $26,000?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I shall be speaking on that subject this afternoon. By way of a general answer, I may say that the levels of lending under the regulations are constantly under review, as are particular market situations.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have reached the point at which I must seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting the number of supplementaries if we are to get more questions in before the end of the question period.


INCOME TAX
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my further supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Not only has the price of homes risen by 80 per cent in six years but interest rates have risen by 30 per cent since 1967 with the result that a $21,000 increase in the cost of a Toronto home involves an extra $10,000 to be paid as a result of higher interest rates. Would the minister indicate whether he intends to give some form of tax relief to home owners and tenants, and is he at least studying the possibility of allowing interest of mortgages and also municipal taxes as an expense against income before tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am studying all possibilities, but the hon. gentleman is bringing up a budgetary matter. I would draw to his attention that in the way he puts the question relief would be mainly to the wealthier classes in the country and would favour the home owner over the tenant.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that employment grew faster in the construction trade, real estate and several other sectors of our economy last year than it did in manufacturing, would the minister say what part of the increase in employment in manufacturing was due solely to the corporate tax concessions and what part was due to other factors in the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that would be hard to gauge. I would merely say that it is more than a coincidence-and I put it to the House-that since the corporate tax concessions were proposed in the House and passed, as well as the accelerated

depreciation allowances, there were last year 111,000 new jobs in manufacturing which, as I said yesterday, is 8,000 more than the previous six years put together.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister has again said that there were 111,000 new jobs created in manufacturing. How many of those jobs are due to the fact that there has been a corporate tax cut and a two year write-off, and how many are due to other inputs in the economy other than the corporate tax cuts? Is the minister studying the question, does he know, or is he simply forgetting about it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just has to look at the cash flows available in the manufacturing industry and how those cash flows are being used in new capital investment to understand why the incentive was put on and how the incentive is being used.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLOCATION OF RAILWAY CARS- DECLARATION OF CERTAIN BRANCH LINES AS INOPERATIVE BECAUSE OF SNOW CONDITIONS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that during the past several months the railways in western Canada have been required to plow some quarter of a million miles of track in a futile attempt to move grain from snow-blocked lines, can the minister say who is responsible for ordering these trains? Is it the Canadian Wheat Board or the railways?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, within the committed number of cars that are available to the Canadian Wheat Board from the railways the block shipping system, which is an organization that includes the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board and represents the operating arm of the railways, allocates cars to particular blocks week by week, and then the cars within the blocks are allocated by specific elevator companies.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Have the railways at this late date been allowed to declare certain lines inoperative until track conditions improve? If so, why has it taken so long to declare some of these lines inoperative?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, even at this stage there are bound to be serious complaints and concerns on the part of individual farmers who find lines closed. I am sure the hon. member's colleagues will in some cases criticize the government for that same reason. The railways did attempt to keep the main lines in the prairies open but they now find this is simply an impossible job in the remaining months. In the case of the CNR, they specifically indicated dates before which they do not expect to use cars on particular lines. I expect that the CPR, which has less of a problem since there is less snow in the southern part of the prairies where its main operation is, may have to do something of the same. We are meeting in a variety
March 26, 1974

of committees to look at urgent measures that can be taken to use more fully the lines that are clear. Our objective is to move the grain on to the main lines, and then have the fastest possible turnaround of rail equipment in order to make up the hypothetical potential losses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It appears from a question asked previously by the NDP that the minister is now thinking about introducing back to work legislation. We have not had a report from the minister, and since April 1 is the deadline would the minister advise what is the situation at the present time and whether he still believes it is a little premature to make a personal intervention?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that I have been in discussion with the parties to this dispute, both directly and indirectly, in an effort to try to resolve it. It is a difficult situation. I am going to continue to intervene, along with the assistance of my officials, in an endeavour to try to resolve the dispute before April 1 if at all possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: For the last month or so the minister has been extolling the virtues of voluntary arbitration. Can the minister advise the House whether this suggestion has been put to the parties to the dispute and have they accepted it or what was their answer? If he has not done so, why has he not done so?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the question of voluntary arbitration in the context which I have been advancing for some months is with particular reference to the railway unions. Their collective agreement does not expire till the end of December and it was hoped that this would be a method by which we could avoid labour disputes in the future. With regard to the present situation, a dispute is already in progress. The collective agreement has been terminated and, technically speaking at least, there is a strike in operation. Whether the parties will agree to go back to work without a settlement, leaving the details of the settlement to voluntary arbitration, I would doubt.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question in view of the importance of this matter. The minister made an assumption that the parties to the dispute would not go along with voluntary arbitration. Would the minister give the House an assurance that he will take this matter up with the parties so that he can have a definite answer yes or no whether they find this
Oral Questions
new and unique procedure acceptable, keeping in mind the extreme urgency of the situation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the extreme urgency of the situation, but it was not an assumption that led me to that conclusion. In view of the discussions that I have had with the parties involved, it is obvious to me that the parties would not be agreeable to voluntary arbitration, particularly one party to the dispute.



FINANCE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Having regard to the fact that many Canadian municipalities have experienced a substantial increase in population due to the installation of numerous municipal services, and noting that provincial governments-Ontario, for example-have waived the sales tax on water main materials, would the minister consider removal of the discriminatory payment of federal sales tax on water main materials for municipalities?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. gentleman's representation, which has been echoed in several quarters of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we have now come to the end of the question period. The Chair will allow the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka a supplementary and then we will call orders of the day.


Stan Darling: Noting that many municipalities have approved a resolution calling for the exemption from the federal sales tax of water main materials, would the minister attend the meeting of the Ontario Municipal Water Association in Windsor from April 28 to May 1 in order to participate in constructive discussions regarding this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have not been invited, but before I am it may be a little tough to make that meeting.

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That this House repudiates the government's $100 million urban demonstration program as a diversionary tactic and clearly ineffective to assist in solving the existing housing crisis and accordingly has no confidence in the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to give chronological order to this debate today I should like to remind the House that yesterday we moved the following motion for debate on that opposition day:
That this House do now consider the record, objectives and programs of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in light of the urgent needs of urban Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, that was a non-voting motion. Speeches were made by hon. members of all parties, but in respect of that motion the House was not called upon to make a decision. That is a result of the implementation of the new rules which removed the consideration of supply from the House of Commons and gave sole jurisdiction over estimates to the committees. Under the new rules a certain number of days are assigned to opposition motions, some of which are non-voting and some of which are voted upon. In line with what we said yesterday, today we are going to zero in on the housing crisis in Canada. In order to put this motion in chronological order I should read it:
That this House repudiates the government's $100 million Urban Demonstration Program as a diversionary tactic and clearly ineffective to assist in solving the existing housing crisis and accordingly has no confidence in the government.
In this context I should like to emphasize the word "repudiate", and the phrase "diversionary tactic". This motion calls for a vote tonight. Under the old system, when the government asked for supply a motion such as this was debated for two days with a vote taken on the second day. With the system under which we operate today I think we must not only set out our programs as positive alternatives, which we have already done, if we are to be critical, as we have been in reference to the $100 million Urban Demonstration Program, but we must defend the taxpayers of Canada by pointing out the deficiencies of the government's programs.
One of the deficiencies of this program is that, not only is the government now to spend $54,794 per day for five years on another experiment or study, but it is using this as a diversionary tactic to cover up the ineffectiveness of the minister and the government in solving the existing housing crisis in Canada. When I refer to the housing crisis, I am referring to the price of housing, the price of serviced land, and the fact that only 5 per cent of the wage earners in most of our cities today are able to buy their own homes. The minister can talk all he wants about the number of housing starts, but statistics are not what the Canadian people are looking for; they are looking for
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).j
action so that they can afford to purchase shelter in accordance with their earnings, in this situation in which we have the highest level of inflation we have had for years.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) say: "Amen". Let me remind the House that yesterday the minister, in his usual manner, provided no solution at all to the ever-spiralling cost of serviced land or the ever-spiralling cost of housing. He offered no comfort to the wage earners or those people who find themselves on any type of fixed income. I think I speak clearly for my party in this regard when I say that we should not only speak in defence of the taxpayers of Canada, we should set forth positive programs designed to provide shelter at reasonable costs. We must make our suggestions match our needs.
For that reason we have moved the motion which appears today on the order paper and which you just read, Mr. Speaker. In this way we not only make our words work for the people of this country, we make our deeds work for them. We show the country just where we stand in respect of this government's program designed to solve the national housing crisis. We have moved this motion to zero in on this power spending program of the minister which definitely will not provide housing at a cost within the reach of the average income earner.
We repudiate the program of this government to spend another $100 million on another demonstration program. Yesterday 1 spoke about 18 studies which have been carried out in the last three years. Time does not permit me to outline them again. I suggest there have been hundreds of studies, yet we are supposed to spend another $100 million on another study of a problem in respect of which this government has been so irresponsible in its failure to find a solution. We repudiate this additional study by way of another urban demonstration program, just as we repudiate this government's irresponsibility in failing to face up to this national housing crisis. We will continue to fight this program, and we will again indicate today how we feel about this government's efforts to solve this crisis.
Yesterday we set out in no uncertain terms where we stand with reference to the government's housing policies. We have also set out clearly our policies in respect of this crisis in Canada. I was pleased to hear the minister yesterday quote with affection the Progressive Conservative housing policies. I can understand that these policies were a challenge to him as his policy is one wrapped up in statistics. He is using the old refrain we have heard over and over again. He has referred to the number of housing starts, 260,000 I think he said, but the Canadian people are not interested in statistics. I suggest they are interested in one thing, and that is homes they can afford to buy. That is the thing in which they are interested.
No amount of statistics in a white paper will solve this crisis. Yesterday we pointed out very clearly that our constitution places a responsibility on the federal government to become involved in housing programs. If that were not true there would be no job for this minister. If he does not have such a responsibility toward the Canadian people, then what is the function of the Central Mortgage
March 26, 1974

and Housing Corporation? We suggest that the constitution should be interpreted in such a way that the minister can work out with the provinces a program to expedite the development of serviced land at a reasonable cost. Confrontation with the provinces will not solve anything. We have seen confrontations between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the provinces in respect of various matters including energy, housing and freight rates. Such confrontations with the provinces will not lead to the solution of anything. I suggest that meanihgful agreements and arrangements with the provinces Will help to solve many of our problems.
Yesterday we talked about the establishment of a new and vigorous department of urban affairs, one as important as any other government department. We must remember that two-thirds of the I population of Canada live in urban centres and that there are more people living in the cities of Montreal and Toronto than there are living in the whole of the province of Alberta, for example. Surely, when two-thirds of our people in Canada live in such concentration in large urban centres it is time for the government to face up to its responsibilities by setting up such a new department.
Yesterday we suggested that the government should repeal the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, but the minister scoffed at the idea. We now have a government spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $22 billion a year, and we must realize jthat this sales tax is not one that is calculated on the old tak base. A home that cost $25,000 in the days when Walter Gordon implemented that tax, today would cost $85,000 to build. That tax is not on the old base but is on the inflationary price. Is this fair and equitable to the people of Canada? I suggest that the government cannot hide from its responsibility because it is responsible for the domestic inflation.
What has really happened has been \hat this runaway inflation has turned essentials into luxuries. Food, clothing and housing which are essentials today are becoming luxuries because this government lacks any creative program to solve the problem.
The government cannot hide from its responsibility. Through its economic policies the government has contributed to the high cost of housing. The minister speaks of cutting the tax on commercial buildings and shopping centres. We are concerned about cutting the tax on homes. I would remind the minister, after that frivolous and loosfe argument, that shopping centres sell food, clothing and other essentials to the Canadian people, so when there is a tax on the building and equipment this added cost is passed on to the consumers who buy the food, clothing and so on. Surely the minister is not a naive man. He knows that these costs are all passed on to the consumer. A glib statement like that is no defence. In fact it only substantiates that his $100 million demonstration program is a diversionary tactic.
Let me illustrate what the word "diversion" means. If one should go to a pond where there are ducks with ducklings in the spring the mother duck, in a desire to divert your attention from the ducklings, acts as if she has a broken leg or a broken wing. That is what this $100
Urban Affairs
million program is designed to do. It is intended to divert the attention of the Canadian people from the high cost of homes and the inability of Canadians to buy them. You could call it a broken wing program. We set out yesterday that a proportion of municipal residential property taxes and interest on home mortgages should be deductible from a person's taxable income to give the purchaser of a home a little break. Goodness knows, surely today he has been squeezed and has suffered too long. We spoke about the interest rates. The whole program of the government must be examined.
We had the answer by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today with reference to rolling back interest rates, so we know the situation in that regard. People can no longer afford to pay high interest rates. I dealt with this yesterday and shall not repeat it today. If other countries can encourage lending institutions to put a certain amount of money in mortgages at lower interest rates, surely we can do the same. If other countries can have a lower rate of interest, surely Canada can measure up.
The problem apparently is the result of two factors, the maximum qualifying limit of income and the maximum amount of gross income CMHC permits to be spent on housing. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not approve a loan if a person must spend more than 25 per cent of his gross income for principal, interest and taxes. Thus the maximum price anyone can pay for a house under the plan is $26,000. This amount does not buy decent accommodation in any city, probably with one exception. Where can one buy a house today in Canada for $26,000? In some cities, as I indicated yesterday, such as Vancouver, Toronto and other large urban areas, there are lots worth $26,000. Yet yesterday the minister said these nice words:
The government is doing everything it can to persuade provinces and municipalities to use the funds available in order to solve the housing problem and the problem with regard to price.
Since this minister took over, and the minister before him, what program has the Liberal government ever implemented to freeze the cost of housing or shelter in Canada? The minister says that he has this big pile of money ready. He says, "Come and get it". Does he suggest that any provinces or municipalities are resisting this money he has to offer? Ask the mayor of Calgary, the mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of Toronto or the mayor of Montreal. I have letters from these gentlemen. They will give you the answer with reference to the glib comments the minister made yesterday.
I agree with the statements made yesterday by many members. I wish to refer in particular to one, that of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), when on March 13 he criticized the $100 million urban demonstration program. Since he spoke about this program, what this program is all about bears repeating so that the people of Granada can understand it. We find the following in the statement by the government:
We need to develop innovative projects to show the effective working of new methods of house design and house construction; to demonstrate the feasibility of nets, low energy urban systems; to illustrate new ways of getting the utmost value from scarce and expensive natural resources by recycling for multiple use; and to apply new technology ...
This is the study. I repeat it is a study which is costing the taxpayers $100 million, almost $55,000 per day for five

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
years. In his speech as recorded at page 454 of Hansard the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, the program announced by the government involves wrong spending at the wrong time and in a completely wrong area. The minister said in his statement that this is a 'demonstration program designed to foster projects that will find solutions to urban problems', and that it will also provide the foundation for Canada's participation in the 1976 United Nations Conference to be held, incidentally, in the city of Vancouver.
The minister said he wants this conference to be known as Habitat 2000.
I wondered whether he meant the year. Then, the hon. member continues:
I suggest in all seriousness that all this program is going to mean is $100 million down the drain,...
The New Democratic Party says this is $100 million down the drain and I agree with that statement 100 per cent.
... of no help to people in meeting housing requirements in Canada.
I endorse 100 per cent that statement by the New Democratic Party. I wish to refer to another statement, one made by a very knowledgeable member to whom I listen on many occasions with reference to housing. This is what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) had to say and I agree with his comments. This appears at page 820 of Hansard for March 25:
For months we have seen housing costs, including cost of land, mortgage interest rates and building materials, reach their highest peak and, in fact, become the highest costing component in the cost of living index across this country.
What has the Minister of State for Urban Affairs done, Mr. Speaker? He has done nothing. I looked at the Speech from the Throne but there was not one word about the housing problem in Canada.
Let me pause there for a few moments because of the words used by the hon. member for Broadview. Yesterday the minister spoke with great affection about the Speech from the Throne. It really did not say anything. The hon. member for Broadview continues:
There was not one mention of bringing forth legislation to deal with the housing problem. All he has done has been to make a statement last week with regard to an urban demonstration program, spending, as my hon. friend from Calgary North has said, $100 million over a period of five years.
Then, he came to the great crunch. The NDP member made a statement which I endorse when he said:
All these measures are like giving a starving elephant a peanut.
My answer to that is: what a big elephant and what a small peanut!
The minister spoke with great affection about the Speech from the Throne. The Liberals are fond of the word "rhetoric". Yesterday, every one of them used the word "rhetoric" as if they had just found it. It must have been the first time they found it in the dictionary. I want to give you an example of real rhetoric. I call as my witness the Speech from the Throne. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this is what it said. There is only one small paragraph in the Speech from the Throne in reference to housing.


An hon. Member:: And it's about sewers.
[Mr. Woolliams.l


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the hon. member, it is all about sewers. This program will mean $100 million down the sewer, down the drain. This is what the Speech from the Throne said. They are tremendous words. It is true rhetoric, and it reads as follows:
Provision of adequate shelter at reasonable prices in a satisfactory neighbourhood environment has been a continuing concern of the government,-
The people of Canada are not concerned about the concern of the government; they are concerned about action, about implementation of the program of the government. We know the government is sorry; we know they love power, and we know that their sympathy runs to the degree of power they want, and they want a whole lot of power. We know all that. The paragraph goes on:
-and levels of funding to meet this objective are being reviewed.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what it is costing the Canadian people to review them? It is costing $100 million, $55,000 every day for five years for a review. The government says that they wish to defend the taxpayers of Canada with such a program. The ministers asked why we did not listen to the Speech from the Throne. The paragraph goes on to read:
Substantial assistance to rural and native housing programs will also be proposed.
We had a statement on that and we found it to be another lot of rhetoric.
The sewage assistance program will be revised-
Does that mean that sewers will be made larger, smaller or will be extended?
-to make it more effective as a means to increase the supply of serviced land. The government will introduce measures to increase the protection available to consumers in the housing market.
It did not take me very long to sum that up. That is what the minister spoke about. It was all in the Speech from the Throne. Every day the cost of housing goes up. I can bring to your attention every day, as someone else in the House did, the cost of housing in some cities which has gone up by 30 per cent. Yesterday I spoke about a house which eight years ago cost $25,000 and now costs $85,000. Serviced land continues to increase in price. Yet, as the NDP said, we are pouring $100 million down the drain. That is why we repudiate the government and we repudiate this plan as being totally diversionary. It is a tactic on the part of the government to cover up something for which they have no solution, that is, galloping inflation. The necessities of men and women in Canada today have become luxuries, and this is caused by lack of control of domestic inflation. One of the top priorities should be to look after the essentials of the average man in Canada. Those essentials have now become luxuries.
Analysing what was said in the Speech from the Throne, one finds that the government has no solution for the national housing crisis and finds no way to ease the burden of the purchaser, of the average person on a small or fixed income. As you watch this government day by day, you find that it is paralyzed and unable to do anything; it is bankrupt of ideas. Do I need to say any more except to ask every member of the House to support this motion? I ask that every member of the House, wherever he may sit, to search his own conscience and to condemn
March 26, 1974

this spending of $100 million, and tonight by deed instead of words show the government of Canada that he stands with the people of Canada and the representatives of Canada in this House.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House states, in the words of the hon. member who has just sat down, that the urban demonstration program and the supporting fund of $100 million that I announced some two weeks ago is a diversionary tactic. Having now listened to the hon. member twice in two days, which is almost too much, I can only say that we are having a motion on diversionary tactics written by an expert in diversion.
I regret very much the reaction of the hon. member and of other hon. members in the House to my announcement of two weeks ago. It may well have resulted from the timing of the announcement which could have been made on a much better day. It may have resulted from the nature of the announcement two weeks ago about the urban demonstration fund. However, the reason may be that the philosophy of the Official Opposition is to oppose change and to oppose innovation and improvement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Their reaction may well be a deliberate misinterpretation of my statement two weeks ago, and I challenge the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) to read that statement again and to clear up his own obvious and deliberate misconception about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Finally, I believe that there is a misunderstanding among some members of the House and some members of the media, based on an honest misconception of what the urban demonstration program and fund are expected to accomplish, and it is to that honest misunderstanding and misconception that I want to address my remarks today.
First, the demonstration program is not another research program. I state unequivocally here today that it is not a five year research binge, as the hon. member described it; it is not intended to fund research projects and it will not fund them. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North and also the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) were concerned that this was a research project. If the program and the fund were intended for such purposes they would not have had my support. I agree with what one hon. member said, that we have been researched to death in this country. Our urban problems call for action and not for further research. The demonstration program and fund are intended to support such action. They are for real projects with real answers to real problems.
Second, the demonstration program is not a study program, and I challenge the hon. member for Calgary North to find the word "study" in that statement or any other statement that has been issued in relation to the program. We have had an over abundance of urban studies in this country, I agree.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear!
Urban Affairs


Stanley Ronald Basford: One of my problems-some of it contributed by the hon. member opposite who has just yelled "hear, hear"-is sifting through the various studies and the welters of paper in order to develop policies.
Third, Mr. Speaker, the demonstration program is not a gimmick, as the hon. member suggests, devised solely for the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements. Probably a few projects from the program will be advanced for this important international conference, but the goal of the program is Canadian projects which are solving real Canadian problems, or can be made to solve Canadian problems. The program is designed to benefit communities across Canada, regardless of size and regardless of location, on an equitable geographical basis.
Where the hon. member for Calgary North's absolute misconception is obviously apparent lies in the fact that the demonstration program is not a substitute, and is not put forward as a substitute for a housing program. The expenditure of $20 million in the fiscal year 1975, which does not start until next spring, or in 1976, 1977, 1978 or 1979 clearly would have no visible impact at all on our immediate housing needs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course, it wouldn't.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member makes a great deal of that. This shows his total misconception of the objectives. For the opposition to suggest that we devote project funds of this scale to our housing needs would be laughable if it did not indicate a total lack of perception and understanding. This year in this country we will be spending over $6 billion on housing alone, apart from other urban matters such as transportation. The federal government's contribution to that expenditure will be about $114 billion. Those are actual federal dollars being spent in the calendar year 1974 for housing and related projects and programs.
As one newspaper, the Globe and Mail, commented editorially, it is time to use ideas that are on the table, to get good ideas off the shelf and implemented. That is the express purpose of this fund. It has been my experience, and the experience of others, that this country is full of good ideas to solve many urban problems, housing problems, transportation problems and others. But it takes an injection of government leadership and government cash to get those ideas and solutions off the table, to use the words of the Globe and Mail, and into operation, into bricks and mortar. That is what this program is for, and that is what the fund will finance. It will finance action on ideas, action to reduce costs, action on projects, action to make good ideas workable, action to put two or more ideas together into a better solution to urban problems, action to show new ways of doing things, or ways of adapting existing methods to new demands-in short, action to implement, in every region across Canada, solutions to the problems facing Canadian communities.
I admit to being surprised and disconcerted by the reaction which greeted my announcement of the demonstration program and its supporting fund, but not for the reasons advanced in the House by members of the Conservative party. This demonstration program, Mr. Speaker,
870

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
can be put to immediate, practical implementation in every region of the country, and in communities of every size. I reiterate that there are many programs, and many projects and ideas which can use the "lift-off"-a word coined by the present generation-that can be generated by this fund and this program.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I have visited the city of Vernon in British Columbia, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a city which has shown great leadership in developing a new way of removing not 90 per cent, not 95 per cent, not 98 per cent of the effluent from its sewer system flowing into the beautiful Okanagan water basin, but of removing 100 per cent, thereby producing a method of preserving in perpetuity the complete purity of that water. The city needs some financial support and I have committed support to it. I only hope that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Vernon, for the fourth time this year, he will inform the mayor of Vernon that the Conservative party is opposed to that kind of project, to that kind of real work being done on an Okanagan problem.
We have talked a lot in this House about Metis and native housing, and about the need to solve the housing problems of those people. The hon. member ridiculed my statement the other day, my statement which was well received by the leaders of that group. One thing the native and Metis associations say in all their briefs is that they need financial support in the northern prairies, in Northern Ontario and in Northern British Columbia to build houses designed not for Toronto or Winnipeg, but houses suitable for the north, using local labour and local products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope the Conservative party will point out to Tony Belcourt and the other native leaders that that party is opposed to their using this kind of program.
There are proposals for the complete redevelopment of many of the waterfront areas in Canada, for example of the waterfront in the city of Halifax. Without going into the details of the project or referring to private participation in that program and the roles of the various governments, may I say it seems to me that if we can take the heart of Halifax and redevelop that waterfront in a new and better way, then we should do it. We should give the project every possible encouragement and support. I only hope that the next time the Leader of the Opposition is in Halifax he will tell the mayor that he is opposed to that kind of approach to the problems in the city of Halifax, or for that matter in the city of Vancouver, where we have somewhat the same proposal in mind.
In my speech yesterday I talked about new methods of dealing with human waste disposal. I hope to have, in operation, in the city of Toronto by the end of 1974, not in some professor's laboratory but in a real building in the city of Toronto, one of these new methods which, if successful, as I am convinced it will be, could reduce the cost of a serviced lot in Metro Toronto, or anywhere else, by several thousands of dollars. Now, I am delighted to have it on the record that the Conservative party is opposed to seeking these kinds of solutions to our housing and urban problems.
IMr. Basford.]
We have passed legislation in this House to provide government leadership and support for the repair and rehabilitation of older core areas in our cities and towns. This will require the imaginative use of that land. Municipal leaders all across the country have plans to go into these older areas and construct low density housing quarters in them. That is the kind of project that could be supported under the demonstration program, to show mayors and councils how to redevelop the older cores of their cities. But the Conservative party is opposed to that kind of approach.
The other day the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby spoke to me about relocation of the airport in Oshawa and converting it into 600 acres of residential land. Yesterday I met with an Oshawa planner in Toronto and discussed this project with him. I have instructed my officials to look into this situation. There are transportation difficulties and financial difficulties but if we can solve them, and if by the use of imagination we can show how to relocate an airport and use that land for residential purposes, surely that is the kind of experimental project, the kind of innovative project we should be supporting. Therefore I hope for the support of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by to this kind of approach.
Each Canadian is the producer of one ton of garbage annually. Perhaps the figure is higher on the opposite side of the House. That amount is increasing year by year, and conventional land fill sites are being moved farther and farther outside city boundaries, to the disgust of city taxpayers and rural residents. The garbage can be pulverized and burned, which not only reduces it to a small residue but provides steam power which can be sold by municipalities. This is another demonstration project that needs to be considered. Hon. members opposite laughed at that suggestion but yesterday in the debate the same suggestion came from the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who said this is one of the urban problems in this country which must be solved.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member over there-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -in the official opposition, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and others, are aware that the current housing programs of this government will produce 250,000 units or more of housing in this period 1974.


An hon. Member:: At what price?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The demonstration program and fund are intended to complement that, to support it, to extend what we are doing in housing and the broader field of urban affairs. It is intended to generate solutions to transit problems, to environmental problems, to energy problems and so forth. It is a program of action to generate solutions, just as our housing program is action to generate new and better housing and greater access to housing for all Canadians.
In his speech, the hon. member sought the support of all members of the House for this motion, sought the support
March 26, 1974

of the New Democratic Party and of the Social Credit Party. The group sitting opposite is the official opposition, thirsting and salivating for power. They have put forward a motion that is a subterfuge, a silly parliamentary strategy designed for no other purpose than to embarrass me and the other parties in this House.


An hon. Member:: That is impossible!


Stanley Ronald Basford: It seems to me that members of the New Democratic Party and of the Social Credit Party are interested in motions that will show the money for housing legislation that is being passed to provide-


An hon. Member:: You missed a bit!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -housing in this country. This motion, Mr. Speaker, will not add one red cent to housing in 1974. This year we are budgeting $114 billion for housing. This motion, even if it passed, would not add one red cent to that program.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, raises no money for housing in 1974; this Conservative motion, Mr. Speaker, proposes not to build one house in 1974; this motion, Mr. Speaker, that we are asked to vote for and which would result in bringing down the government, does not even propose to build one house. Surely, the members of this House in all parties are entitled, rather than that kind of subterfuge, to a motion setting forth the policy of this group which claims it is entitled to be the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, they have just been bragging that they had a great meeting ten days ago in which their policies were determined. Yet, two weeks or ten days after that meeting they are not able to set down in this House by way of a motion of no-confidence, a constructive alternative housing program for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I see I am getting to hon. members opposite who are becoming extremely noisy. They wave a document called "Prepared for the Challenge" which the spokesman for the party called his policy statement. Yesterday another hon. member was quick to point out tnat it was not a policy statement but only discussion papers, some parts of which were stolen from the policy of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yesterday, this group that is unable to offer a constructive alternative housing program by way of a motion, through the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn), criticized and ridiculed the various programs for housing that I am going to talk about in a moment. Only ten months ago he voted for those programs. I remind him that he voted, as did the Conservative Party, for amendments to the National Housing Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yet last night they got up and ridiculed the repair and rehabilitation and the assisted home ownership programs as well as other programs that are now beginning to come into effect. The vote of the hon. member for
Urban Affairs
Mississauga is obviously not worth a tinker's damn. Obviously, he means nothing when he rises solemnly in his place and votes, like the rest of them over there, for a piece of legislation and criticizes it afterwards.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) said last night that the trouble with housing is too much government interference. Then, he said that we should have regional land banks in the country. We already have federal-provincial land banks, land assembly programs and now federal-municipal land banking programs. They want to complicate that with a third tier of regional land banks but I am not sure for what purpose. Let us first make sure that the existing provisions apply.
In addition, the hon. member for Calgary North is opposed to my proposal for a demonstration fund. He says it is a research program, but it is not. But even the projects I have mentioned are mentioned in their own programs. In the document "Prepared for the Challenge"-Housing and Urban Affairs" appears the following:
... an examination of improved methods of handling refuse collection and disposal in our large metropolitan areas.
Obviously, their program is to study and research those things but not to have any money to implement them. In another section their program refers to developing new ways of providing "pollution free rapid transit systems". More study and research on rapid transit systems without any money to implement the solutions! That is a great party but it is certainly not ready to take office tonight- or any other time.
We have had two days debate on housing and that is a good thing because it smoked out the Tories as not standing for anything or, when they do, standing for totally conflicting ideas.
Yesterday I outlined in detail the government's housing program at page 824 of Hansard. This government has introduced far reaching legislation, has given effect to more new housing assistance programs, and in recent years has built more housing than any other Canadian government.
I would remind hon. members of the recent amendments to the National Housing Act which provided for more assistance than ever before to low and moderate income people who enjoy the kind of housing they need, either as tenants or owners or supporters of non-profit or co-operative organizations. These programs are now coming into effect and every day more and more Canadians are applying them to their needs. For example, in the assisted home ownership program, even without change, I would expect some 18,000 families to benefit this year.
In terms of the capital available to minimum cost, nonprofit community groups and co-operatives which are prepared to acquire or build low rental housing for the use of their neighbours, including the elderly and those on fixed incomes, this government is running, through those amendments and its budget, the most generous, forward looking and progressive support program for the elderly that this country has ever seen. This act provides that the non-profit housing groups which are building senior citizens' housing, have more complete legislative, financial and administrative support. We are continuing to provide public housing to those people who find it the best solu-
27398-56*

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
tion for their needs and we are continuing to improve this kind of housing, physically and socially. Last year we committed $173 million to this program. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) asked about this today in the question period. Mr. Speaker, I have a meeting with the provincial minister in British Columbia to discuss that and other issues on Friday afternoon and to deal with some of the problems out there.
I will have to rush to complete my remarks in time. The neighbourhood improvement program is now under way, coupled with the rehabilitation and repair program of going back into older neighbourhoods, revitalizing, using and re-using the housing stock that is in those areas.
I mentioned earlier the statement I made on rural and native housing programs by which we will help people to build or acquire up to 50,000 housing units in the next five years on terms which even the poorest will be able to afford. I intend to discuss starting Thursday night, with all of the provinces the implementation of that program to ensure that those targets can be realized so that we can get going for this summer's construction season.
Hon. members are familiar with the initiatives we have undertaken. I repeat them here for the benefit of those who are fond of saying that we have done nothing and have no policy. These measures are giving more assistance to more Canadians to acquire more and different kinds of good housing than ever before.
In addition to those policies which are obviously aimed at the question of distribution of housing, how do you give greater access to housing to those with difficulties? I, like other hon. members, welcomed the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) this morning as to the extension of the Veterans Land Act which will be introduced into this House very shortly. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, we have to keep this parliament going in order to pass my colleague's very good legislation. Those are programs aimed at the redistribution of housing. They are aimed at the distribution problem.
One of the problems in this and in other countries is that most of the building industry and development industry has consistently been building expensive housing, housing for the top part of the market rather than for the middle and bottom parts. Government policies must not only be aimed at pumping government money directly into housing, as we are doing in unprecedented amounts, over $1 billion, but also aimed at getting the builders of this country to respond to the needs of the average Canadian in ways they have never done before with modest accommodation at modest cost.
One way is through the assisted home ownership program which is aimed directly at assisting people in income ranges of up to $12,000 per year by reducing the monthly payment on principle, interest and taxes and reducing interest to an effective rate of 6 per cent.


Mr. Grafftey:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member's province uses the program widely. The price levels for houses covered by the

assisted home ownership program and the income levels to be assisted were set for the first time under this new program some 12 months ago. We have now had experience with the program. It is working in many markets. Hon. members, even in yesterday's debate, complained that it is not working in some market areas across Canada. Having had the experience we have had, we are now able to reassess the program.
I have said that priorities will be given in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs and budget to those areas where the housing market is the most difficult. This applies to the assisted home ownership program and in those markets such as Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa where the housing market is the tightest. We must assess the levels of support, the levels of income and the price levels of the assisted home ov/nership program in order to make sure it will work in the hardest markets such as Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa and give them priority. We intend to use the assisted home ownership budget of over one quarter billion dollars to assist those in greatest difficulty and as a means of getting builders to respond to the needs of lower and middle levels of the housing market in ways they have not done before.
Second, through the National Housing Act and other lending agencies, we have endeavoured over the years to provide financing to the builders of lower and modest priced housing. The various lending requirements set out under different lending statutes have not been examined for some time. I have asked for a review of loan-levels, loan amounts, downpayment requirements and other regulations to determine the changes that should be made to slow down high cost and luxury construction and, by way of both the carrot and the stick, get lenders aiming more resources at low and moderate priced housing.
In today's question period, the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) asked whether I would simply raise the lending limit of CMHC above $30,000. I do not think that is the sole answer, but I can understand it coming from members opposite who want their builders to be able to get bigger loans. The last time that was done, the building spokesman-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. He can, however, continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that if my voice begins to falter during the course of my remarks, it has nothing to do with the intensity of political debate in the House today, but very much to do with the medical fact that I have the flu and a temperature hovering around 100 degrees. I just say that in advance.
The motion before us basically has two important parts to it. One concerns the program announced by the minister two weeks ago tomorrow, the urban demonstration program. The other is the more general question concerning
March 26, 1974

the adequacy of the government's housing program. In the course of my remarks, I want to say something about both.
It is important to be aware in this House that there is, in terms of commitment, an acceptance on the part of the New Democratic Party that housing has to be established now and has to be done at the federal level to ensure that it has a national foundation. Housing has to be established as a basic right of Canadian citizenship in the way that, after some serious years of work and development, education many decades ago and more recently medicare were established as basic rights for all citizens. We begin on that assumption and then ask how we have to deal with the economy in any given situation to ensure that that assumption can be fulfilled.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Say something useful.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says, say something useful. That brilliant, incisive repartee came from a member to my right. I listened to the official spokesman for the Conservative party two days in a row and heard nothing but highly convoluted rhetoric. There was not one systematic demonstration of any thinking that supposedly went on at his party's convention just over a week ago, where presumably they developed an urban affairs program. There was no outline of what that party intends to do. I say to my hon. friend, with all the modesty I can muster, will he kindly shut up and listen to what I have to say. Perhaps he will learn something about social philosophy and, related to that, something about what the hell can be done in terms of practical reality in Canada. Our party takes both of those objectives seriously. I know it is difficult for a Conservative to understand that kind of approach in politics, but I ask him to be patient and at least allow an exponent of that view to have his say.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted in such a silly fashion, our party begins with the assumption that we have to organize our economy to ensure that a right to housing is established for all Canadians. I should like to refer to a series of articles which appeared some four weeks ago in the New Yorker magazine, hardly a paragon of socialist thought. They were written by a man named Goodwin who raises this subject in a most serious, imaginative and coherent way. He deals with the kind of question I am trying to raise about housing. What he says in terms of all our human priorities, and he is speaking as a thoughtful American, is that the economy has got out of control, totally beyond the control of individual action. What he called for, in his pessimistic conclusion, was a reinjection of action from below, right outside the political sphere, the ultimate objective being that people should get control of the economic system to provide for the kind of social objectives which our community so badly needs. Hon. members to my right in the Conservative Party continue, of course, in their merry 18th Century way, with the exception of two or three honourable and thoughtful members. The rest of them still come out with notions which I thought had disappeared a decade after Adam Smith. So much for a rhetorical reaction to a rhetorical outburst.
Urban Affairs
The approach to housing by both the government and the Conservative party has been essentially to tinker with the market system. That has been the overriding approach to meeting this social objective. It would be as absurd as to have used such an approach to solve our education needs, or to have taken that approach during the debates on medicare in the 'fifties and 'sixties. We gave it up then, we took those areas of the life out of the market system, but the old parties still want to leave housing within that framework and under the control of the market economy. I think that when you begin with such an assumption you begin with a fundamental error which will have a significant impact on all the "practical" proposals you make as a government or as an official opposition.
I do not intend to trot out all the statistical information which was provided by myself during my contribution in the debate on the Address, and, indeed, provided by other members in my party as well as members of other parties in recent weeks-


Mr. Gilbert:: The Tories did not bother to speak on housing in that debate.


John Edward Broadbent: That's right. The Conservative party offered no spokesman on housing during the debate on the Address. I shall not document what has been documented by myself and others in recent weeks here. The fact is, we have housing crisis of very significant proportions, particularly in urban Canada, partly because we now find the post world war two babies coming on to the housing market. We had them in terms of a crisis in elementary schools and we had them at the high school level a few years ago, we had them at the university level and now they are married and having children of their own so they are on the housing market creating a problem the like of which we have not seen before in housing. It will get worse during the next few years. What is required?
Let me just mention at this point the project, Urban Demonstration. Is this what is required to deal with that kind of crisis? Do we need to spend $100 million to do even what the minister has outlined today? I will just go back a bit on that. When the minister came into the House two weeks ago tomorrow and made his announcement on a day when we had just been reminded once again of the escalation in the cost of living, he said nothing about what the real details of that program were to be. He provided us with not one whit of information of the kind he outlined in his speech this afternoon. So I, for one, am somewhat reassured that the objectives of that $100 million program are in principle good ones, and I would say that at least in principle the $100 million program is a good one now. Two weeks ago I thought, in terms of what the minister himself had said, in terms of the limited information we were given in this House, it was going to be money wasted.
But I want to add immediately that in terms of our priorities in allocating $100 million, it is still my judgment that it is the wrong spending at the wrong time and for the wrong program. I do not retract that judgment. I do modify the statement I made that I thought the spending was going to be totally wasted. I do not think it will be totally wasted. I simply think, in terms of meeting the pressing problem, we need to spend in other areas. What are those other areas?

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
It seems to me this is where we do not need further research. We do not need more projects or demonstrations of any kind. The areas in which we have to act are those of interest rates and land, very traditional areas. Nothing innovative in terms of ideas is required, but something innovative in terms of cutting into our economic structure is required. That is why neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party has been prepared up to this point to move in the required direction. I can certainly speak with considerable assurance about the Conservative Party because I have read their program on housing, though I am still not sure if it constitutes official policy or not. Apparently the Conservatives hold conventions and pass resolutions but they do not have the force of policy, which is certainly convenient. Anyway, the statement on housing and urban matters which emerged from that convention had nothing substantial to say in terms of dealing with the interest rate question or the land question, both of which make up the guts of the housing problem for Canadians today. They by-passed them completely.
The present government with its batch of programs passed by the House last year made a significant start in the right direction and all parties in the House supported those programs. But it is now 1974, and we can see that average and low-income people particularly in urban Canada are simply not benefitting. Eighty per cent of Canadians in urban Canada get no benefit from the urban programs which were passed by parliament last year. It is this category of person we need to be dealing with now in terms of further legislative change.
What can be done? I will say what can be done immediately at the federal level. It requires 30 seconds of repetition; it has been said by me many times. First, change the Bank Act and other federal financial legislation to make it mandatory that our financial institutions put up at no profit and indeed, in that section of their investment at current rates of interest, at some loss, mortgage money at 6 per cent for housing. We say that without hesitation, Mr. Speaker, because we believe that the financing of housing should be a social obligation. We need money to enable people to get homes to live in, just as we need money to build schools and to finance medicare. We cannot have human existence dictated to or controlled by a market system that makes it impossible, because of the interest rate structure, for ordinary people to derive these benefits. Therefore, we say that we must direct our financial institutions to make available mortgage money at 6 per cent.
Secondly, in terms of land banking, if the minister does want to take some action within the next few weeks or months, I know that some 50,000 acres of quick start land is available. The officials in his own department conducted a study, presumably for the minister, which revealed that in 15 urban areas of Canada there are 50,000 acres of available land for housing. With provincial agreement the minister could acquire these 50,000 acres and put up some 250,000 housing units. Then, not because this is a fantastically new idea, but because it is an innovation in the structure and the history of housing construction in Canada, these 50,000 acres should be retained under public ownership, with the houses only being sold.

Doing this would cut the cost of these 250,000 units by anywhere from $8,000 to $12,000 per unit. This saving in cost would be retained in perpetuity, because the person who buys one of these units would not be free to sell it on the open market; rather he would have to sell it back to the original housing authority for the original price he paid, with some allowance for inflation, any improvements he might have made to the unit, and with no capital gains tax being applicable. I say that this is a direct and useful concrete proposal that is more feasible than any we have heard in two days of wind from the Conservative party. If the government of Canada would like to act in a meaningful way to deal with the housing problem, then it could do so by adopting this idea.
In this particular area of policy the British Columbia government has already set an important precedent. This has been done essentially in the city of Kamloops, where 45 acres of land has been given to the city on the condition that the land is kept under public ownership and houses are erected on the site. This saves the new occupiers of those housing units $10,000 to $12,000 a unit. This is the kind of practical, innovative action that is required. This is the kind of change that we need in land policy, with the government acting as a large developer. We also need a change in the policies of our financial institutions so we can deal in a substantial way with interest rates.
This brings me, then, to the basic question: Do we at this time, over a $100 million item, decide that we must bring down the government tonight? It has already been indicated that if we did so, the VLA legislation which is required would not be introduced later this week, and this is a factor not to be dismissed. However, I am not speaking on the VLA matter, I am speaking about housing, and I want to deal exclusively with the argument in those terms. In the judgment of the New Democratic Party, the two areas requiring action-that is to say, land speculation in terms of taxation changes, and whatever innovation may be expected in terms of interest rates-are both budgetary items. What we are saying is that it would be wrong on this particular motion to bring down the government on housing policy. We do not say that the government's housing policy, as I have made clear in general terms this afternoon and as I outlined in greater detail two or three weeks ago, is by any means adequate. We intend between now and the date of the budget to continue to press, to badger, to cajole this government into taking appropriate action to deal with housing in the budget. If no appropriate action is taken by then, then the House can watch our vote.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take a few moments to comment on the motion of the Progressive Conservative Party. I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who introduced it.
In my opinion, this is a very current issue since the federal government, through the Ministry of Urban Affairs, does not seem to have met the legitimate expectations of Canadians as concerns housing. Several programs have been introduced by this government since 1968. But they have only taken care of the most pressing problems. In many cases, because of their complexity, they have
March 26, 1974

even impeded housing developments in Canada, which has caused an increase in the number of homeless people, who are still waiting for a roof over their heads, and a home of their own. In Canada, it would be normal that everyone have his own house, even the poorest people.
In the last five or six years, many studies have been made to establish who should own a house, who should get the money required to buy one, and should be granted a loan to do so.
That question, Mr. Speaker, is twofold: First, is housing an absolute necessity; and, must the necessity to have a house serve to make the rich grow richer?
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, especially since family housing has been encouraged, the demand having grown considerably, it seems increasing efforts are being made to promote construction; loan companies have taken advantage of the situation, with the blessing of the government and especially that of the Department of Finance, to increase interest rates, which has resulted in increasing considerably the income of loan companies.
I congratulate the former speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who spoke of housing loans at rates exceeding 5, 5.5 and 6 per cent. No homeowner, no average man or worker can afford the luxury of paying a higher rate of interest. I cannot insist on this too much. I would even go so far as to say that municipalities, which also borrow from trust companies to service lands, for sewers, waterworks, paving, streets, should be financed through a bank act, or else the government should give the provinces the money required to finance thoses services, that their cost not fall back on the new owners.
Mr. Speaker, municipal services are now very costly. For instance, the town planner who draws up plans now charges $20 per 65 by 100 lot in new developments. The surveyor charges $80; sewers, water mains, asphalting and sidewalks cost $75 per lineal foot; that means $4,525 for two owners, one on each side of the street. It therefore costs $2,262.50 to each owner. The municipality must be reimbursed that amount over 20 years at a rate of 9.75 per cent, which again means $254.80 for each owner. If an owner pays $325 or $328 in school and municipal taxes for a detached house valued at $17,500, he has to pay much more than $500 in taxes for those services. Mr. Speaker, this represents some $50 a month. It is impossible for a man to purchase a house and pay only $50 a month for services and taxes. Considering the costs of a loan from a financial institution or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at 9 3/8 per cent and if the purchaser has paid $2,000 or $2,500, he has bought a house which he will never own, because he will never live long enough to pay his house. Unless his conditions change, he never has any bad luck and things always go quite well he will never pay his house. He might say, I bought a house and after four or five years I got tired of it and I sold it because the facts show that nearly 100 per cent of houses are resold within the first seven years. The owner is tired of it because he thought he had bought a house of his own but at a certain moment he woke up and realized he was supporting trust companies.
Urban Affairs
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, interest rates increased from 83/4 per cent to 9 7/8 per cent, not including the increase of !4 of 1 per cent soon to be announced. If it remains at 9 7/8 per cent, including life insurance mortgage coverage, it is obvious irrespective of any study program the hon. minister might come up with that no progress will ever be made. It is impossible, there is nothing to do but to go around in circles.
I congratulate the minister and his cabinet colleagues for making available $100 million to Central Mortgage and Housing to innovate and look for Solutions. The minister said earlier this was not a research program but I do not agree with the minister because surely part of that $100 million must be for research.
He also said he expected about twenty building programs to be set up and prototype assessments to be made to improve the construction system. I congratulate him for that. But I feel there is a loophole in his statement when he says it is difficult to promote and support innovation. That money will allow for various initiatives to be made incorporating desirable innovations that are impracticable without this additional support. Therefore, I ask that this fund come under no existing federal program but that it be rather used on a discretionary basis, according to situations and circumstances.
The minister should explain, however, what he means by the word "discretionary". Does he mean existing projects at the finishing or completion stage of development or new projects that will set aside for "discretionary" action?
Moreover, the minister intends to administer the program and the fund in such a way as to emphasize innovation as much as possible. I quite agree on this point. I believe that within the next five years, this initial investment of $100 million will give rise to a wide range of projects worth much more. I agree with the minister because when ^ne refers to -the studies whose findings were made public in December 1970, special studies on housing, and in view of the fact that since 1970, developments have not been occurring as fast as they should have in the construction area in order to build houses for those who need them, I think that there is an urgent need, as the minister said, for us to find new outlets or new ways of financing new projects.
This study conducted in 1973 and made public by the former Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), was very well done, and I hope that the minister will refer to it. If he has read it already, he will read it again in order to understand it fully and to improve this situation. This study deals with city slums. If you went about for a few days during the parliamentary recess and looked into the investments guaranteed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in big cities, you would be frightened, Mr. Speaker.
With our money, with the taxpayers' money, they demolish houses which still seem pretty good instead of repairing them. After they are demolished, those houses are replaced by 25-, 30- or 40-storeyed skycrapers with small rooms of barely 8 feet by 9, or 9 feet by 12. As far as

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
windows are concerned, sometimes there is only one or none at all, for lack of space.
Such is the situation in Toronto and in downtown Montreal and Winnipeg. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal financiers who managed to start a project sponsored under the CMHC urban renewal program or the federal-provincial urban renewal scheme had some very good houses torn down on Dorchester Boulevard in Montreal. That is where you come from, Mr. Speaker, you must be aware of that. What are they doing with these properties now? Nothing at all. For lack of funds, these financiers who own the land are doing nothing, because the City of Montreal made other plans. Even if they do nothing, they still own these properties. What are they waiting for? They are waiting for the prices to go up. They wait till they can build skyscrapers and make profits. And all that with our money.
This must change. First there is need, I think, for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to gain nearly complete control over investments. I mean that large financing institutions like banks and trusts, having their headquarters in cities-as the Montreal Trust and the Royal Trust in Montreal or Toronto-endeavour as much as possible to make important loans to large cities.
Within a few years, we will come to the stage now reached in New York. Everybody had to invest there. People are so stupid they will all stay in New York, so huddled together that it is impossible to walk in the streets because of crowds. The very same situation exists in Montreal.
Through government and according to financial guidelines given to him, the minister should forbid the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to approve such projects in order to protect man against himself. There should be no community so big that pollution and many other problems would fall upon us tomorrow.
The minister has indicated a moment ago that sewers were a source of problems in the cities, and I understand him. The way things are going, they can only become worse. All investments are made in the cities, nothing is left for rural areas. Many excuses are given to rural communities. However, there is air, nice lands, space to build to one's content. People can make gardens, grow flowers, and lead adequate lives. But this is met with numerous objections. Does everybody work in this region? Is employment stable?
I think most people nowadays forget that cars make it easy to commute 25 or 30 miles to work. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister's $100 million expenses, for I think that he has made extraordinary efforts to pull the government out of the present housing dilemma.
I hope he will continue in this way to improve the situation of the less fortunate so that one day they may find adequate housing at a reasonable price.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, ever since this minority government has been in power, this House has been given strange shows on many occasions. It has sometimes been funny, and even fascinating at times. Once more, today, we get a first rate performance. The official opposition has indicated to the government, on behalf of the people of Canada, that it is to blame

for wasting a sum of $100 million. A few weeks ago, the whole opposition was unanimous in making this kind of criticism against the government.
But a few minutes ago the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who had personally violently criticized the government, spoke on behalf of his party and reconsidered his opinion, declaring that he will manage to cast a confidence vote for the government tonight, and he said: Wait till the presentation of the budget, and watch our vote.
Well, that was another clownish somersault to which we are getting used, but not the Canadian people. When those members vote tonight, of course, there will be a huge burst of laughter in the House, which will be heard all across Canada. Those members too, along with the government, will have lost the confidence of Canadians. We were also treated to a show by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) who is a nice, easy-going fellow who has all our sympathy today. We felt that he was noticeably embarrassed, ill at ease, confused, and for good reason, faced with the almost impossible mission of bringing before Parliament a policy that did not even exist, of justifying before the Parliament the activities of a government which, in the particular area of inflation, has completely failed.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked right at the start to hear the minister complain along these lines: It is not the government that does not understand anything, it is not the government that is falling short of the target. And he explains that the misunderstanding and the ignorance of the press and the opposition are to blame for every thing. According to the minister, the press and the opposition are the ones who did not understand the great works planned by the government; it is right while everybody else is out of step.
Mr. Speaker, we had grown accustomed to such behaviour and wranglings from the government for some time. Today during the question period we had another example of the internal fights among the ministers who do not care about solidarity and are not pulling together. We were getting used to that. But today there is something else. When the minister admitted being unable to solve the housing problems of the country, he joined the ranks of all the other ministers who confessed their failures in the fields of transportation, communications, energy.
Mr. Speaker, we heard some rather extraordinary confessions recently. Those people got it off their chests, they made a clean breast of it all, they owned up to the whole country to being unable to solve the problems, they say they lacked the necessary means of powers and they should be forgiven for the failure since 1968. The situation reminds me of what happened at one point in the USSR where, after Stalin's death, everyone said to the population: Forgive us our mistakes, we shall not repeat them, we are now entering a new era.
Mr. Speaker, when I see the ministers contriving, it reminds me of a government of streakers which has become a household word. The members of the cabinet have pre-eminently become streakers. As streakers, they have stripped off their clothes, which are ideas, imagina-
March 26, 1974

tion and decisions. Thus divested, they do not even command attention and still less, Mr. Speaker, gain the confidence of the Canadian people.
Therefore it is against this background associated with the deplorable attitude of the government which saddens most of us, that we are going to consider its housing record.
The number of housing units for rent in Montreal for example, and elsewhere in Canada, based on-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I think the minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I listened with great interest to the hon. member speaking for the Conservative Party, but I hope by his remarks he was not suggesting I was streaking in the House of Commons.


Claude Wagner: Not al all, Mr. Speaker, it is mere fancy! But if it can comfort the minister, I would tell him that the way he showed who he really is is nothing compared to the moral strip off of the New Democratic members who supported the idea, but who decided this evening to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that the number of units for rent was decreasing in Montreal and in other parts of the country. Today, the government, via the minister, takes its stand on statistics given by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and dares state, as we all heard, that 1973 has proven to be the best year Canada has ever known in the field of housing construction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: You just heard the frantic and assiduous applause of the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Roy) and for Levis (Mr. Guay). I hope they will also receive the end of my speech with loud applause.
The minister should consider the revealing figures I am quoting. The number of units for rent in Greater Montreal decreased from 3 per cent in December 1972 to 2 per cent in December 1973. In Quebec City, in 1973, the number of available housing units has gone down from 5.5 per cent to 3.1 per cent. In other parts of the country, the situation is much more precarious and has reached such a point that you can definitely say there is a housing crisis in Canada.
I would say to the seemingly powerless Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who loves covering up problems with reports, studies and statistics, that a study released by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows that the number of available housing units, namely 2.1 per cent, is the lowest percentage in six years. I hear the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) applauding. This is a total failure and the lowest percentage in six years of administration by the self-styled just government, a past slogan gone with the wind.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which published today the highlights of its annual report is quite careful not to dwell on the rather somber outlook for the
Urban Affairs
next few months. It seems that the current interest rate and a shortage of building materials will lead to a decrease in residential construction in 1974. Those are premonitory signs of a serious housing crisis in Canada.
If the minister so-called responsible for housing does not believe in the relative decrease in available housing units, his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand), who also admits he is powerless, recognizes this phenomenon. But, mind you, it is only to claim that the quality of those same houses has improved.
And yet, as early as 1967, the Economic Council of Canada thought that one million Canadians were living in quite inadequate housing conditions. Incidentally, since a Minister of State does not have the powers of a Minister of Transport, who admitted to be powerless, I would say to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that insufficient consideration is given to some "lemon projects". Let him meet the owners of the "Prairies de Montreal" project. He will see how the standards of the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation have been disregarded and maybe how the inspectors did not care about them.
The average citizen is not adequately protected in the area of construction. The government agencies only pass the buck to each other; the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation claims it is only a loan agency, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has not enough powers, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) dares not or is unable to intervene.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, not only is the number of available housing units decreasing and does their quality of construction sometimes leave much to be desired, but, month after month, the government remains powerless before the increase in the cost of living in general and in the housing sector in particular.
Does the minister, who is not an agent, realize that the year 1973, as all Canadians and not only Quebecers well know, is truly remarkable in the home building sector because of the fact that housing costs have gone up by an average of more than 20 per cent?
The minister and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that 1973 is a record year for building. It is certainly a record year for the builders, especially because of their profits, but, along with all the people of Canada, I say that 1973 in the building sector was a record year for cost increases.
One can no longer rely only on government studies, all the more as their findings are not always made public. I am thinking of the famous Dennis report. Le Devoir referred to one of those studies on February 15 in the following terms, and I quote:
More and more, the single family home is only available to a small part of the population, namely those who can spend $300 a month on housing.
This is one point on which the New Democratic Party socialists should agree. This is a prohibitive price if one considers, for instance, that in April 1973, the average weekly income of a Quebecer was $149.94. And the upward trends are still very much with us.

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
The Montreal section of the urban renewal and housing association is anticipating for 1974 an increase of about 25 per cent over 1973. How can we explain such increases since, according to official statistics, building materials and labour have increased by only 10 per cent in 1973? And then some people will laugh at our policy to abolish the 11 per cent tax on building materials, and especially to freeze prices, profits and other incomes, in particular in the food and housing areas.
When anyone in my party speaks about a freeze, while it is common knowledge, it is not only of a wage freeze but a freeze on all Canadian factors of the cost of living, therefore a freeze on prices, profits and other incomes as well. To pretend the opposite, as the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) did recently, to pretend that the Progressive Conservative party merely demands a wage freeze that would affect the small earners, to pretend that is to show the worst kind of dishonesty.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must consider the following facts: a very low vacancy rate in housing, staggering rent, increases the prohibitive purchasing cost of single family houses, the smallness and the poor quality of the new dwellings and the government, particularly the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) are the firsts to speak highly of the housing achievements in 1973. Mr. Speaker, it is sheer thoughtlessness and they obviously are irresponsible.
My colleagues and particularly the dynamic hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) discussed the partial solutions proposed by our party as regards housing, which makes it unnecessary for me to do so. In this program the minister responsible would be really responsible for something and everything would be centered on the protection of the consumer and the expectations of the average family. This program demonstrates that the Progressive Conservative party is ready to accept the challenge and already presents a serious alternative to the present government as our party is ready to govern this country.
In view of the increasing price of building materials I shall merely remind you of the proposal I already made in this house to the effect that the government should set, in the case of certain materials, for instance asbestos, a price for domestic consumption and another higher price for exports. That is one way, among many others, of lowering the cost of housing, specially in Quebec.
In another vein, I must once again warn the present government, with regard to its laborious formulation of a housing policy, against its visceral tendency to take advantage of a crisis, or if need be to create one, and gradually take over jurisdictions that normally belong to the provinces.
A series of articles recently published in the daily La Presse proves, once again, how the present Liberal government, under the pretext of co-ordination, has reached the point where it wants to control all initiatives in the field of urban matters. As for me, I fear that the field in which the overly centralizing ambitions of the Liberal government will soon cause the provinces, of which Quebec in particular, to object, and rightly so, is precisely that of urban affairs.

Quebec should pull itself together before it is too late, assured as it can be that we are listening attentively.
Mr. Speaker, everything about the Ministry of Urban Affairs, its record, its objectives, its programs and even its orientation, as we very well find out today, is so confused and inadequate that we can no longer have confidence in the government. How could we in the circumstances-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, even though I was not given the same courtesy I would be happy to extend the time of the hon. member so that he may complete his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member more time?


Mr. Guay (Levis):: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but providing we shall hear not only criticisms, but really constructive proposals.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the ministers and members of this House for their generosity. To comply with the request from the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), I will be pleased to send him the working document containing our new dynamic and imaginative policy, which will be that of the next government very soon.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying a while ago that it was impossible, considering the present circumstances, to miss this opportunity of discussing the idea of a $100 million fund to promote, rather vaguely, from 1976 to 1981, initiatives that would bring about solutions to urban problems, initiatives in fact that would be the basis of our participation in the United Nations Conference and Exposition on Human Settlements scheduled for Vancouver in 1976.
We must reject that $100 million demonstration program because it is becoming a very costly diversionary tactic which cannot possibly assist in solving the existing housing crisis which I mentioned a while ago.
This government, having lost all sense of priorities, postpones its own commitments about which we have read in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this session.
Some of these agreements are somewhat outdated, like the relocation of railway lines and terminals within cities, suggestions which we had heard a great deal about before 1972, especially in Quebec City. There were other suggestions, of more recent vintage, concerning consumer protection on the real estate market, and finally this supercolour vision of housing in the year 2000. During the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, they lured us with bright and awe-inspiring projects of national parks for year 2000, and in case nobody remembers them, I am sure the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) could refresh our memory with advantage.
March 26, 1974

Why should Canada make itself conspicuous with the slogan "Habitat 2000" at the United Nations Conference-Exposition in Vancouver in 1973 if, after learning nothing from the Montreal "Habitat '67" project, it did not succeed as a rich country in making available from 1968 to 1976 to the average Canadian family a single family home?
Before concluding my speech, since I have two minutes left, I hasten to say that we, of the Official Opposition, are not the only ones to say that this program of $100 million in support of demonstration programs is an untimely decision in view of inflation, a fraud and window-dressing. Our colleagues of the Social Credit and of the New Democratic Party condemned it quite unequivocally today, yesterday and as soon as the program was announced. The NDP member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) compared it to the huge project of Habitat '67, and I spare this House his statement on the subject.
As a result, we have to take concrete steps today and the only weapon available to us is to show, through the motion before the House and by the vote we will have tonight, to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that the government is on a bad course in the area of housing.
In view of the failure, or at least of the serious procrastination of the government in the field of energy, inflation control and in view of its irresponsibility in the field of housing, we have to defeat it in order to enable the electors to choose as a government the representatives of a political party that is more familiar with the problems, that is more conscious of today's priorities and to give ourselves a new leadership, not a leadership like the one we witnessed during the question period today, tossed about between two ministers, two heads, two groups, and goodness knows what else!
If the Liberals have once again the hope to get tonight the support of the members of the New Democratic Party, the latter should realize that Canadians as a whole and very soon, on April 2 next, the citizens of Nova Scotia in particular, will judge very severely the vote of the New Democratic Party tonight.
Mr. Speaker, the question to ask oneself, and I conclude my remarks on this, is not whether we must defeat the government, but rather whether we have to let it administer the country from bad to worse another day and let it another day powerless in the face of its responsibility as national conciliator.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to point out to the House that I regret having given my unanimous consent, because I have heard nothing of substance from the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Roy (Laval):: No, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The unanimous consent of the House would be required, because the time of the hon. member has expired.
Urban Affairs


Claude Wagner: The hon. member may ask me a question, brief or otherwise, at any time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House consent?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fortin:: No, Mr. Speaker, we have wasted enough time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I have heard a "no". The House does not consent.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and a number of others who belong to the small "c" hard core of what used to be called the Progressive Conservative Party, must be very pleased with themselves today. The motion they have brought forward certainly does not indicate much hope in the small "c" conservative group for any progressive ideas.
The government of Canada has decided to launch a program which will allow at least 20, and I hope a lot more, practical projects across Canada, to be phased in over a five-year period. Hopefully some will be used to show the world what Canada can do to solve some of its urban problems in conjunction with the conference on man's urban environment which is to take place in Vancouver in 1976. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is an effort through which we in Canada can attempt to show the world what is possible in the way of solutions to the ever-growing urban problems of the world; surely, this effort for the brotherhood of man is worthy of more support than the kind of motion of non-confidence put to this House today. The progressive section of the Conservative Party, if that section remains at all, must be a disillusioned group in this House today.
I declared yesterday my whole-hearted support for this program that the official opposition chooses to view so cynically. They pretend that the money spent to help make Canadian cities better places to live in, ignores the needs of Canadians. The small "c" conservative group in the House chooses to pretend that a program which will allow for innovation in housing, urban transit and urban pollution control, somehow denies Canadians who are in need of a home, that very home. It chooses to pretend that the fund is just for housing; it chooses to pretend that the fund is for airy-fairy research study projects when it knows no government in its right mind would try to sell this kind of research to people whose needs are pressing and vital. No government would propose the kind of program that the opposition pretends this program is.
Mr. Speaker, opposition members choose to overlook the fact that the urban demonstration program is more than just a fund-it is also a means of exchanging the best solutions that Canadians in all parts of Canada have found for urban problems. This program is one of the most exciting ventures undertaken anywhere in the world to attack, solve, and demonstrate solutions to urban problems. It will give Canada a major innovative capability in

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
responding to the urban challenge which confronts us. Mr. Speaker, we need this kind of capability and we need it now.
During the balance of the seventies and through the eighties we can foresee a continued high rate of urban growth stemming from a high rate of family formation and continuing movement of people to our larger towns, cities and metropolitan areas. Between 1970-1975 the average number of marriages in Canada will run at 205,000 annually. Between 1975-1980 the marriage figure will jump to 234,000 annually. Net family formation in the late sixties amounted to 110,000 annually. The projected number between 1970-1975 is 118,000 annually. And between 19751980 it will be 133,000 annually.
The decisions taken, and innovations adopted, over the next few years will largely determine the shape of urban Canada through the turn of the century. In fact, between now and the year 2000 we could add as many as 12 million people to Canadian cities. This means six cities the size of Toronto, although I fervently hope we can prevent that kind of concentration from taking place, and that we will have a better division of population across the country.
Canada, of course, is not unique in this. We are somewhat unique, however, in that we can look upon this not so much as a frightening prospect as a great opportunity. Unlike so many parts of this world, we really do have the opportunity to shape our urban future and to create communities, new and old, that are human and livable and for people. We have an excellent foundation on which to build; none of our present cities have passed the point of manageability. And we have the technology, skills and imagination.
What we need are ways and means to release this imagination and skill and to focus it on solving our urban problems, on creating environments of all kinds in which people will want to live. In order to do this, we will have to support small communities and medium sized communities as well as large communities. And we will have to develop new communities to check sprawl and concentration and to support resource development.
When we talk about new communities, we have provided Canadian municipalities and provinces with legislation to permit the establishment of new towns and cities. There have been two significant moves in this direction; the Pickering airport land holds promise in this regard as does the southeast city acquisition where we will, I hope sooner rather than later, have two new cities developing that will show the way to all of Canada what can be done when you plan development. Members on both sides of the House should, when they have the opportunity, visit one or two of the new cities in the United States or in the United Kingdom to see just what planning from the beginning does for the living conditions of people.
In Reston, just outside Washington, they have provided 45 per cent green space with traffic isolated walkways and bikeways. There is a mixture of housing ranging from low-income to executive housing. Recreational facilities are spread throughout, accessible without traversing traffic lanes. The total approach to planning accentuates and improves living conditions for the inhabitants without it costing them any more. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of contribution and innovation that our program can offer [Mr. Watson.1
yet this motion of non-confidence turns thumbs down on it. The program is one of the most progressive things to happen around here in a long time. It is a sad commentary on the official opposition when they take this attitude.
The Canadian urban demonstration program and fund is a direct response to the urban goals advanced by the government in the recent Throne Speech. As set out in the Throne Speech the federal government's urban goals call for a more balanced pattern of cities and towns throughout Canada, with increased emphasis on federal policies and programs to improve small and medium sized communities and to create new communities. They call for action to improve the physical and social environments of the larger urban centres, particularly the core area or inner city.
I might add that these goals were discussed with the provinces and municipalities at the second national trilevel conference in Edmonton last October and found widespread endorsement and support. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) discussed a number of matters at that conference. One of the most important had to do with new cities and the land banking programs that would make such new cities possible. The whole question of promoting land assembly and land banking has repeatedly been raised by the minister. He has been promoting government intervention in land markets for more than a year.
In January, 1973, the minister assured provincial governments that we would make available to them at least $100 million a year for the next five years to finance land assembly programs. The provincial governments were somewhat slow in responding. However, by the end of 1973 we were able to commit, not $100 million but $150 million for that purpose. We have been keeping our side of the bargain. At the same time that we are stepping up land assembly we are applying guidelines to give priority to those assemblies which promise to create housing quickly and make provision for low and modest income housing in return for profits to the community for the formation of parks, community facilities, day-care centres and the like.
One of the strange things about the criticism from the official opposition on the subject of land banking and land assembly is that the government should not be in the business of making a profit on land. This is totally nonsensical. It shows the bankruptcy of their total thinking on the urban problems of Canada. This so-called profit which the official opposition finds appalling is not profit. It is money which will be used to provide services for the people living in those communities and as a means of lowering the taxes they have to pay. Is that wrong? The official opposition is on record time and again as finding land banking unsatisfactory because of this element of so-called government profiteering.
The present shortage of serviced land and the increase in demand for housing is without doubt providing a field day for speculators who are enjoying windfall profits without ever moving a brick, digging a hole or putting a pipe in the ground. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to review the whole question of how to deal with these windfall profits. Runaway speculation has occurred

around Toronto in particular, and to a large extent around Vancouver. It is raising prices to the point where people, even those in the middle income bracket, cannot buy a home. Only those who already own a home can acquire another. I am convinced that the situation is one which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should review to determine whether there is some way in which we can use our taxing mechanisms to reduce the speculation that is now going on and which is affecting the well-being of the house-buying public, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia.
Before going on to the subject of this motion, the demonstration program, 1 want to discuss for a moment the kinds of solutions which were proposed in this and yesterday's debate by the official opposition. There are several that were repeated in the various speeches. The 11 per cent sales tax is a favourite. They want it removed. Although it would clearly benefit some home owners, it would without question be of much greater benefit to huge areas of our economy such as supermarket builders and gas station builders who have no need for this tax exemption.
Another favourite solution proposed by members opposite would allow individual home owners to deduct mortgage interest rates from their income tax. Obviously, this would be a wonderful thing for anyone who owns a house. However, it happens to be the case that people who own houses are earning larger capital gains than anyone else in the country. People who bought houses are among the most fortunate people in this country; their homes are worth far more than they paid for them. However, the Conservative Party seems to be pushing for a policy which would in effect have the taxpayers of Canada subsidize this very favoured group who are already making an enormous profit.
They further suggest we should lower the interest rates on all CMHC loans. The policy which the minister has had in effect for a number of months, since the adoption of the legislation last summer, permits persons earning salaries of less than $11,000 an interest subsidy. In these instances we are reducing interest rates.
The same argument which I have used for disallowing mortgage interest payments for income tax purposes applies to lowering interest rates. As the former member for Fort William-Port Arthur wrote a few weeks ago, the question of lowering interest rates at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer to favour home purchasers does not stand up to scrutiny, because when these people buy their homes they are getting the best possible buy in Canada. They are getting a hedge against inflation and they will inevitably end up with a very substantial capital gain. How could anyone, in conscience, justify the taxpayers of Canada subsidizing interest rates for somebody who is going to make a very substantial capital gain on an investment? It cannot be justified.
In a rather novel interjection this afternoon, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe blamed the federal government for all urban housing problems. Yet in the same breath he would deny the federal government any jurisdiction whatsoever as far as urban affairs is concerned. This series of positions is apparently the policy on housing of the official opposition. They are really the only concrete
Urban Affairs
suggestions which have appeared in these last two days of debate. I stand to be corrected, but I do not remember the opposition making any other specific suggestions. They have talked about interest rates, the 11 per cent sales tax and deducting mortgage interest payments from income tax. However, they have not made any other suggestion except to denigrate this program of urban innovation which they somehow find repulsive.
The urban demonstration program can be tied to existing and new federal programs as well as to provincial and municipal programs. The program is extremely flexible. It will allow federal initiative without the usual constraints, although we shall consult, obviously, with provinces in which any project will be located. But we shall be able to do these things quickly.
Yesterday I felt the reaction of the official opposition was simply the result of neglect to study the program which the minister had announced. But when they turned around last night and proposed a motion of non-confidence in this program, they thrust the whole weight of the party behind their opposition to it. It was not only the hon. member for Calgary North sounding off without having studied the proposal adequately; it was the official opposition taking a united stand against a progressive program which will promote new ideas and bring forth new solutions to problems which affect us all for the benefit of Canadians and the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is usual in a debate of this kind for a member to comment on the speech of the hon. member who preceded him. I find it difficult to review the remarks of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). When he tells us that young Canadians are in great shape because they can buy houses, and houses are such a wonderful bargain, his logic escapes me. I think that the product of any part of the economy in which unit prices have doubled in the last few years is hardly a bargain, unless the hon. member is trying to sell the argument that inflation is good and should be pursued as an object of desire-a view which would be contrary to that held by most people who are trying to get by on low incomes or even on moderate incomes. I am shocked that someone who presumably represents the Liberal Party should come out with such a thesis.
I listened with some pleasure to the minister this afternoon as he extolled the virtues of this $100 million program. He suggested that one of the great things he was going to do involved an experiment in the disposal of human waste in metropolitan Toronto. I hope he will not put too much of the $100 million into that project. The subject has already been covered by Jonathan Swift as described in Gulliver's Travels, the voyage to Laputa. A professor at the Grand Academy of Lagado worked on this project year in and year out, and his only expense was a new barrel of that material every month.
The problem of housing in Canada is one of the most serious facing us today. There are countervailing forces working. Many young people come to members of parliament for advice as to whether they should invest their

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
money in accommodation at what seems to them an almost incomprehensible price. Couples in their twenties earning maybe $20,000, if both are working, and needing a decent house with perhaps a bathroom and a half, wonder whether or not they should invest in a house costing, say, $60,000. They are filled with great tales from their friends who bought a house a year or so ago and sold it later at a profit of $20,000. I put it to the minister that they did not really make $20,000 on the house. The house was not worth an additional $20,000. The money they received for it was just worth that much less. Also, as soon as they sell a house at an alleged profit of $20,000 they have to buy another one and they find out-it should not come as a great surprise-that the price of the new house has also jumped $20,000.
The question of apartment buildings comes in here. I may be unusual in this respect, but it is very difficult for anybody in political life to try to say a kind word for the landlord. Mr. Benson's tax reform has done as much as anything else to cause an accommodation shortage in Canada which is particularly noticeable in the low vacancy rate in apartment buildings. Possibly with the transition from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to Statistics Canada, housing starts in the last few years have included apartment construction. This accounts for a large proportion of the high figures of housing starts; they reflect apartments that are under construction.
The question, whether Benson's tax reform resulted in restricting the profits made by landlords, is possibly of interest to those interested in finance. I would say, as I said two years ago, that there will certainly be a shortage of apartment accommodation as a result of removal of the tax incentive to own apartments. I think my forecast has been borne out. We can look across the country, and in every major city with the possible exception of Montreal there is a marked shortage of apartment accommodation.
What happened to the kindly landlord, the reasonable landlord who was not there to make a great deal of money out of the tenants but was there for what was called, when it was introduced, an incentive and which later became called a loophole? The Benson tax reform had the effect of driving reasonable landlords out of the apartment-owning business. They took their losses and left, and the apartment-owning business became a hard-nosed affair. The landlord was expected to make a reasonable return on his outlay and he had no way to make it except from the tenants. Rents went up, but apartments did not. I notice that some of the people who advocated the closing of the so-called loophole now say we need some incentive to get people to build and own apartment dwellings. So we have turned 360 degrees on that issue.
There was a practice in British Columbia a few years ago which illustrates the difficulty which socialists have. They can never see anything but an immediate problem and a quick solution. They never see the secondary effects of the quick solution. For instance, everyone agrees that arable land should be used to raise food. We have a good example in Victoria. The peninsula of Saanich is just north of Victoria, and the city was spreading out, using up very fine farmland on the peninsula. But the socialists have always preferred to use the stick rather than the carrot. The carrot might have been an inducement to build

houses or apartment buildings on non-arable land. Heaven knows, we have enough non-arable land in the province of British Columbia, particularly on Vancouver Island. But that is not the socialists' way. Their way is with the stick rather than with the carrot. Their answer was that there would be a land freeze on all arable land.
Ever since then they have been walking around, wringing their hands and wondering what has happened to the price of city lots. It was obvious to anyone with their wits about them, anyone who knew the market, that when you freeze arable land around the city, scarcity of lots will drive up the price. A city lot in Victoria was worth $9,000 to $11,000 a year ago and people thought it was pretty high then. Such a lot is now worth $20,000 to $25,000-if you can find one, that is, and they are becoming more difficult to find. This is an example of a good concept gone completely wrong through a total lack of understanding of the secondary effect of legislation that is passed. I hope and pray that the minister will not fall into that trap with his $100 million urban demonstration program.
The New Democratic Party are having their problems in this debate. I listened, as I always do whenever possible, to the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) who usually contributes something useful to the debates of this House. But last night I heard him floundering around on the housing debate, trying to be against the government that he was going to support within 24 hours-and this does present a difficulty. I feel for the NDP members at times. They are finding out that political expediency is a very hard taskmaster. If you use political expediency as they have been doing for the last 16 months, you will look a fool at times, and I suppose this is another of those times.
The hon. member spent the first half of his speech last night talking about fox hunts. I did not understand the connection between fox hunts and housing, but he seemed to think there was a connection. Fortunately, he reverted to type and got on to something that he knew something about, and I appreciated the last half of his speech which was devoted to transportation: although it is not always too easily connected with housing, it was far more intelligent than the first half of his speech.
If the government is not going to give people any incentive to follow the line it wishes them to follow, then I would appreciate it if it would at least not club them to death when they follow their own way. The more that these all-encompassing, all-smothering bureaucracies try to regulate housing, the worse things get; and this has been going on for years. Due to the shortsighted taxation policies of the Benson budget, there is a shortage of housing. Perhaps this is part of a master design by the socialist government. We are living in a mixed economy where we have a socialist government controlling a country that is dedicated to private and to free enterprise, and sometimes I think we are getting the worst of both possible worlds. The government is putting on restriction after restriction, and if the private sector fails to build sufficient housing there is always the rumoured and veiled threat that the government will go into the housing field. I think the demonstration examples that we have had of government
March 26, 1974

housing should be sufficient to warn the people of Canada directly away from it.
I have had the privilege of living in government married quarters for several years of my married life. The occupants of married quarters are never very happy. Married quarters are government quarters: they are government built and government regulated. You must not have a hedge within 27 feet or something of the walls of the house. You are not allowed to plant a vine that will crawl up the front part of the building. I am sure that anyone who drives through a town that has a military component can spot the married quarters because they are ugly. They are clean, but ugly. Unfortunately, this frequently carries through to the part of the economy where we try to give the poor or the elderly citizens of the community low cost accommodation. We have an example in Victoria-I am sure every city has similar examples-in the part of town where you never say to your guests, "We must drive through such and such a development so you can see the beautiful buildings".
I implore the minister, if he introduces some of these experimental urban demonstrations, to keep an eye on visual environment. Visual pollution is as bad as any other kind of pollution. We have one high-rise, limited dividend building in Victoria that is an eyesore to the entire city. The only people happy about it are those who live in it, because they cannot see it. I must admit that the building is well designed inside and most of the people living there are happy with it, but they do not like the appearance of the building-and you cannot do much with a solid cement building, 21 storeys high, that has been designed ugly and constructed ugly. In this particular case the surrounding area is equally ugly and nothing is ever done about it.
Of interest in this idea of low cost housing to help a certain sector is the Pruitt-Igoe development in St. Louis, Missouri. They started to clear a district in St. Louis in order to build low rent accommodation. This was an apartment complex. I should like to tell the House what the New York Times said about it. The structure was built in 1954 with $36 million of United States federal funds. It was not a balanced community. There were no shops; it was strictly accommodation and it was thought that the low rent aspect would make it a success. But it was so bad that they have knocked down 43 of the buildings in this apartment complex.
This signalled the start of a $3 million plan for renovation of the complex to make it liveable again. This massive, mostly vacant project, was built in 1954 and is now to be transformed into a balanced community of smaller apartment buildings, townhouses, commercial buildings, light industrial plants and two parks. Secretary Romney rejected St. Louis' officials pleas to raze and rebuild the entire project, fearing a chain reaction in other cities with similar complexes and problems of decay, crime, poverty, and filth.
The moral of this story is that poverty and slums cannot be cured by the creation of huge ghettoes for the poor. Segregating the poor only exacerbates the problem. Instead, they must be absorbed without stigma into a viable community. The ponderous projects so beloved by bureaucracies lead only to worse degradation for the underprivileged.
Urban Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I have obtained the floor by some kind of default.


An hon. Member:: Don't knock it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Make this your finest hour.


William Heward Grafftey: We might ask ourselves briefly this evening, at this point of the debate, exactly what is the subject with which we are dealing. It seems to me we are talking about decent housing for Canadians. Surely at this time in our national life, no matter what a person's income, his right to decent housing is a basic right, just as is his right to clothing, food and humane and decent medical and health services. As a matter of fact, it has always been my view that in discussing housing we are discussing the very health of our nation. It has been said long before I say it in the House tonight, that the state of a nation's civilization can be judged to a great extent by the way it houses its people.
We often boast in Canada that we have the second or third highest material, economic standard of living in the world. This might be true, but it is of very little significance in respect of the 500,000 Canadian homes which by any standard must be deemed as substandard. It is of little comfort to the 500,000 Canadian families who by any international or national measure are living this very night in substandard housing.
In the province I have the honour to come from-Quebec-a constituency of which I represent in this House, it is deemed that one third of the houses occupied by families in the province are by any definition whatsoever substandard. It is very nice for us to play with statistics and to go around boasting that we have the second or third highest economic standard of living in the world, but I do not think we should be terribly proud of the facts I have cited.
What is the situation today? The minister can boast month in and month out about the fine job this government is doing in the housing field, but in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver only 5 per cent of the people can afford to buy houses today. Does this say much for the humaneness of government policies in the housing field?
I have the honour to represent a largely rural riding in this House of Commons. We have been promised by one minister of state for urban affairs after another that something will be done about the situation. No matter where they sit in this House of Commons, I am sure members of

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
the NDP, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party would have to say what I am about to say. We have voted millions and millions of dollars on the floor of this House of Commons, and before any of these moneys are voted into the rural areas they are eaten up in the large urban areas. It is only right that the urban areas in our kind of country should have in many ways a prior claim, but not such a claim that people living in a rural atmosphere have no claim on the treasury when it comes to obtaining loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Today in this House the minister spoke of the assisted home ownership program. I do not want to knock it, but it has been going on for a long time now and I note that not too many Canadians in the lower income brackets have applied for it or could meet the criteria, for the fact is, vis-a-vis the home ownership program, that once all calculations are made we are told that the cost of a house under the program cannot surpass $26,000. With the notable exception of the greater metropolitan area of Montreal, in no major urban area can one buy a house on a decent lot for $26,000. No matter who one speaks to, whether on this side of the House or the other, or officials involved in housing, we know that by the end of this century the demand for housing will have doubled.
What is even worse is that the average price of houses sold in Canadian cities in 1973 had increased by 20 per cent in relation to the price in 1972. What is another fact that we must look into vis-a-vis home ownership in Canada today? Generally speaking, from coast to coast, in order even to begin to contemplate buying his own home a person must have an income of $17,000 a year. What does this say about the humanitarian approach of the government in respect of supplying decent housing for the great mass of Canadians? We have said time and again that decent housing and shelter for all people is a priority social and economic item.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Do you have a program?


William Heward Grafftey: If you would take the trouble to read our program precisely and completely, you would see that it is a positive program.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has not even read the program.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in the short time allotted to me I do not wish to give a litany of the problems. However, any member of parliament merely has to go back to his riding to find out that apart from inflation and maladministration of the unemployment insurance fund, housing is a basic, gut issue on the lips of every Canadian. What is the answer from this government and this minister? Another $100 million study. If there is anything this government and preceding Liberal governments have done, it is to give us a litany or a dictionary of what I might call delay procedures in the form of studies in general instead of action.


Mr. Corbin:: You are killing time.


William Heward Grafftey: If I seem to be killing time, I know how frustrating this is to Liberal backbenchers. They see the writing on the wall. What have we had vis-a-vis housing

from this government? We have had royal commissions and federal-provincial conferences. Under one, Mr. Nicholson, we had a housing symposium. We have had parliamentary inquiries, green papers, white papers and task forces. We had the Pestalozzi College experiment and the Rochdale experiment.
Let us look at a short list, under this government and the present minister, of studies we have actually had- studies, not action. I notice that members on the backbenches look a little unhappy because I am sure their constituents have spoken to them about the housing problem. We have had a study on housing in Canada, market structure and policy performance 1971. We have had a task force on housing and urban development, January, 1969, another study. Then there have been the new National Housing Act programs, 1971, and the federal-provincial conference on housing.
This is an esoteric one, Future Process of Policy and Program Development under the present minister. We have had an annual conference on housing and urban development. We have had the mid-Canada development conference. We have had the Canadian housing statistics, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and we have had the Central Mortgage and Housing annual report, as well as projections for the future. We had all these studies before the present one involving $100 million. Then there is the special $200 million, low cost housing program study. We have had a site planning study for mobile homes. We have had a review of the rent to income scale for public housing units. We have had a study on housing and people by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Then there was the Architecture Canada study. We also had an inquiry into where the $200 million went, by the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Back in 1968 I had the honour to represent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on the federal task force looking into housing and urban affairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Who led that?


William Heward Grafftey: The very honourable and progressive minister of the time. If the government had paid attention to that report and to the minister at the time, it would have been far better off, believe me.


Stanley Ronald Basford: What did you say about it at that time?


William Heward Grafftey: If the minister would read the reports he would learn what I said about it. In a non-partisan way I said it was an excellent report. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), aided and abetted by the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), said there was no housing crisis in Canada. I doubt that the Prime Minister had visited very many low income people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Let me return to my thesis. During the task force study from city to city we heard about modular housing, about new methods of building and about condominiums. We even heard men like Buckminster Fuller projecting for that task force what housing could and should look like before the beginning of the next century. The Liberal
March 26, 1974

government of that day spent a good fraction of that $100 million studying housing, and the answers were clear if only the government had had the will and the backbone to act.
After all this list of studies in face of the problems we have, what do we get? Ten days ago in this House the minister, no matter how much his parliamentary secretary apologizes to us, announced in effect another $100 million study. What will this do for the low and middle income people of this country who cannot wait ten years for the minister to complete his study? They want housing today. If this government would only stop the waste in so many of its other programs, and run an efficient ship, we might do something about interest rates, which includes interest rates on mortgages, and we might with the municipalities and the provinces do something about serviced land.
Does this minister blame it on other countries and say that pressures from outside affect the high cost of housing, just as does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who tells us we cannot do anything about inflation because it is a universal problem and we have to ride with it? Or does not the minister really think, as does the leader of our party who has sat with municipal authorities and heads of the provinces, that he could do something about providing lower cost serviced land? Does he not think, in a spirit of bipartisanship, of adopting at long last our proposal to abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials? That is most important.
It is my view that so long as there is a general, high rate of inflation in this country due to the irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies of this government, land interest rates and the general cost of housing will continue to go up and up. Because of their intangibility, they will always be, in my view, an inflation leader as are gold, silver and other hard commodities. It is my view that the housing policy of the present government is responsible for a great deal of what I call legitimate social unrest. It is the major source of apprehension about the future of many of our young people. It threatens the financial independence of the family unit and, what is worse, makes us a nation of debtors. In this moral climate housing is being put out of the reach of most Canadians. In my view, under the housing policies of this government we are now into another kind of age, especially for the low and middle income people-a new age of serfdom and servility.
I am very glad to note, however, that tonight we have a real chance that the party to rny left will support our motion because the housing spokesman for the NDP, after the minister made his recent announcement, described the program as involving "the wrong spending at the wrong time and in the completely wrong area". He stated, in reply to the minister, that nowhere was there any indication that the government intends, at least before the budget is introduced, to move in a serious way to deal with the housing situation. He said there is every indication that in this area of policy we are saddled with a do-nothing government. So I do not expect the members of the NDP tonight to support a do-nothing government, a government which once the housing bill was passed last spring presumably decided that enough had been accomplished.
Urban Affairs
The housing critic of the NDP went on to say that he wished to put forward his reason for believing that the government's attitude is palpably absurd, that indeed it involves a serious question of social morality and the government has copped out altogether on this issue. I do not think that tonight the members of the NDP will support a government which has completely copped out in the housing field. The member of the NDP went on to say: "The minister said he wants this conference to be known as Habitat 2000". Well, people in my riding want houses before the year 2000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: He went on to suggest that all this program will mean is $100 million down the drain-of no help to people in meeting housing requirements in Canada. Will the NDP tonight vote to put $100 million down the drain? Mr. Howe used to say, "What's a million?" Today, if they vote with the government, the NDP will be saying; "What's $100 million?"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that it is rather difficult to speak as pessimistically as the previous speaker. I wonder if this is not due to the fact that members on this side of the House can finally rejoice at the fact that some people believe that we have to act now to solve the problems of the future for urban Canada.
My illustrious colleague has spoken strictly about building and not about the urban movement phenomenon of 1961, when we were building dormitory cities and rows of bungalows, which created problems at the municipal level. A few years later, municipal unity had to be established to make the situation viable and to avoid collecting the maximum amount of taxes at the municipal level. In my opinion, those are the kinds of problems that we must face immediately.
Mr. Speaker, the urban constituency of Longueuil is situated on the south shore some twenty miles from that of the previous speaker but however, I do not share his pessimism. If you allow me, I would like to quote a few examples. The City of Longueuil had some 90,000 inhabitants in 1969. In four years, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation invested there over $89 million. If this is not taking care of families, of people and citizens who really need houses, I wonder how we must invest our money and what else we can do to help them buy a house.
It is quite easy to say: The people are poor, they are not in a position to buy a house. Mr. Speaker, when one has lived the problem, one really knows what it is. It is not necessarily one of lack of money or means because, in the province of Quebec, $35,000 or $40,000 houses were built before, and Quebecers dreamed of one day owning their own home. Today, Quebecers can own a home thanks to the federal government. They can afford one if they make an annual income of $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000.

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, if the inhabitants of the riding of Brome-Missisquoi cannot afford a home on an annual income of $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000, the hon. member is not doing his job. He should prove to us that the present legislation does not allow low-income workers to purchase a home.
Mr. Speaker, if one studied in depth the proposals of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, if one went to the trouble of reading his statement, one would realize that he is really aware of the situation, for he wants investments of $100 million to be made over a fairly long period of time. He is aware that practical problems must be solved and that it is not a matter of studies, far from it. He is also aware that decisions must be made on the type of projects that will be accepted.
First, the projects under consideration will have to be geared to the solution of definite problems, contrarily-he said it openly-to those which do nothing more than determining, defining or analyzing them. They are not studies but practical applications, Mr. Speaker.
Second, a project must be applicable to most of Canada. Such quality will be judged in terms of the degree to which the project principles may be applied to other areas of the country. The minister is fully aware-he is as smart as anybody else and he knows his country-that there are different regions in Canada. And that is also written. I think that people did not bother to read it.
Third, a project must innovate and steer away from traditional practices. Now who is able to warn us about dangers which will crop up in 5 or 10 years from now as a result of today's building methods? Few hon. members here can do so.
The investment that this government intends to make is one that will permit practical research. There is a difference between carrying on research on paper and implementing it immediately. I suggest that this is the most important point that should be examined.
And they say that every demonstration project will have to meet at least one secondary criterion. Certain projects must show evidence of co-ordination and co-operation between two or more government levels. I suggest that the minister is already aware that the phenomenon of urbanization on the south shore of Montreal which I represent, as in Toronto or Vancouver, has taken a few municipal administrations by surprise. Toronto has banned the construction of highrises but elsewhere they try to advocate it.
Mr. Speaker, if need be the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) should impose restrictive measures so that in 5, 10 or 15 years, we do not repeat the mistakes that were made before 1961, when the middle class was building dormitory towns, when it was impossible for a workman to buy a house. Before 1961, all the necessary components of a policy had not been put together in order to really enable people, large families who really need a shelter, to buy a house.
Today, thanks to the steps that were taken since 1968, more and more people can afford to buy a house. If we read the non-confidence motion that was put forward today, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are far from taking into consideration the people who need a house. On the

contrary, more attention is being given to the desire for power, they try to take all kinds of means to that end at the expense of the people who cannot afford to buy a house.
When we try, through coercive measures, to provide people with necessary tools, a non-confidence motion is being put forward, while we are spending $100 million in an attempt to facilitate the purchase of homes and to find a solution to urban problems. Again I say they are not necessarily construction problems, but rather social problems. Many factors are involved. Today, cities are being build along the shore of the St. Lawrence River. It is a shame but all the sewers are flowing into the river. This is what is happening. In view of the project announced and of the optimism demonstrated by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I think that in Canada, in Quebec, in Longueuil, we will succeed in enabling all those who really want a house to buy one even though they earn $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000.
We should once and for all be logical. I hear millionaires speaking of poverty, I hear filthy rich people in Parliament speak about a poverty they have never experienced. They have never known poverty and they are labouring the point at the people's expenses. But, on the contrary, they should try to settle real problems. Let us set aside partisan issues. If they try to obtain power at the workers' expenses, as tonight, Mr. Speaker, I say it is disgusting.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate this afternoon with a great deal of interest. I found certain phases of it very amusing. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) based his speech fundamentally on our ideas, and when he could not copy from us he used empty rhetoric. He did not tell us what he believed in.
The previous speaker talked about getting away from conventionality, or something like that. Mr. Speaker, why do we need to get away from the conventional? We have a lot of ideas about building and we should continue to pursue those ideas. We certainly do not need to import ideas about building from other nations whose climate is quite different from ours.
A few days ago the minister announced an innovative housing program. I think the $100 million involved is merely a sop, but I do not think-neither do my colleagues-that it is a matter upon which to call an election


An hon. Member:: What is?


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: When the time comes, gentlemen, you will know. Yesterday's motion dealt with urban needs. Today's motion deals with the same topic. What bothers me as a member from a fairly far-flung riding is that the Liberal and the Tory parties are not too concerned about rural and small town needs. About 30 per cent of Canadians do not live near huge urban areas. I should like to give some statistical information on that point later.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk about repealing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I would endorse such a move if I could be sure that the savings
March 26, 1974

would be passed on to the consumer. The people of my riding remember what happened four or five years ago when an 11 per cent or 15 per cent sales tax on drugs was repealed. The price of drugs dropped by about 3 per cent for six months and then crept up again to dizzy heights and has not come down since. If we can find a way to ensure that the tax savings would be passed on to the consumer, I would be in favour of it; but I do not believe the Tories have any notion of how to do it.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government could use as an example what was done by the government of Saskatchewan a number of years ago when they gave a grant of up to $800 to anyone whose income was under $8,000 per year and who built a home. That took care of the sales tax. Perhaps this government could do it by giving a rebate to people who require it.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was rather amusing when he spent most of his time quoting from the speech of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent). I am glad that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is considered the housing spokesman in this chamber. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) today asked a question about decreasing the interest rates on house mortgages. Where was he six or eight months ago when the NDP had an amendment on the mortgage financing bill to lower interest rates? At that time the Conservatives lined up with their Liberal friends.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They were opposing it most of the time.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the boy wonder of the Quebec Conservative Party, the miracle man, the hoped for Messiah, is going to be in for a surprise come the next election.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) assumes that buying a house will always show a capital gain. Houses have been showing capital gains in the last year or so, but in the last 15 years I have seen them sometimes drop in value quite drastically and then go up again. We cannot work on the assumption that houses are always going to go up in value and that we do not need to worry about continuing capital gains.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) says that socialists see only quick solutions. A lot of the solutions found in this country today came from the socialists. We are few in number but we think a great deal. In British Columbia the right-wingers were virtually giving land away to speculators before the socialists put a stop to it. The hon. member for Victoria complained about the eyesore in Victoria. What were his friends on city council doing, I should like to know. I have been a member of town council long enough to know that through their bylaws councils can control what is built. Let us not blame a 20-storey concrete eyesore on the federal government.
My main concern today, Mr. Speaker, is the problem of rural and small town housing. Far more should be done to encourage small rural communities rather than patronizing the cities and large towns, although we know that they must be patronized to a degree. Sometimes I think the government should embark on a policy of zero growth in
Urban Affairs
urban areas, telling people, "We are going to create new cities and perhaps our problems will be alleviated or will disappear."
I think the constituency of Meadow Lake is typical of rural or northern Canada. I am sorry that I do not have statistics for all of Canada, but about two weeks ago I received a pamphlet from Statistics Canada based on the 1971 statistics for housing, population, etc., in the Meadow Lake constituency. I should like to quote some of these figures because I think my constituency is representative of many rural and northern parts of Canada.
In our constituency there are 12,590 households, 530 of these having more than ten persons. There are 5,150 households where the income is under $3,000, and 3,695 family heads have an income of under $2,000 while 915 family heads have an income of over $10,000. There were 12,585 occupied dwellings. Of these, 1,340 had two rooms or less. That is approximately 11 per cent of all dwellings in Meadow Lake. I have visited some of these, Mr. Speaker, and some still have dirt floors. There are 6,095 dwellings with running water and 6,490 dwellings with no running water. That is, more than 50 per cent of the people in many of the rural and northern areas of Canada do not even know what running water is apart from the water that runs in the streams.
There are 7,410 dwellings with no flush-toilet facilities. That means over 60 per cent of dwellings have outdoor privies. Some, 3,110 dwellings, or 26 per cent, are heated by wood. Certainly those people did not have to worry about the energy crisis this winter. There are 3,170 dwellings which depend on springs or rivers for their water supply. That is, about 30 per cent of all dwellings have to get their water from the lakes or rivers. This is why we have the occasional outbreak of amoebic dysentery and other forms of dysentery. It is caused by the impure water supply.
Many people cannot afford decent homes or any home except a log cabin or a shack. They just do not have the money. So I think one of our first goals is to see that they get a decent income. I think we also have to see that they are not faced with a 9 lA per cent or 10 per cent interest rate. It has to be much lower than that, or perhaps nothing at all. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said yesterday that some very wealthy people get by with paying only 6 per cent interest. Today I found an interesting article while doing some research. An article entitled "Rich find new way to dodge taxes" has a dateline "Montreal, CPA" and reads:
Company executives who have been deprived by new tax laws of tax-free stock option profits have found a new way to beat the tax collector.
In a letter in the Financial Times issue of February 25, a Thomas S. Smith of Barrie points out that companies are now lending executives interest-free mortgage money with which to buy homes. The saving in interest payments is the equivalent of a tax-free hand-out.
Mr. Smith points specifically to the current financial report of Massey-Ferguson Ltd. which, he says, informs shareholders that four officers of the company have received, "as loans, a total of $472,400 to assist them to buy residences, that they may pay this money back over a period of 25 years, that such loans are permissible under the Canada Corporations Act and that they are interest-free."
Mr. Smith also reports that four other directors of the company split "annually a total of $754,112 and in addition are guaranteed on retirement benefits totalling annually $243,271."

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
Here we have extremely wealthy people building monumental mansions worth over $100,000. They do not pay interest. The same people who are drawing such wages at Massey-Ferguson are charging high prices for their farm implements. The farmers of western Canada know this only too well. People working in the prairies, the north, northern Ontario, New Brunswick and the forests, fields and lakes produce the wealth of this nation, yet we as parliamentarians expect them to live in substandard housing. The wealth of this nation is created in the hinterlands and backwoods, not in the cities. I think a lot more money has to be pumped back into the hinterland.


An hon. Member:: Who is responsible?


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: It is the responsibility of governments of the last 100 years who have used the hinterland as a source of capital to build magnificent mansions and factories in the cities. I am not against the cities, but let's return some of the money from whence it came.
My home town of Shelbrook had a land assembly project about ten years ago. It was a federal-provincial-municipal deal. It was a good project. There are still lots 64 feet by 120 feet available for $2,350. People would not buy them because they are on the edge of town. Instead, they bought lots in town. The lots in town are now about the same price as these, so I am sure they will be sold. People can pay $1,315 down and the rest over a period of 15 years.
The land assembly projects in some of our small towns and villages are excellent if they have a degree of flexibility. One problem has been lack of flexibility. When I was on town council we asked Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorities whether we could buy unused lots scattered throughout the town. We were told we could not do that, we had to buy lots that were all in one place. If we could have done what we asked, those lots would have been built up.
Officials who have lived in Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa, Montreal or another city all their lives do not appreciate the lifestyle of rural and small town people. I plead with the government to put some flexibility into its programs. I say, listen to the advice of the local councils because these are usually pretty shrewd people. Land is not much of a problem in Saskatchewan because we have some very farsighted city councils in the province. Five or six years ago a royal commission held up Saskatoon as a model. Why? Because 20 or 30 years ago the city of Saskatoon bought thousands of acres of land around the city. It was kept out of the hands of speculators. It is still possible to get a reasonably priced lot in the city of Saskatoon. However, where the land was allowed to fall into the hands of speculators, land prices soared out of sight.
The town of Meadow Lake had a housing problem. The worst off were the low income people: there was a shortage of houses for them. New legislation was passed and new regulations were put out by the government. People looked forward to the neighbourhood improvement program and the assisted home ownership program. On paper, these programs look fine. Unfortunately, they received more publicity than they deserved. There is a problem in rendering the services which were advertised. It is neces-

sary to wait a long time for them. This is because the people who provide the services live far from the community that requires them. It seems to be difficult to get our bureaucracy moving. This town needs a land assembly project but the program is slow in moving. There is a Saskatchewan Housing Authority which is very active. I have written to them. They advised me that the federal government is slow in releasing funds. The housing authority wants money for land assembly. Why are the funds not being released to the small towns and villages? If this is going on in Saskatchewan, I imagine it is going on throughout the country.
I have been told by town councillors that CMHC has too many regulations. They claim that all too often CMHC finds regulations to hide behind. Perhaps the thinking of small town people about CMHC is best summarized by the words of an editor of a small town newspaper. I quote from the July 25, 1973, edition of the Meadow Lake Progress:
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation policies are misunderstood by most citizens of this country. Many people believe the purpose of CMHC is to help people obtain homes who couldn't otherwise own a place of their own.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
CMHC policies are set to allow large lending institutions to loan money at a high rate of interest with absolutely no risk to the lender. There is no protection for the buyer built into their policies.
I understand there is some protection built into the new act and I hope it will be used.
At one time only those who could not obtain mortgage money through regular channels could qualify for a CMHC loan. Now CMHC does not loan money to home owners but only guarantees the repayment of loans which the lenders make.
If you wish to purchase a home and can't pay cash, you apply to the local bank. The bank accepts an application which asks that all assets be listed, and also for references. This application is then processed by the bank and CMHC. If approval is given you are then entitled to borrow from the bank at between 9 and 10 per cent interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, many of the comments from the other side of the House have been very reactionary. The party is known as "progressive," but I cannot see where it has shown that today. They feel that what was good enough in the past is still good enough. They have a laissez-faire attitude. They are not at all interested in innovation or trial runs. I certainly support the government's proposed fund for innovation in housing. The opposition surely should be aware of what it is trying to do. On one hand we have the problem of land and housing supply, with maintenance of urban communities and the quality of urban life; on the other hand we have the energy crisis and our continuing ecological problems. It is really almost an ecological conundrum.
I am convinced that all levels of government are prepared to work together. This has become the fashion. It is long overdue. I think we could suggest there is now a community of interest developing among and between governments as well as the private sector. We heard suggestions at the federal-provincial energy conference for a national power grid and a national industrial policy. Both have ramifications far beyond their immediate goals.
March 26, 1974

We cannot isolate industrial development from regional development, and regional development implies urban development.
The energy crisis is a warning that we must plan our national development better than we have in the past and that we must make the best use of our natural environment. The energy dilemma shows that we need to arrange our human activity nationally for optimum value with minimum waste of energy and resources.
I think one can say that the problem is the high cost of organized services. We can provide huge sums of money through CMHC for the servicing of sewage, we can devote money to land assembly programs and the other programs which have been mentioned; but we must realize that looking after sewage, water services, transportation and energy transmission is an immense undertaking. If we each took the time to go over our own communities and study the plans of the great arteries and trunk sewers underlying them, we would realize just where those millions of dollars have gone.
I am sure the department concerned with urban affairs is working to find new ways of solving the sewage problem and it is my view that within a reasonably short time complex problems such as sewage treatment, the size of sewers and the amount of water we waste in them will be overcome. This will probably take ten years or so. It is all part of a progressive and innovative program.
The demonstration program is not restricted to hardware solutions. We need better methods of regional planning, better and more artistic architecture and model land development. There is room in the plan for private industry which will find it worth while to consider carefully the opportunities presented and the funds made available to develop urban areas in an imaginative way. It seems to me the building and development industry has for a long time been demanding solutions from the government, yet every year 99 per cent of the developers come up with the same tired proposals, the worn-out cliches, the attitudes of the twenties and uninspired designs. The new plan would allow them a sensible amount of room for innovation.
I should like, now, to turn to another subject which interests me. I think we should consider not only practical matters such as land servicing, sewage, water supply and so on, but the artistic side-architectural beauty and the planning of our communities in such a way that we shall be proud to live in them and people from outside will be attracted to them.
Recently I was in Teheran. Near the airport they have a beautiful monument made of a series of arches. They held what they called a "no names" contest which was won by an architectural student who had submitted the best design for the monument. We could learn something from this. We are not bound to depend on established architects here in North America. A lot of people have good ideas and I think they should all be listened to, whether they are recognized as being important in their field or not.
The development of the national capital of Ottawa is receiving a lot of attention and would require planning over a long period. Hon. members will forgive me for referring to Ontario, but I think the Toronto civic centre is
Urban Affairs
a good example of a beautiful urban centre. I was taken aback at first when I saw the two buildings there. I guess it is inconvenient in some ways, but there is Henry Moore's "Archer" as the centrepiece. I think it is one of the best civic centres in North America. One only has to go to Paris, France, to see a beautifully planned city. It would be a shame if a lot of it were torn down. The central idea should persist even if some of the buildings are modernized.
We all have to do a little bedside reading to try to get away from this contentious place. I have been reading Bernard Berensen. Maybe all members have read his "Passionate Observer." He takes you to countries in Europe such as Italy. He shows you how ancient, medieval and modern buildings all blend in together. I think we can all be too taken up with the idea of demolishing and tearing down the old. It is important we keep the good things from the past among the modern buildings. And I should like to make a plea that we do not simply go about with a big ball knocking down buildings to replace them, maybe, with modern buildings which are not so artistic. I think the quality of artistic beauty is extremely important.
There is, of course, room in city planning for innovation. Trial communities must be established. Our cities should contain the best possible modern conveniences and we should make the best possible use of open spaces bearing in mind traffic flow, public transport and, of course, inspirational architecture. I hope hon. members will forgive me if I refer to my home town of Welland. There is a peculiar situation there; part of it is caused by the canal. Again, I hope hon. members will pardon that reference. We must do something about this canal which we abandoned. This will call for not a three-level but a four-level effort involving the federal government, the provincial government, the region and the municipality.
I make a plea to the minister. We all know that the big cities are overgrown. Nobody in Toronto or Montreal wants to see their city grow much more. In fact, concerned citizens are worried about their continuing growth. What does this mean? It means that satellite cities are needed, cities which are well built and well planned. There are many cities around Toronto, such as Kitchener, Galt, Brantford, and Hamilton is a big city on its own. Then there are St. Catharines, Welland and Niagara Falls. There is plenty of room in these cities for continued growth until they double or triple their present size. I feel that a great deal of the situation in Toronto could be improved very easily by programs of the nature that the minister has brought forward; certainly they could be implemented on a trial basis.
The dilemma we have in Welland is that we have a waterway that is bothering us. Either we should fill it in or use it for recreational purposes. In addition, we have traffic problems. The traffic situation in Welland has not improved one bit since we stopped raising and lowering bridges. Traffic is increasing each year. People are still trying to cross these bridges in automobiles, and there is only one traffic lane in each direction. What is required is a one-way system as well as another bridge near the Green Street bridge. We need an arterial bridge further to the north. In fact, we need about another six crossings.

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
The province of Ontario has suggested that a highway be put through the centre of Welland. This may or may not be practicable. Studies have been made of the official plan of the city of Welland and a lot of money has been spent by the city. I do not think we need to spend more money on research and planning. The present committee which was set up to study this matter has been meeting about twice a month. Two of the meetings have been successful and we are now defining our positions. We know pretty well what the public wants. We also know the federal government is not trying to push either the province or the city around but is trying to co-operate, which in my opinion is a fine exhibition of what can be done when the three levels of government get together. I may be an optimist, but I think we will be able to talk this matter over and settle it by mid-summer.
As far as the solution is concerned, I hope that the present plan uses Welland as an experimental area. I am not at all afraid of a little experimentation and innovation. I should also like to see some urban renewal in the form of a beautiful city centre built over this polluted ditch that we have. There is no motion in the waters of the canal. A big causeway has been built to carry both road and rail traffic across it just south of the city, but nevertheless we have a big problem that must be faced by the several levels of government. I hope that even a small amount of the $100 million is used to help solve our problem. I do not want to go into the frustrations we have had over the actual plan, but it is at least gratifying that some work has been started on the project.
I think the impression that this is just a sort of research program is correct. I think all the research on building construction, sewage disposal, water mains, transportation and energy has been done and it is a case of putting all the ideas together. In this regard I am not just talking about my own community.
If I may digress for a moment, we have a large steel plant in Welland and they requested some help in putting in an experimental furnace using pelletized iron ore instead of expensive scrap steel. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources research branch constructed a model, the idea has been brought to the attention of the departments concerned and it is now being put into practice. It is costing $250,000, in addition to a $100,000 developmental grant put up by the private company itself, to put this furnace into operation. In other words, private developers and builders should work with the government in the building of model communities and in experimenting in civic planning.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on presenting this motion to the House today. It demonstrates on his part a very deep concern for the welfare of the average Canadian and the conviction that it is possible, as well as desirable, that we work together somehow to achieve the situation where clean, warm shelter is made available to all Canadians.
I think he had a right to be indignant at the latest proposal of the minister, which is the subject of the motion. It is a $100 million fluff fund. It will not meet the needs of the Canadian people so far as housing is concerned. It will not help to bring down prices at a time
[Mr. Railton.l
when prices have risen to the point where housing is beyond the means of the average Canadian. It will not help meet the immediate need which has reached in many parts of the country crisis proportions. The proposal is in many ways subject to the charges that have been levelled against it. Somehow the minister seems incapable of understanding and coping with the real housing problems of this country.
It is true, as we have been told, that a great many units have been built during the last three or four years. In my opinion, about 50,000 more units have been built each year as a result of the technical amendments that were made to the act in 1969 based on the task force report. Yesterday I heard it said from the NDP corner of the House that this was not so, or there were intimations to this effect. Nevertheless, I will try to make the case-which I shall not elaborate on tonight in view of the short time allotted to me-that it is in fact due to these technical amendments that we have managed in this country during the last three or four years to increase the volume of new housing construction.
Incidentally, I am sure that the objections of the NDP are well motivated. They are well meaning individuals, but unfortunately very few of them have any practical experience and consequently cannot be expected to fully comprehend just how these highly technical operations work. They do not have the practical knowledge to understand.
So far as the floating interest rate is concerned, may I say it has seldom been higher than it would have been had the statutory limitation been maintained. As a matter of fact, usually it has been lower. The advantage, however, is that funds have been available, and because there was a flexible and quickly adjusting floating interest rate, money was continuously available. This meant that housing projects could go forward and could be completed. The floating interest rate has been a great blessing to the industry and, equally important I would say, it has not cost the Canadian people more.
The other objection raised yesterday during the debate was in respect of the five-year roll-over. This, too, was absolutely essential. Had it not been for the introduction of the five-year roll-over many of the financial institutions would not have invested in housing mortgages and certainly they would have invested less than they actually did. This is particularly true of trust and loan companies which borrow much of their money on the basis of five-year certificates. Without the five-year roll-over provision, much of the money which has gone into the housing market these last few years would not have been available, and consequently the production of housing would have been less by the tune of several tens of thousands of units each year.
I think probably the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) in raising this argument did not realize what he was suggesting. He was suggesting, in effect, that we should lock people into high interest rates for 25 years. Surely the hon. member would not want to do that. Where is that party of the little people? Where is that party of the workingman? Since when did the NDP want to lock the
March 26, 1974

average small home owner in this country into high interest rates for the rest of his natural life? Is that the best they can do to help the housing situation in this country?
I am surprised, because surely they do not expect present high interest rates to continue. Surely they expect a government to be elected in this House which is going to get interest rates down. Surely under these circumstances they would be the first to say that the average small home owner in this country should be entitled at the first rollover opportunity to the benefits of these lower, declining interest rates. I should hope they would do better than that and I can assure hon. members that the next government of Canada will get these interest rates down, and then we will hear a different tune from our friends in the far corner. What they are proposing is a real tragedy, namely, a burden which could be crushing to small home owners in Canada. I will return to the question of interest rates later, Mr. Speaker. In the meanwhile, I should like to talk about land banking.
The time to have acted was five years ago when the task force made its report. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) was a member of that task force and he made a very real and very considerable contribution to the writing of that report. The hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey) was an unofficial member of that task force. He travelled with us from coast to coast. He often rode with us and he listened to our deliberations. Interestingly enough-I think this is important-he came very largely to the same conclusions as did the members of the task force and he was very much in sympathy and in harmony with the recommendations made and published in the task force report.


An hon. Member:: Did you say that at the time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Although land was expensive five years ago, it was not outrageously expensive. Perhaps it was a little bit outrageous, but certainly not as outrageous as it is at the present time. I should like to give an example in Toronto. Not only is it the city, part of which I represent in the House of Commons, but it probably represents the extreme case. In Toronto, in the spring of 1969, you could buy a standard serviced lot for about $10,000; in some cases a little more and in some cases a little less, but approximately $10,000 for a fully serviced lot 50 feet by 120 feet. What is the price today? The same standard lot 50 feet by 120 feet in metropolitan Toronto costs today $35,000. In only five years the price of the standard minimum lot in metropolitan Toronto has escalated from $10,000 to $35,000, and every house purchaser in metropolitan Toronto is today paying $25,000 more for his or her house because of the failure of this government to act five years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The task force could see what was going to happen and I could see what was going to happen; and of the recommendations to cabinet on February 14, 1969, the most important was the one which would make available to the municipalities 100 per cent financing for the acquisition of land and-and this is important, Mr. Speaker- for the installation of sewers, water and roads so they would have available an inventory, not just a moose pas-
Urban Affairs
ture, of lots which could be easily converted to suit the housing requirements of the people of Canada. The government, in its arrogant blindness and callousness, could not or would not act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: People ask why we have runaway inflation today. It is due to this kind of lack of foresight, because nothing could have had a greater impact on the cost of housing in the metropolitan area of Toronto than this escalation of $25,000 a lot in the period of five years. Of course, the extra cost with regard to other types of accommodation is more or less parallel, because whether it be for apartment buildings, for semi-detached or condominium type accommodations, the increase in cost is approximately proportional to that increase which is incredible in its magnitude.
The minister said this afternoon he has federal-provincial types of land banking arrangements and he is now entering into federal-municipal land banking arrangements. I wonder if this government will ever learn. I have reason to doubt it.


An hon. Member:: Not this one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not these fellows.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why does it have to meddle in the internal affairs of the provinces and the internal affairs of municipalities? Does CMHC have to have its fingers into every pie? Why cannot the government of Canada adopt a policy similar to that recommendation of 1969? It was a recommendation, the great feature of which was its simplicity, under which money would be made available instantly to the municipalities to do the job that is theirs under the constitution of Canada. The government of Canada would restrict its activity to its own responsibility, which under our constitution is the money and banking aspect.
If under our constitution the government of Canada would keep its nose out of other people's business and do properly its own business, living up to its own responsibilities, then we could make some progress in this country toward solving the problems that face us. The government has failed in its responsibility. Joint land banking is too slow, too complex and too expensive. It is all right to start now-better now than never, I would say, and better now, certainly, than leaving it for two, three or four years to expand land banking activity-but that does not meet the immediate need of this country, and that immediate need is serviced land. The municipalities of Canada need sewage and water systems and roads now.


An hon. Member:: Not tomorrow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not good enough to buy some swamp in the outskirts of Ottawa which can be developed in years to come, as the government has done. Although we are delighted to know that the government is going to finance a building in Toronto where the sewage will be recycled and the water will be used over and over again, by the time the system has been perfected to the point that it will have commercial application and use universally on a wider scale, precious years will have gone by. I repeat, to

March 26, 1974
Urban Affairs
solve the supply problem the minister must make sure that the municipalities of Canada have the funds necessary to provide sewer and water systems and roads now.
The government of Canada should make more money available now to the municipalities in order that they can meet their financial requirements. The government of Canada should consider the possibility of writing off part of their costs. If on the other hand they find that the municipalities are still strapped, they should consider writing off the total cost until the situation is under control and until the price rise has stopped and the people of Canada have an opportunity to live, breathe, be decently housed and look after themselves and their families.
Where would the money come from? Some could come from unemployment insurance or from the LIP program or the Opportunities for Youth program. Surely some of these people are capable of participating in the manufacture of concrete pipe. Surely some of them have the capability to drive a bulldozer or a truck. Surely some of these people are capable of operating backhoes. Surely some of these people are not only capable but would welcome the opportunity to use their creative talents for something worth while in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are many places the money could be found if the government only had the will to get on with the job.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Productive expenditure: they do not understand that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some municipalities need help in respect of their transportation systems. Certainly research is necessary. I am one of the first to say that research should be done in the field of public works, but much can be done without any great new breakthroughs in technology. Toronto must have an extension of its public transportation system out into the open land as a way of solving the housing problem. Some would say the same thing about Vancouver if it had a public transportation system.
Perhaps the minister should start working right away to see what can be done about meeting the need to provide the funds for necessary transportation systems. Many things could be done. The minister should talk the government into adopting the incomes policy recommended by the Conservative Party. There is no way interest rates will come down until inflation is brought under control. There is no way inflation will be brought under control so long as the minister goes along with his laissez-faire, status quo type of policy which has been proven not to work. Consequently, the accent in respect of housing and urban development should be by putting pressure on his colleagues to adopt the Conservative policy in so far as incomes are concerned to bring inflation under control and to bring interest rates down.
The minister should use some of his persuasive powers to get the provinces to adopt a standard building code. He could persuade the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to reconsider his intransigent attitude in respect of the 11 per

cent tax on building materials. He could persuade the government once again to establish a program-not just talk about it-to finance urban transportation systems. There are many things the minister could do, but he seems incapable of learning.
Recently, for example, we drew to the attention of the minister the problem in respect of the co-operative colleges in Toronto and some of the things that went wrong there. We understand that the minister had a secret report prepared which he refuses to let us look at. We also understand that some charges will be laid in that regard. Now we see another example of co-operative housing which is not really co-operative housing because it does not involve any participation by individuals in a real, tangible way. It involves no sweat labour as was the case in those noble Nova Scotia experiments. Consequently, it is another case of middle-class rip-off by individuals who take no risk and enjoy playing with other people's money.
We are adopting projects in Toronto described as cooperative housing which in fact represent high-cost housing. The rents will be higher than the market cost, in spite of the many subsidies. All that is happening is that the minister is fooling the people with these programs and the notion that non-profit housing can be equated with low cost housing, which it cannot. It would be far better if the minister would take 80 per cent of this money right away and put it into the things necessary to get the situation under control, namely, the sewer, water, road and other facilities across the country necessary to increase the supply of serviced land and get the cost of housing down so that Canadians once again will have a chance to look after their own needs.
The minister complains about the market not providing houses except for middle-class people, the middle area. Well, this has a certain ring of truth to it because of the impediments put in the way of industry by various levels of government. The minister should spend his time removing the impediments instead of trying to hoodwink the people into believing he is doing something. The minister should be tackling the real problem before him. This $100 million program is nothing more than another attempt to hoodwink the people. It is diversionary action. The minister has funds available to him; they have been in his budget all along. This $100 million has more the flavour of an election fund in the sense that some monuments which will be built will do more to facilitate his re-election than to solve the housing problems. It makes a farce of the Election Expenses Act. The minister should get on with the important task. Better still, the House should demonstrate its lack of confidence in this government so the people can elect a government that will take action.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words on the motion before us. Mr. Speaker, this motion asks that the House repudiate, and I quote:
... the $100 million Urban Demonstration Program as a diversionary tactic and clearly ineffective to assist in solving the existing housing crisis and accordingly has no confidence in the government.
March 26, 1974

That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we have no confidence in this government, but we know that this amount of $100 million will not solve the present housing problems.
Mr. Speaker, $100 million are to be invested in Canada for research so as to determine the needs in the building field. Mr. Speaker, we have known those needs for a long time. We have known for a long time that the Canadian people are unable to find decent housing and that they are being exploited on account of the usurious rates of interest of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other financial institutions. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the CMHC is in collusion with all other financial institutions to exploit people in need of a home. Housing is a basic necessity like food and clothing. The human being needs a shelter. It is an essential need. The state has never been concerned about the basic needs of the citizens. They are exploited out and out. It is a shameful abuse for a government to have a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in collusion with other institutions so as to exploit Canadian citizens without restraint, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, every man must have his own house, furniture, his personal belongings and all his own work tools. It is the personal ownership of his property which enables a man to settle on a piece of land and organize his life and the life of his family around it. It is because of this property that he may realize that he has something in common with the physical universe.
The aim of society, Mr. Speaker, is not to make projects to gouge citizens in collusion once again with all other institutions.
Mr. Speaker, if life is a trip man must be able to come into port as often as his activities allow him to do so. That port must belong to him and not to somebody else. I will say, Mr. Speaker, and everybody knows that, about 10 per cent of our citizens are really the owners of their housing units or homes; the other 90 per cent depend on Central Mortgage and Housing and other financial institutions charging usurious interest rates.
Central Mortgage and Housing now lends at 10 or 12 per cent. But at 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, interests double the amount of the loan every seven years. A $10,000 loan produces $20,000 over 14 years, $40,000 over 21 years, $80,000 over 28 years, $160,000 over 35 years.
So any claim that Canadians are being helped through similar institutions and their protection boils down to outrageous and shameful gouging. Mr. Speaker, every citizen is entitled to his little home, his little piece of land, but the way things are going now very few are homeowners. They are all mortgaged for the rest of their lives. They are all people who will never pay for their houses before they die. It would take two or three generations to pay for a house which should cost about $10,000 and now costs $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000.
Mr. Speaker, if we want research to be done, if we have money to spend on research, we should use it to grant compensated discounts on building materials. The 11 per cent tax on building materials, which gouges the people of Canada, should be abolished.
We are also subject to provincial taxes, which are added to the mortgages and contribute towards increasing the
Urban Affairs
price of houses. Yet, the government maintains that through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and all the projects that are suggested today, and even through this $100 million that the government wants to use for research-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but as it is 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order 58(10), to put forthwith successively every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, supplementary estimates (B), interim supply and the passage of any bill or bills based thereon.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(B)
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, laid before the House March 7, 1974, be concurred in.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with respect to this motion to concur in supplementary estimates (B). I might say at the outset that there are several items in the estimates that could be seriously questioned, but it is not my intention to take up the time of the House to deal with the procedural arguments tonight. However, one of the irregularities is so blatant that the item cannot be allowed to pass and my contention will be that the motion to concur in this particular estimate cannot be put tonight.
The item in question is vote 25b of supplementary estimates (B) concerning the Food Prices Review Board, under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This item relates to almost $1 million of public funds which are to be appropriated if the motion is passed. The sole description of the purpose of this vote appears on page 16 of the supplementary estimates. Under the heading "Budgetary" we see "vote 25b-Food Prices Review Board-program expenditures", and then a further subheading which reads "Activity to be supplemented". Then follow particulars of the administrative objects on which this money is to be spent and the amounts in which the money is to be apportioned.
However, I point out to Your Honour that there is no further description of the purpose of this vote. Despite the phrase "activity to be supplemented", there is no vote 25 in the main estimates for 1973-74 to which reference can be made for a fuller description. There is no reference to any other source by which the purpose of this vote can be identified. There is no statute or previous vote in any past Appropriation Act. Indeed-I stand to be corrected on this-because of the fact that there is no reference in any past Appropriation Act, it can be concluded that this is the first time this estimate has appeared before the House.
The vote stands alone and of itself. It is listed under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, a scrutiny of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act, which is chapter 27 of the Revised Statutes of 1970, reveals that the act does not appear to authorize the minister to set up a board, unless it be a departmental board. Section 3 of the act gives the minister the management and direction of the department.
I suggest that this question must then be asked: Does this include the management and direction of the board here referred to? I suggest that it does not. Certainly we have not seen the management and direction of the board by either the minister responsible for the department or by the government. Section 5 and 6 of the act set out the jurisdiction, the powers and duties of the minister. There is no power there to set up a board, certainly not a board that can function independently of the minister's powers to manage and direct. If this vote is intended to enhance the minister's powers to include the setting up of a board, whether a board over which he has management and

March 26, 1974

direction or an independent board-although the vote does not designate the board's independence-then this vote is legislation by an Appropriation Act, legislation which, unless there is an emergency, should be enacted in a seperate bill as an amendment to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act.
I would refer Your Honour to the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, issue No. 17 covering the proceedings for Tuesday, March 27 of last year, Thursday, March 29 of last year and Friday, March 30 of last year. At page 17:7 we find that the first recommendation of that report to the House, passed by the committee, was:
That the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to establish an independent Food Prices Review Board equipped with such powers as are necessary to review prices, and that it report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-
That was the recommendation of the committee, one of the reasons for which I presume was the lack of power in the report. I therefore submit that if the vote refers to that board set up under the Inquiries Act, chapters 1 to 13 of the revised Statutes, 1970, then again, in my submission, it is legislation. Section 11(1) of that act authorizes any commission constituted under the act to hire staff. That is the only expenditure a commission is authorized to make. Yet this vote details operating expenditures for transportation and communications, rentals and capital expenditures for machinery and equipment-and God knows it needs some machinery and equipment. This vote can only be legislation to amend the act to do something which the governor in council could not authorize the board to do by order in council under the act, that is, to authorize the board to expend public moneys beyond the hiring of staff.
Whichever way this vote is looked at, it is attempted legislation by an Appropriation Act. The principle is set out in May's eighteenth edition at page 731. On that principle the vote must be ruled invalid. I will be referring very shortly to a precedent by the Chair. Before I leave that particular aspect I ought to point out to you, sir, and make the submission that the proper way to fund a body such as a food prices review board is as has been done in the main estimates of the Privy Council to be found in the main estimates for this year at page 20-6. I read from "A-Privy Council" estimates; It is the last subparagraph at the bottom of the page under "Program description" and it reads:
Commissions of Inquiry and Task Forces-The provision of funds for Commissions of Inquiry and Task Forces appointed to make recommendations on specific issues.
That is the way it was done with the setting up of the Indian Land Claims Commission; it was not done under the Department of Indian Affairs, and the powers are similar to this. The appropriation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was sought by the estimates under the appropriation bill following that, and in that case it is a vote under the Privy Council estimates and not under the department which has no powers.
I said, sir, I was going to refer the Chair to a ruling which was made on December 10, 1973, in which Your Honour quoted the same citation from May's which I now advance in support of the submission that the vote is an attempt to legislate by an Appropriation Act. I refer to May's eighteenth edition at page 731, commencing at page
Disposition of Supply Motions
730 under the heading "Authorization of expenditure by the Appropriation Act without specific legal sanction," as follows:
Expenditure by a department for purposes not covered by its existing legal powers normally requires to be specifically authorized by a financial resolution associated with a bill according to the procedure described in the next chapter.
On that day Your Honour went on to quote at length, commencing as follows:
The question has repeatedly arisen in the past whether, in a particular case, the authority given by the Appropriation Act is an adequate substitute for authorization by a specific bill.
On the one hand, there is, so far as this question is concerned, no legal restraint on the discretion of the Crown in presenting an estimate, or on that of Parliament in authorizing the expenditure provided by such an estimate by the Appropriation Act. On the other hand, the Appropriation Act is a general measure, containing a great many items, and is not adapted to defining the conditions, etc., of expenditure. Also, this act only gives authority for a single year, and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a period or indefinitely. There have been cases, too, in which the Appropriation Act has been used, not merely as a substitute for specific legislation, but to override the limits imposed by existing legislation.
The Public Accounts Committee have repeatedly drawn attention in their reports to cases of what they considered the misuse of the Appropriation Act in either of the above-mentioned ways, and the Treasury, in answer to such comments, have justified the practice on grounds of emergency rather than of principle.
Your comment at that time, Mr. Speaker, was this:
I suggest that if such justification were put forward, it would have to be based on an emergency rather than a principle.
But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no emergency in this case because if there were an emergency with respect to vote 16b the government would have proceeded under Standing Order 58(18). That order reads:
In the event of urgency in relation to any estimate or estimates, the proceedings of the House on a motion to concur therein and on the subsequent bill are to be taken under Government Orders and not on days allotted in this order.
So I submit to you, sir, that this is an attempt to legislate by an estimate, and that it should be done in a normal fashion by bringing in the necessary amendment to existing legislation and not by an attempt to legislate through an appropriation bill. That being the case, in my submission the estimate cannot be put forward at this time on a motion to concur.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I shall be brief. I think it is important to realize that the Food Prices Review Board was set up under the Inquiries Act, the act designated, and the responsible minister having set up the board, the government was under some obligation to provide funds for it to operate. That is what this estimate does. How else is money to be provided for a function of the government if not through the Appropriation Act or estimates? It seems to me that the hon. member, in his typical fashion, has dragged one of his red herrings across the path of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would be pleased to hear further representations if hon. members have views to express. The evening is early and the Chair is quite prepared to listen to further argument if that is the wish of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.
896

March 26, 1974
Disposition of Supply Motions


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further argument either for or against the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I am prepared to make a ruling. The hon. member for Yukon proposed a similar argument last year at the time of consideration of supply items. On that occasion it related to dollar items. The hon. member will remember, since he quoted part of the decision, that I agreed with him that the dollar items to which he referred then were to my mind, in the way I interpreted them, legislative items and therefore could not be put to the House.
I have to say to the hon. member that the situation is not as clear to me now as it was the last time, or as it appeared to be to the hon. member. I agree with him that parliament cannot legislate by estimates, but on looking at this particular item I do not see what act it claims to amend or in what way it seeks to establish a legislative principle, or to legislate, to put it simply.
I hoped other hon. members might have made additional argument in support of the hon. member's contention that this is a legislative item. But I would find it very difficult to agree with him that prima facie this is anything other than an item of estimates. Perhaps the hon. member might have another point, namely, that rather than a supplementary estimate this might be a main estimate. It may be that this would be an improper way to proceed if it is a main estimate rather than a supplementary estimate, but I cannot conclude that this is a legislative item and therefore that it cannot be put to the House.
I wish I could have come to another conclusion if the hon. member could have convinced me that he was right, but in all fairness to the House I do not think I can agree with the hon. member's contention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-15, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-15, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-$724,337,761 granted for 1973-74.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a very brief point of order. I think the committee should take a moment or two to reflect upon the subject matter raised by my colleague from Scarborough West on two occasions in the past. He objected to legislative items in the estimates and the bill founded upon those estimates appearing in alphabetical order in the English language but not in alphabetical order in the French language. The hon. member has obviously won his point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the hon. member for Skeena for his intervention on a point of order. Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Chairman, I have an objection to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Skeena. I have not won my point; this House has won its point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, since some hon. members perhaps do not consider this matter as very important, I wish to say that bilingualism is a sum of many small things. A minor reform has been brought about in this House which adds, in my opinion, to our national identity.
On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) brought down these documents in an appropriate form, would it not be possible to request now of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that the Revised Statutes of Canada be reviewed so that the tables of contents be set up in the same way?

Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That this House do concur in interim supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $3,138,241,654.50 being the aggregate of:
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1975, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament $2,938,230,154.50.
(b)	An additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 25 and Industry, Trade and Commerce item L20 (schedule A) $19,731,333.33.
(c)	An additional six-twelfths of the total amount of Transport item 40 and Treasury Board item 10 (schedule B) $29,287,000.00.
(d)	An additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Transport item L105 (schedule C) $5,625,000.00.
March 26, 1974

(e)	An additional four-twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 20 and Urban Affairs item 10 (schedule D) $47,880,000.00
(f)	An additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources item 25, Environment item 15 and Transport items 35, 45 and 80 (schedule E) $31,388,500.00.
(g)	An additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 10, Secretary of State item 50 and Treasury Board item 5 (schedule F) $36,462,000.00.
(h)	An additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Consumer and Corporate Affairs item 30, Indian Affairs and Northern Development items L75 and 90, Manpower and Immigration item 10, National Health and Welfare Item 65, Secretary of State item 65, Supply and Services items 1 and 10 and Transport items 60, 85 and 110 (schedule G) $29,637,666.67.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31
March, 1975.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Barnett:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not having seen anyone else rise, I should like to ask whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is prepared to give the House what sometimes is referred to as the usual assurance on interim supply.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give the usual assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: The usual assurance having been given by the President of the Treasury Board-


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, could we have the usual assurance? We feel that it should be on the record. I know that the minister is tired, and he looks as though he should be in bed, but let us complete this as properly as possible.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not
Disposition of Supply Motions
prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill No. C-16, for the granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1975, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 58(10), Mr. Drury moves that Bill C-16, for granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1975, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to G inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 27, 1974