1974-03-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It deals with the decision of oil retailers in the Rimouski area to increase up to 18 per cent the price of heating oil to customers whose tanks have a capacity of less than 50 gallons. Some retailers have even stopped delivery to their customers who own such tanks. As a result of the flagrant injustice which such a decision represents for the poor who are deprived of an essential service to which they are entitled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and remind him that the motion must be introduced without argumentation in a very short preamble. The hon. member could perhaps move his motion.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expected that, but to say all that I want to say, I must give a lot of explanations.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the decision of the Rimouski area oil retailers to increase the price of heating fuel by up to 18 per cent for customers having tanks with a capacity under 50 gallons.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to intervene in order to put an end to the discriminatory practices of heating fuel retailers who unjustly penalize people with a low income who own tanks holding less than 50 gallons by arbitrarily increasing the cost of heating fuel.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE TOLLS AND DOCKAGE CHARGES- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent public necessity. I hope Your Honour will permit me to give about four brief sentences by way of preamble. The strike by the Seafarers International Union will prevent the shipment of grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway system. Whereas the shipping companies cannot now compete because of the imposition of tolls and dockage charges throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway system, adding to the inflationary cost to the consumers of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the tolls and dockage charges on the St. Lawrence Seaway system be eliminated forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA PRODUCTS IMPORTATION ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-266, prohibiting the importation of products from the Union of South Africa.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, "for many years Canadians have been concerned about the injustice of racist and colonial policies in Southern Africa." That statement was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) on February 21. This bill, I hope, will help to correct some of those injustices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1974
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of Senators).


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member wishes to rise for the purpose of explaining the bill. Unless there is a request made from the floor it is difficult to interpret the hon. member's intention. If the hon. member seeks the floor for that purpose he will be recognized.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This bill would make the other place more representative of the wishes of the population at large and perhaps thereby restore its credibility as a function of parliament.


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

Allan Bruce McKinnon: for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This bill will be self-explanatory when it is printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31. 1973?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31,1972 (c) March 31, 1973?
[Mr. Reynolds.)


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) March 31, 1971, $199,716,533.74; (b) March 31, 1972, $233,657,501.35; (c) March 31, 1973, $269,053,974.73.
2.	(a) March 31, 1971, 5.3460 per cent; (b) March 31, 1972, 5.5895 per cent; (c) March 31, 1973, 5.8969 per cent.
3.	(a) March 31, 1971, $6,908,452.99; (b) March 31, 1972, $8,325,914.58; (c) March 31, 1973, $9,498,815.49.
4.	(a) March 31, 1971, $1,525,344.69; (b) March 31, 1972, $1,786,016.81; (c) March 31, 1973, $2,329,355.53.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What sections of the old Brockville and Westport Railway right-of-way have been sold or otherwise disposed of by Canadian National Railways since operations ceased on this route?
2.	In each case what was the total cost of disposal, to whom was disposal made and what was the price paid?
3.	What plans, if any, does Canadian National Railways have for portions of the old Brockville and Westport Railway right-of-way which it still owns?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 3. Of the 40 miles of right-of-way involved, a strip approximately 11 miles in length extending from a point near Newboro to a road allowance between Concessions 7 and 8, Township of Bastard, is to be retained by the Railway for possible rail penetration.
2.	It is not company policy to disclose information of this nature.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the Solicitor General indicate to reporters on November 20, 1973 in Fredericton, New Brunswick that he hoped Mayor Leonard C. Jones would lose the case which he had before the Supreme Court of Canada against the Official Languages Act and, if so (a) was any action taken to reprimand or censure the Solicitor General for making such a statement (b) what action was taken?
2.	Did the Solicitor General make a public withdrawal of this statement?
3.	Was any action taken by senior members of the government to advise the court that any statements so made were not indicative of government position on the case in question?
4.	What steps have been taken to prevent this type of statement being made in the future by any official who through his position in the cabinet could be construed as speaking for government?
o.	If the Solicitor General did not make such a statement what was done to correct the record?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Yes. (a) No; (b) none.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	None.
March 25, 1974

5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Crouse: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the annual meeting of the Norfolk-Haldimand Liberal party Annual meeting on Friday, February 22, 1974 reprinted at public expense and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) how many copies were distributed (c) what specific individual authorized this expenditure of public funds?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No. (a)
Not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the annual meeting of the Swift Current-Maple Creek Federal Liberal Association on Monday, February 18, 1974 reprinted at public expense and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) how many copies were distributed (c) what specific individual authorized this expenditure of public funds?


Eugene Whelan: No. (a)
Not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable.


Mr. Gleave: 1.	What is the established support level for (a) beef cattle (b) hogs (c) eggs as of January 1, 1974?
2.	Has the government had discussions with the government of Saskatchewan in regard to assisting that province with its support program of $57 per cwt. for hogs?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
established mandatory support level under the Agricultural Stabilization Act is: (a) beef cattle, $23.21 per cwt.; (b) hogs, $26.85 per cwt.; (c) eggs, 28.60 cents per dozen.
2. Yes.


Mr. Forrestall: By region in Canada, what was the strontium 90 level at the end of December of 1973, 1972 and 1971?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and. Welfare):: 1. The strontium 90 levels, in units of picocuries per litre of milk, are as follows:
December December December
1971	1972	1973British Columbia	5.9	6.2	4.8Prairie Provinces	6.9	5.7	4.2Ontario	7.6	6.3	5.3Quebec	8.3	7.0	6.2Maritime provinces	9.7	7.0	5.6Newfoundland	14.0	15.4	9.6
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government adopted as a matter of policy the principle of meeting the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index in terms of annual increases in pay and allowances for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No. Pay rates for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, which are reviewed annually, reflect the principle of paying salaries comparable to those prevailing in the Public Service of Canada. Pay Rates in the Public Service compare, in turn, with those paid by outside employers. Therefore, pay rates for the Canadian Armed Forces are indirectly related to rates paid in the private sector.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	As of December 31, 1973, what percentage of persons in receipt of Public Service Superannuation are in receipt of benefit under the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act (a) including those affected by recent changes in the legislation affecting such payments (b) excluding those newly brought under the legislation?
2.	As of December 31, 1973, how many persons were in receipt of benefit under the PSSA and under the PSSRBA?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. As of December 31, 1973, slightly over 92 per cent of the persons receiving benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act were also in receipt of the benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The amendments to the latter act in 1973, do not affect the over-all number of Public Service Superannuation Act recipients who are entitled to increases.
2. As of December 31, 1973, 72,712 persons were receiving benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Of these 67,163 were receiving increases pursuant to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


Mr. Stevens: What is the forecast of the government of aggregate domestic supply and demand for funds in 1974 and 1975?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The government's forecasts, such as those on the aggregate domestic supply and demand for funds in 1974 and 1975, are necessarily tentative, subject to regular revision as more information becomes available, and for internal purposes only.


Mr. Stevens: Does the government foresee a major shift of corporate borrowing away from bank loans into the long bond market in 1974 and, if so, in what dollar amounts?
806

March 25, 1974
Order Paper Questions


John Napier Turner: In 1973 corporations relied heavily on short-term bank credit to satisfy their needs largely for working capital purposes. This was indicative of the availability of bank credit and its cost relative to the securities markets. Corporations switch their short-term borrowings between banks and the securities markets for even small shifts in the relative costs of these funds. They can be expected to switch to the money market for example, if costs there fall below the cost of bank credit. Some such shifts have already Occurred in 1974. Future shifts will depend on the relative cost of funds. As far as the long-term bond markets are concerned, it is relevant to note first that corporations have accumulated large amounts of short-term liabilities and second that corporate fixed investment is expected to be large in 1974. Taking both of these factors into account it is likely that corporations will wish to match their assets and liabilities closely and they are therefore likely to borrow larger amounts from the long-term bond markets than in 1973. The dollar amounts involved depend on a number of factors which will only emerge as the year progresses.


Mr. Stevens: In the 1974-75 period, what fiscal policy stance should the total government sector in Canada adopt and what kind of balance of taxing, spending and borrowing will be most appropriate between the three levels of government?


John Napier Turner: The considered response of the government to this question will be given in the budget address.


Mr. Hales: 1.	How many Immigration counsels operate at the International Airport, Toronto?
2.	What are the qualifications of these counsels and how were they appointed?
3.	(a) What are the fees charged by these counsels (b) are they paid in advance (c) are receipts issued?
4.	How do they make contact with the incoming visitors?
5.	How is the fee charged for these services established?
6.	Who polices their activities?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Persons who act as counsel for individuals during proceedings under the Immigration Act and Regulations at the Toronto International Airport are in no way connected or associated with the Department of Manpower and Immigration. An individual who indicates a desire to be represented by counsel at such proceedings is directed to either his country's diplomatic representative or to the local office of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan. Private counsels therefore must rely for referrals on such organizations, members of the ethnic community or friends and relatives of the individuals involved. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no knowledge of these counsels' business practices nor their relationships with their clients.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Treasury Board on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
1972-73, $82,415; 1973-74, $109,621.
2.
Name and Address
Purpose
Amount
paid
Canadian Mailbag Marketing Ltd. Toronto, Ont.
11. J. Louks,
Ottawa, Ont. Mhun & Associes Lt6e 13 conomistes-Conseils Montreal, Que.
To assist in the Publishing of the booklet "Plow your Tax Dollar Is Spent."
1973-74 Michel Billot Montreal, Que.
It. J. Louks Ottawa, Ont.
To advise and assist in revision of the French Language version of the Guide on Financial Administration.
4,000
9,600
1,088	14,688
2,100
To advise and assist in the drafting and editing of the booklet "IIow Your Tax Dollar Is Spent."
Gottschalk and Ash Ltd.
Montreal, Quebec To prepare a graphic design system in support of the Treasury Board Secretariat publications and communications with departments and the general public.
4,330
5,590
3.	1972-73, $67,727; 1973-74, $97,596. These amounts represent salaries and associated cost involved in the departmental information program for publications on the department and the economy, presentation of the estimates, response to oral and written inquiries, printing and distribution of policy statements and announcements, etc.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many persons convicted of (a) murder (b) capital murder (c) non-capital murder are now serving time in Canadian prisons?
March 25, 1974

2.	How many persons convicted of (a) murder (b) capital murder (c) non-capital murder were released from Canadian prisons in 1973?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) 70;
(b) 63; (c) 423.
2.	(a) Four (includes two who died while still in penitentiary); (b) two; (c) 19.


Mr. Reynolds: What were the British Columbia LIP figures for the past year (1972), by constituency?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The total allocations, including summer extensions, to each British Columbia constituency in 1972-73 are as follows: Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, $334,210; Burnaby-Seymour, $358,685; Capilano, $834,767; Coast Chilcotin, $1,127,810; Comox-Alberni, $1,236,030; Esquimalt-Saanich, $472,698; Fraser Valley East, $927,471; Fraser Valley West, $774,872; Kam-loops-Cariboo, $1,122,355; Kootenay West, $1,050,145; Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, $833,347; New Westminster, $859,437; Okanagan Boundary, $1,053,795; Okanagan-Kootenay, $1,121,480; Prince George-Peace River, $1,199,707; Skeena, $1,062,793; Surrey, $899,633; Vancouver Centre, $3,028,982; Vancouver East, $2,670,388; Vancouver Kingsway, $740,469; Vancouver Quadra, $895,290; Vancouver South, $339,324; Victoria, $999,660.


Mr. Reynolds: For what reason is the Canadian Postal Code made out of a series of numbers and letters when the Postal Code used in the United States and other parts of the world is a straight, simple numbering system?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: The
Canadian postal code is designed to enable the post office to sort mail mechanically down to letter carrier walks. In order to achieve this without making use of nine or ten digits it is necessary to use letters, which of course have the effect of permitting more choices.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Under the terms of the 1967 Immigration Act, Section 28(1) as amended November 6, 1972, has consideration been given to the effects of deportation upon the individual who comes to visit and, if so (a) in what way (b) with what results?
2.	Are changes in immigration regulations being contemplated as a result of current problems?
3.	Is consideration being given to requiring prospective visitors to Canada to obtain visitors visas before departure for Canada to avoid inconvenience on arrival and, if not, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The amendment to section 28(1) of the Immigration Regulations on November 6, 1972 has no effect on the temporary admission of bona fide tourists who come to Canada and leave at the end of their visit. This section of the Immigration
Order Paper Questions
Regulations is used for deportation purposes only in the case of persons who seek immigrant admission and are not in possession of a valid immigrant visa where one is required.
2.	The regulation is working satisfactorily and no changes are being planned. All aspects of immigration policy and procedures are, however, under review by the Canadian Immigration and Population Study group.
3.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no plans at the moment for altering the present non-immigrant visa requirements for visitors. However bona fide tourists who do not now require such visas to visit Canada can, if they wish, obtain such visas if they feel they would facilitate their travel plans.


Mr. Dick: Does Jacques Lanctot who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Jacques Lanctot who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970 following the release of James Cross does not have a valid Canadian passport.


Mr. Dick: Does Suzanne Lanctot who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport, and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Suzanne Lanctot who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross does not have a valid Canadian passport.


Mr. Dick: Does Marc Carbonneau who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Marc Carbonneau who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross does not have a valid Canadian passport.


Mr. Dick: Does Yves Langlois who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yves Langlois, alias Pierre Seguin, who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross does not have a valid Canadian passport.
27398-52.1

March 25, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: Does Jacques Cossette-Trudel who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Jacques Cossette-Trudel who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970 following the release of James Cross does not have a valid Canadian passport.


Mr. Dick: Does Louise Cosette-Trudel who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross have a Canadian passport and, if so (a) when was it issued (b) when does it expire?


Mitchell William Sharp: Louis Cosette-Trudel who flew to Cuba on a government aircraft on December 3, 1970, following the release of James Cross, does not have a valid Canadian passport.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the maximum number of hours per week which Air Canada pilots are permitted to (a) work (b) fly?
2.	What was the total number of days worked by all Air Canada pilots in the calendar year 1972 and, of those days, how many were more than eight hours in length?
3.	Have any complaints been received by Air Canada, the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to (a) pilot fatigue (b) the effect of time zone changes on pilots and crew?
4.	Is the Department of Transport or Canadian Transport Commission in the process of, or planning to investigate, Air Canada flights with respect to (a) pilot fatigue (b) effect of time zone changes on pilots and crew?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1 and 2. As provided by the collective agreement, "75 hours of flying shall constitute the monthly maximum for all pilots". Each block holder (pilot) is required to have four separate time-off periods of not less than 48 consecutive hours or three separate periods of not less than 72 consecutive hours. While a pilot could be scheduled to be on duty for up to 14 hours, if he commences work between the hours of 2200 and 0500 this 14 hours is reduced to 11, and the 11 hours is further reduced by one hour for each landing in excess of five landings. It should be noted that Air Canada's flight and duty time limitations are more stringent than required by the Ministry of Transport, and, generally speaking, pilots receive considerably more time off than the minimum required by the airline itself.
3. As states publicly by the president of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, flight and duty time limitations and other matters of this nature have not occasioned

any problems. Differences, if any, are resolved by CALPA and the airline with the objective always being maximum safety of the operation.
The Ministry of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 3. (a) No. (b) No.
4.	(a) and (b). No, but the ministry is planning future studies of this problem, as it relates to the entire spectrum of Canadian Civil Aviation activities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) How many civilian members of the Department of National Defence were there (b) how many were in each of the grades of Senior Executive Grade 1 and above, on March 31, 1973 (c) what were the salary ranges for each grade at that date?
2.	On March 31, 1973, how many public servants were there in the departments of (a) External Affairs (b) National Health and Welfare (c) Transport?
3.	On March 31, 1973, how many public servants in each of the departments were in the Senior Executive Grade 1 and above or equivalent, and what were the salary ranges for each grade on that date?
Return tabled.



MINISTER OF TRANSPORT'S MARINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CAPITAL BUDGET UPDATE, DECEMBER 31, 1973

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What specifically is the spending and building program for the next five years by type (operational capability) of vessels to be budgeted by the Ministry of Transport as found in the Ministry of Transport's Marine Transportation Program Capital Budget Update of December 31, 1973 for (a) operational use north of 60 degrees parallel (b) operational use south of 60 degrees parallel?
2.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,335 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, what reasons was the Budget Update of December 31, 1972, answered in the first session of the 29th Parliament on January 9, 1974?
3.	What is the exact nature of the Ministry's Budget Update in terms of (a) accuracy of cost estimates (b) Treasury Board approval of funding indicated (c) Cabinet approval of funding indicated therein (d) other board parameters particularly the planning period involved?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT-INTEREST RATE

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What has been the size and interest rate earned by the Public Service Superannuation Account for each quarter since 1965?
2.	For each quarter since 1965, what has been the amount involved and the interest earned on new investments under the account?
Return tabled.
March 25, 1974



FIRMS ELIGIBLE TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Mr. Stevens: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the firms on the current list of consulting firms eligible to provide professional services to the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	Since 1968 (a) what are the names and addresses of the firms that have been subtracted from the list (b) what are the names that have been added to the current list?
3.	For each of the consulting firms (a) on the current CIDA list (b) subtracted from the current CIDA list, what is the total amount of money paid to each firm for services rendered to CIDA since 1968?
4.	For each fiscal year 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and to date, what percentage of CIDA's expenditures on capital projects, either under way or proposed, is taken up by moneys paid for outside professional services broken down as to consultants, architects, engineers, contractors, lawyers, project managers and other professionals?
Return tabled.



TREASURY BOARD RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Treasury Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF APPLICANTS IN RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE FROM NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND CANADA COUNCIL

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In each of the past ten years, how many successful applicants for fellowships or other assistance from (a) the National Research Council (b) the Canada Council were landed immigrants at the time of their application?
2.	(a) How many such applicants did not proceed to receipt of full status as Canadian citizens (b) what was the total dollar value of fellowships or other assistance, in the past ten years, to landed immigrants who did not proceed to full status as Canadian citizens?
Return tabled.



SUBSIDIES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS' REMISSION PROGRAM

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations which received subsidies under the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Remission Program (MVM) in each of the fiscal years from the Program's inception to date and what were the amounts of money remitted in each case?
2.	What were the names of corporations which received subsidies or remissions of taxes and duties on motor vehicle parts imported into Canada in each of the fiscal years from 1961-62 to 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of money and the programs involved in each case?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



MEMBERS OF ADVISORY GROUP ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the members of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service dealing with salaries for senior public servants and what are the backgrounds and qualifications of each?
2.	What staff assistance, if any, did the Committee have?
3.	How many meetings did this Committee make before submitting its report to the government?
4.	Did the Committee have prepared for it any comparative studies of the salaries paid to senior public servants and private industry?
5.	Did the Committee have prepared for it any studies as to the salaries paid to senior executives in private industry and was such information provided to the government?
6.	Were representations made to the Committee by the Management Committee of the Senior Public Service?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that we were told recently by the Minister of Transport that the country has no transportation policy, and in view of the fact that carloadings have declined by more than one-per cent so far this year despite the expansion in the economy, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the government first recognized that transportation policy is inadequate and that a completely new policy is needed, as indicated by the Minister of Transport?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Very shortly after the last Transportation Act which was passed in 1967, I believe, questions were raised about it, and at every federal-provincial meeting I have attended since the western premiers have been asking that the question of policy be reopened and restudied. I have consistently answered them, as I now answer the Leader of the Opposition, by saying we are certainly prepared to re-examine the act if the provinces and ourselves arrive at better solutions than the ones embodied in the present act. Without going into too much detail, I would remind the House that back about 1969 the three prairie provinces agreed to embark on certain studies which would, in their view, prove that the act as it now stands should be reviewed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was the Minister of Transport stating the government's position when he said in the House that the country really has no transportation policy, that the policy adopted in the 1960s is not working, and that in his judgment we have no transportation policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, with respect, that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting the minister with a great degree of accuracy. The minister has

March 25, 1974
Oral Questions
indicated that a lot is lacking in the policy and that he is prepared to correct it to that extent. But that is not to say there is no policy; that is to say that the policy is one which is not satisfactory to all parts of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Transport referred specifically to the unwillingness of the railways to order boxcars, for example. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what kind of forecasting the government receives, say six months or a year ahead, with regard to the supply of cars and other equipment to the railways in relation to anticipated requirements? Is there a monitoring system available to the government which indicates what the situation is likely to be six months or a year ahead, and would it not be fair to say that the government knew a year ago that there would be today the approximate degree of shortage of railway equipment that the country is actually suffering?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the kind of question that I have been discussing with the Department of Transport is very much along the lines suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. There was an attempt to forecast not only a year ago but some years in advance the various quantities of goods which would be moved in Canada, the periodicity of these movements, and the quantity of boxcars which would be needed to ensure such movement. So forecasting is being attempted. I would not care to indicate that it is always accurate, but the statement of the Minister of Transport did not refer so much to the number of boxcars-and he indicated the government's past and present attempts to solve that problem-but to the question of the railways themselves not finding it profitable to move grain at certain frozen rates, the Crowsnest rates and so on. This is the nature of the difficulty, as the Leader of the Opposition knows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are so many members seeking supplementaries on this subject that perhaps we should try to complete the first round of questioning and have all the supplementaries after we have completed the first round. I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and then a representative of the third party, and then return to this subject matter.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the corporate tax cuts along with the two-year writeoffs make our effective corporate tax rate lower than that of the United States, thus making for a transfer of funds from our country to the United States treasury, I should like to ask the minister whether he has calculated the total amount of funds or money that will go to the United States treasurj from Canada this year as a result of Canada's corporate tax changes last year?
[Mr. Trudeau.1
Hort. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preamble is inaccurate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's reply is inaccurate. However, leaving it at that, I should like him to say whether he is basing the report he is to make to parliament soon solely on the results of the questionnaire he sent to corporations last fall or has he received some other objective inputs in respect of that report and, if so, would he indicate from what sources?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the report will be submitted and will stand on its own merits. Concurrently, I am, of course, constantly reviewing the tax picture in this country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the two-year write-off measure which was supposed to stimulate investment in new equipment and machinery, and also in view of the fact that investment in that area for manufacturing is only up by about 15 per cent this year compared with 20 per cent in the entire economy, and especially in light of the fact that corporate profits in manufacturing are up by 36 per cent, can the minister explain to the House whether or not these corporate tax write-offs have actually stimulated investment in new machinery and equipment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures on business capital intentions published by the Department of Industry. Trade and Commerce show business capital investment intentions for 1974 over 1973 up about 24 per cent to 25 per cent, and in the manufacturing and processing field up about 46 per cent. Whether these figures will be realized will depend on whether the economy, operating at or close to capacity, will be able to wend its way through the shortages in material and equipment that already exist. I might also say to the hon. gentleman that since one of the prime purposes of the corporate tax cuts and so-called write-offs was to stimulate jobs, he ought to refer to the fact that in 1973 there were 111,000 new jobs in manufacturing, which was 8,000 more than in the six previous years put together.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that unemployment continues to ravage our society and the Canadian economy, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration implemented a very valuable program, LIP, to create employment, and in view of the large number of promising projects that were presented but not accepted for lack of funds, can he tell the House whether he is willing to recommend that additional funds be made available to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to enable him to accept a larger number of those projects which have been presented?
March 25, 1974


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the statistics on unemployment are not satisfactory, but it must also be recognized that, in 1973, thanks to our economic performance, 430,000 new jobs were created in Canada. I am constantly in touch with my colleague. If it is deemed advisable, his budget can certainly be increased: this program is under constant overall revision.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister's excellent reply concerning the creation of many new jobs. However, there is a point on which I am in disagreement with him and which is the subject matter of my supplementary question.
Are the hon. Minister of Finance, together with the President of the Treasury Board and his other colleagues in the cabinet, considering the possibility of granting immediately additional credits to further increase the number of 430,000 new jobs which he just mentioned?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the President of the Treasury Board, and myself have received once again the very serious and convincing representations made by the hon. member.

'English)


VETERANS LAND ACT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are only five days before the phase-out of the Veterans Land Act, would the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, indicate whether a definitive statement will be made this week on the extension of the deadline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 can give the hon. member the assurance that a decision will be announced this week. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has been delayed in transit to Ottawa. He will be here later today. Certainly in the course of the week he will be making an announcement.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that a statement will be made, and I thank the Prime Minister for his disclosure, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the statement will contain an indication of changes in the legislation to ensure that the deadline will be extended in line with other factors that are consistent with extension?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance at this time mainly for the reason the decision has not been finalized yet in cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 believe the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain had a supplementary to the previous question and should be recognized now for that purpose.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


ALLEGED LOSS OF MONEY BY RAILWAYS IN MOVING WHEAT
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question directed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. Am I right in assuming from the Prime Minister's answer that he accepts the view of the Minister of Transport that the railways are losing money by hauling Canadian wheat to export markets, based on information provided by the railways?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the minister said that or indeed if that is his position. I do know one of the difficulties the railways put forward is that with the frozen Crowsnest Pass rates they do not find it advantageous to move wheat. I cannot speak for them, of course, and I do not recall the minister having said that. I believe he is looking into the matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the fact the minister did say that in the House last week and in view of the fact the Prime Minister used the same expression today, is the Prime Minister aware that over the last 40 years there never has been a document on record whereby the railways have been able to prove they have lost money carrying wheat under the Crowsnest Pass rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the expertise of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not be able to talk about a period of 40 years. I am aware of the hon. member's point and it is one that I have discussed with my colleagues. It is an allegation that has been often repeated. I think I was careful in my previous answer to say the minister had not indicated he had documentary proof of it, but this is indeed a matter that he is looking into at this time.


PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE OIL AFTER MARCH 31
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On March 19 the minister stated before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates that the oil pricing proposal advocated by the federal government for the next quarter would be somewhere between $6 and $6.50 a barrel. Does the minister still hold to the view that after the freeze the price of crude will not rise higher than $6.50 a barrel for the next quarter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do expect there will be an increase in price. The exact level to which it will go, as the hon. gentleman knows, is currently under active discussion with the provinces.

March 25, 1974
Oral Questions


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the Minister of Supply and Services is flying a kite on behalf of the government in his speech in Calgary today in which he suggests immediate exploitation of the tar sands by building 20 plants at a cost of $1 billion apiece, a massive exploitation in order to get the oil out of the ground before the price comes down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to answer a question as to whether this is flying a kite. 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. It is not government policy but it has not been rejected out of hand as something that would be unthinkable. It is something that would depend not only on the federal government but also on the provincial attitude.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it unthinkable to think that this minister in the cabinet shuffle which has been widely predicted will be moved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -in order to carry out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for St. Catharines.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF TOLLS AND DOCKAGE CHARGES
J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of-I will not say lack of a transportation policy because the Prime Minister rejects the statement-the transportation policy of the government which at the moment denies the shipment of grain to both the east and the west-I will deal with the east in a moment-and in view of the present strike of the Seafarers International Union, has the government any plans to reduce the tolls and dockage charges along the St. Lawrence Seaway so that the shipping companies can be more efficient and so as to help them pay for the increased wages to which the SIU will be entitled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question presumes a lot of things. As regards the SIU, the Minister of Labour is very much involved in attempting to ensure that a peaceful and just settlement will be reached. In so far as the rest of the question is concerned, it seems to be a representation on behalf of the shipping companies, and we will listen to the representation.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J


J. Trevor Morgan: Does the government not think that the reduction of tolls and dockage charges along the St. Lawrence Seaway system and a general refinancing will help to deflate the inflationary cost of moving goods through that system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here, too, it seems to me to be a representation which embodies an opinion. It is certain that the lower we can keep the costs of all systems the better it will be for the consumer, but for the taxpayer the consequences would perhaps be very much adverse. So we are trying to keep these two things in balance.


APPLICATION TO BUILD MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF REFERENCE OF SUBJECT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the widespread implications arising from the application to build the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, is it the government's intention to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in order that members of this House may familiarize themselves with all the factors that must be taken into consideration before a decision is made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a useful suggestion. One of the questions being raised is whether the House should consider the application before the facts are known or afterwards. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would prefer the former in terms of discussing the principles involved. I would be prepared to pursue that suggestion with the House leader.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the National Energy Board reports not to parliament but to cabinet and the cabinet can implement by order in council any order of the board without reference to parliament, may I ask the minister what input parliament is to have prior to the making of a decision which is of such vital importance to the people of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom in the past for decisions of the National Energy Board to be referred to the cabinet before they are made public. This government intends to depart from that in the sense that certainly on major decisions of this kind reports would be made public before they receive final cabinet judgment. In particular, with regard to the application concerning the Mackenzie Valley pipeline it would be the government's intention to lay the report before the House before a cabinet decision has been taken on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it be the government's intention to refer that report from the National Energy Board to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works or will we be in the same position as we were with

the Columbia River Treaty which we were debating a year after it came into effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would correct the hon. member with regard to the latter. He may recall that the Columbia River Treaty was fully considered by a committee of the House before it was ratified.


MARKETING OF COARSE GRAINS-POSITION OF PRODUCERS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since both the Wheat Board and the minister have already indicated that coarse grains will be removed from the operations of the Wheat Board, will he afford an opportunity to all producers to indicate whether they approve of this action, as was done in the case of the rapeseed plebiscite, or will he use coarse grain producers as a sort of comfort station for the cattlemen who find themselves in a difficult situation because of the recent price drop in the cattle market?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite wrong to suggest that coarse grains are being removed from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Indeed, the bulk of wheat, barley and oats which have been produced in Canada will not in any way be affected by any change of policy dealing with domestic feed grains. Only a very small proportion of feed grain is involved. The question of how best to market that feed grain in Canada involves not only producers but buyers of that grain across the country, and any attempt to determine the wishes of producers and consumers would have to involve both sides of the question. As a result, we have consulted widely with farm organizations across the country in order to attempt to have their views on the right steps to take to produce equity of pricing in Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether producers of coarse grains will be afforded the opportunity to pool their resources or will they be forced to sell on the open market as has been indicated heretofore?


Otto Emil Lang: The government, of course, has announced the final position it will take with regard to the future of feed grain marketing in Canada. The August 3 proposals indicated a certain flexibility in the way in which sellers, owners of grain on the prairies, would sell their grain to other people. Of course, if that option becomes government policy, producers will be able to pool together so as to dispose of their grain.
5*5	*	*


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In
Oral Questions
view of the fact the minister said in a speech he made to the hog producers the other day in Ontario that the reason the federal government has cut farm taxes is so farmers can keep the extra income they are earning today to invest in expanding production, will he tell us how the federal government has cut farm taxes so the farmers can keep the extra income they are earning today?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair should allow the minister to reply to the question but a question asked in those terms is, in my opinion, not in order. The hon. member is referring to a statement made outside the House, and it is a well-established procedure that a question should not be asked in those terms.


MANPOWER
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board and is based on information made available to Mr. Hugh Segal. I should like to ask him why officials of his department, in a memorandum dated February 6, ordered other government departments and agencies to cut back by $6 million federal jobs for students and other young Canadians this year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, for the summer student employment program the total funds provided are less in the current year than in the previous year by reason of the happily improved student employment situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: When a choice had to be made as to the distribution among the various programs, a tentative allotment was made as between OFY and the direct employment program. Later consideration indicated the desirability of allocating more resources to OFY and less to the direct student employment program, one of the reasons being that with limited funds the cost per job is less in OFY than it is in direct employment. The tentative allocation made last fall was changed in favour of OFY and resulted in lesser sums of money for direct employment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the minister tell the House why he and his department disguised the action he has just indicated by including in the estimates $6 million worth of items that he knew would not be spent in the way the estimates said they were going to be spent?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will examine the chronology of the preparation and printing of the main estimates, I think he will see that the decision to reallocate was subsequent to the printing of those estimates.

March 25, 1974
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM AND STUDENT EMPLOYMENT TO COMMITTEE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the evidence today that the minister has not been frank in indicating the amount by which jobs for young Canadians was cut back this year, and in light of the refusal to let parliament see the assessment of last year's OFY program, will the minister give an undertaking now to refer the whole question of OFY and student employment immediately to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, or some other standing committee, and to make all documents available for a full investigation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as already indicated by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, the very premise of the question is incorrect. Therefore I think the rest of the question falls on that.


BILINGUALISM
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport being absent from the House, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the Annual Report recently published by the Commissioner of Official Languages, could the right hon. Prime Minister advise the House whether he is aware of the 22 recommendations of this report concerning the National Railways and, in the affirmative, whether he intends taking steps to favour the earliest possible application of these recommendations?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is taking Mr. Spicer's comments very seriously and he has the intention of seeing to it that the letter and, in particular, the spirit of the law are followed within the department and within Crown corporations.


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the policy of the Department of National Revenue to demand from taxpayers who are filing income tax returns a full list of babysitters who have been employed by them during the taxation year, together with the social insurance number of each babysitter employed and the amount paid to each person, and is this request

included as part of the regular income tax form and, if not, is it being requested on a separate form?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: There is no such form, Mr. Speaker, but naturally if taxpayers are claiming such expenses they may be asked to produce proof of the expenditures.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is this information requested from the taxpayer before he or she files his or her return, and is any part of a rebate or refund due to him or her withheld until the information is provided, or is there a threat to withhold the refund until such information is provided?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any request for such information before a return is filed. It is not usual to ask for such information when the return is initially assessed and a refund is issued. However, it is not unusual to ask for confirmation of any expense claim after the initial assessment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the United States Secretary of State intends to visit Ottawa some time in mid-April, can the minister inform the House of the exact date of Dr. Kissinger's visit, and whether the government in the discussions will give high priority to the Garrison Dam project and the possible effects it may have in Manitoba and parts of Saskatchewan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the last word I had with Dr. Kissinger was to the effect that he would like to be here in the month of March. I think that is now very unlikely. We are trying to fix a date. It may be in April or May, but we are trying to fix a definite date so that arrangements can be made. Among the subjects to be discussed will be the Garrison Dam project. There will be many, Mr. Speaker, and that will be one of them.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact charges have been laid in Toronto against an official of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for offering work permits for a price, and in view of the fact the minister stated earlier this month that further charges would be laid involving civilians as well as consultants to his department, would the minister indicate whether a comprehensive investigation
March 25, 1974

of the operations of his department respecting visas and work permits has been undertaken and whether that investigation, if undertaken, has been completed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a constant monitoring and audit of the operations of all programs of my department, including immigration. I think that perhaps some of the charges laid recently are an indication of the fact that our closer scrutiny is developing an effective response. In each of these cases in which action has been initiated by my department, it has been based on certain allegations and on some evidence of prima facie wrongdoing. These cases have been turned over to the proper authorities and pursued vigorously. I do not believe that this indicates a requirement for a wide scale or widespread investigation of the nature suggested by the hon. member.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the far-reaching implications of the charges and the doubts this entire situation casts on the operation of the department, would the minister indicate whether he is willing to make public the results of the investigation as it relates to his department so that the public's fears and doubts can be laid to rest?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in each individual case that develops to the state where charges are laid it then, of course, becomes a matter of due process of law and I would be limited in making specific comments about them. I rather think that, where some evidence has shown up, action has been taken is in itself reassuring to the public that we are prepared to act when there is wrongdoing.


PROVINCIAL INPUT IN EXTERNAL NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the repeated demands of the provinces, particularly Quebec, concerning their participation in the preparation of the federal policy in trade relations with the Common Market countries or other partners and in trade relations resulting from the GATT negotiations, is the Prime Minister prepared to create a national advisory committee enabling the provinces to communicate directly their views on these matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is making a suggestion the essential part oi which is already included in the government's policy. If that is so, I thank the hon. member for his support. For more details, I am convinced that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will answer.


Claude Wagner: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has adopted a policy to establish a national advisory committee enabling the provinces, particularly Quebec, to take part directly in the development of the financial policy or other, as mentioned in my first question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if direct participation means expressing their views to us. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has already set up such a mechanism. If it means for the province of Quebec or the others to undertake international negotiations in our place, the answer is no, but I do not think that the Progressive Conservative party holds such a position either.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question-


Mr. Speaker:: I take leave to ask hon. members to limit the number of their supplementaries if possible, because we will soon come to the end of the oral question period. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe may ask a supplementary question, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments he just made, would the right hon. Prime Minister be willing to show less paternalism, and to simply listen to the provinces' claims, thus enabling them to participate more actively in the drafting of a federal policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for the third time I repeat that this is the present situation. Without mentioning any in particular, we have asked the provinces to let us know their views before going to the GATT meetings. We have nearly pleaded with them to quote us statistics and to express their views as this would permit us at the GATT meetings to represent a really Canadian point of view.
I do not know what more the hon. member wants except the surrendering of our jurisdiction. Once more, I do not think that this is his party's position, unless it is his very own.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the problems that have emerged in varying forms in urban Canada in recent months, indeed, years, particularly with regard to housing, and focusing particularly on the debate that is to take place in the House today, can the minister explain to the House why the most senior official in his department has spent the last three weeks in Nairobi?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, he has not. The facts of the question are not right. If the hon. member is referring to the visit to the United Nations Environmental Program Directorate in Nairobi, the deputy minister of the department has been there negotiating Canada's contribution to the United

March 25, 1974
Oral Questions
Nations Conference on Human Settlements, which is designed to solve many of the problems the hon. member referred to. Apparently the hon. member and his party ridicule the seeking of any such solutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that there are only two or three minutes left in the question period.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering the fact that most parties in the House have rejected the announcement made by the minister a week or so ago outlining his program for research in this area, which I would have thought the government is not very likely to proceed with, can the minister, putting that aside, inform the House whether his department has decided to implement some program it has sitting around for getting housing to the people in the weeks and months ahead at prices they can afford?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we will be debating this subject more fully this afternoon. With regard to the specific question, of course I cannot account for the errors of the hon. member. I never announced a research program. The particular $100 million program I announced is designed to put in place, beginning this year, solutions to the problems the hon. member is talking about. It is not in any way a research program.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As in the last session on at least five occasions the government was asked about its impending plans for the introduction of railway relocation legislation, as the Speech from the Throne said that something would be done in that connection and, further, in view of the present uncertainty this question is causing right across Canada, including in my own areas of Chilliwack and Abbotsford, can the minister state today when the government will bring forward legislation to deal with this important matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Mayor of Chilliwack and I know he has a great interest in railway relocation proposals in that community. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in thio regard very shortly.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is non-controversial and has to do with the custodial officers in the penitentiaries of this country who, in the
fMr. Basford.]
past couple of years, have been subjected to a variety of attacks, stabbing, shooting and the like. As a result two of them are at present in serious condition and their life expectancy has been greatly reduced. Will the minister give consideration to measures whereby these fine servants, the custodial officers, will, in the event that in the course of duty they suffer physical damage serious to their health and to their continuance in life, receive compensation in the form of a bulk sum by way of damages to be assessed in the regular way?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. member that this is a serious problem. I will take his suggestion under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Peace River, and then call orders of the day.


SMUGGLING OF NARCOTICS INTO INSTITUTIONS-ONGOING INVESTIGATION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In order to arrive at the root causes of the disturbances which have brought about the results mentioned by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, is there any ongoing study in the minister's department dealing with the smuggling into institutions and the use therein by inmates of fairly large quantities of narcotics?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there has been an ongoing inquiry into methods by which drugs have been smuggled into institutions. We have discovered that certain methods were being used and we have taken steps to close off these sources. However, despite the action taken we find that drugs are still being smuggled in. We will continue to take action in this respect. We hope to cut this activity down as much as possible.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the sea of transportation problems in which this country is drowning, has the government given consideration to calling in as a consultant Hon. J. W. Pickersgill to deal with a new transportation policy and the legislation which the Prime Minister, the present Minister of Transport and others in the cabinet so loudly and enthusiastically supported in earlier days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that, in retrospect, the hon. member has forgotten the hon. member for Trinity who was minister of transport for a period between those of the persons he mentioned. He is probably out trying to swim away from the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
March 25, 1974



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Englishl

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North) moved:: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the scope of the motion before the House covers the whole field of urban affairs. I shall deal as objectively as I can with the programs put forward by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), who is responsible for housing in urban Canada. I intend this afternoon to zero in on this country's housing problems and the existing housing crisis in Canada. We intend to zero in on the program which the government announced on March 13 last. The minister announced with great fanfare that $100 million is to be provided for solving the housing problems of this country. That program is to be administered by the department. To many, it seems as if the minister is going on a power binge at the expense of the taxpayer.
I think the House is aware that two thirds of our people in Canada live in an urban environment, and that urban growth continues to accelerate rapidly. Wherever we go, whether it is Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton or what have you, urban growth continues to accelerate rapidly. The responsibility of the federal government in this field has grown with the acceleration of populations in our cities.
I must say at the outset that this minister and this government have failed to appreciate the tremendous growth of the problem existing in urban affairs and the problem of housing for the people of Canada. They have failed to accept their federal responsibility. I say federal responsibility because it is within the constitutional powers of the federal government. Indeed, they have even failed to set up a department.
Before I get into the question of housing and zero in on this demonstration program, I wish to ask whether Urban Affairs is as important a department as the Department of Justice or the Department of Consumer Affairs, because the whole ball of wax of urban affairs affects the quality of life. We know how badly the Department of Transport is being operated. This government has failed to set up a real department of Urban Affairs. It has failed to make certain that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is responsible to the departmental minister.
At the outset, I talked about this power-hungry binge. I might call it the $54,000 program. I will say why, mathematically, I say that. This program is called the urban demonstration program. The way I see it mathematically, there are 365 days in a year. This program will be operating for five years at a cost of $100 million. Five years is equivalent to 1,825 days, so if you divide 1,825 into $100 million, it means that whether the minister is awake or asleep, this program will cost $54,794 per day for five
Urban Affairs
years, yet not one house will be built for anyone in Canada as a result of that expenditure. In rough figures, the minister has agreed to spend $54,794 every day for five years on this innovation program which, I repeat, will not build one new house. May I label this program, the power bid of the minister, "The $54,000 per day plan for five years at the taxpayers expense". It is the most expensive 24 hours for fluff that has ever been designed. It is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of Canada seeking shelter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get the facts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says, get the facts. I know he is good at mathematics. When he works it out, he will find the figures to be correct.
We have today a most serious housing crisis in Canada. I wish to quote from the March 16 edition of the Toronto Star. Perhaps these facts will impress the hon. member who likes to speak while remaining seated rather than on his feet. This article on the front page of the Toronto Star puts this program in the proper perspective. I quote:
Some home prices in Metro go up by $4 every hour
We know what the minister is spending every day on a program that will not do anything. Now, we know that the price of a house for average people in Canada is going up at the rate of $4 an hour. If that is not acceleration, we have never seen acceleration.
Before dealing with this program, I want to mention some of the things we should be doing. First, our party will support a broader and more reasonable interpretation of our national constitution. When we raise the question of the housing crisis in Canada, this government hides behind the constitution. To solve the national housing crisis, the federal government must move and become more involved with the provinces to expedite the development of serviced land at a reasonable cost. This is the key. It will also bring down the interest rate. Has this land banking program which the minister refers to with such affection solved the high cost of housing? Of course, it has not.
We shall create a new department of urban affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be made directly responsible to the minister and his department. We have said over and over again that we will repeal the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to ease the cost of building supplies and inflationary pressures. This Liberal with a big "L" tax that was brought in by Walter Gordon must be repealed and repealed now. When we are the government, it will be repealed.
We will carefully examine the principle that a proportion of municipal residential property taxes and interest on home mortgages shall be deductible from a person's taxable income. In addition, we will see that comparable benefits are given to tenants. We will not set up a plan like the demonstration program that is going to cost the taxpayers $100 million. We will set up a planning secretariat of personnel from all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal. One of the great problems is getting serviced land into operation. This involves the three levels of bureaucracy.

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
We will encourage lending institutions to put certain portions of money into housing at reasonable rates of interest. We will integrate economic programs that will bring down the rate of interest. Today, first mortgages across this land, including CMHC, range from IOV2 to 11 per cent, and in many areas second mortgages are running as high as 21 per cent. I do not think anyone could do any better.
In my opening remarks, I mentioned the housing crisis. John Doig of the Star put it this way. He is only referring to one city. Relatively speaking, the same problem exists across this land. I quote:
Housing industry sources say the average price of a new, detached house in the city and five boroughs last month was about $85,000. It was $25,000 only 10 years ago.
This government has been in office since 1968. An ordinary house for an ordinary person with an ordinary income cost $25,000 when the government took office; it now costs $85,000.
What is the government's plan? What are they doing? We had, first, a promise of great amendments to the National Housing Act which were to cure all evils and bring down the cost of housing. We were promised landbanking to cut the cost of serviced land. Land prices continue to rise in urban centres in Canada. We were promised a public and co-operative housing program to help the low income bracket people obtain shelter. Today, there are as many people seeking that kind of shelter as there were before the program was suggested in the House. We were promised a rehabilitation program for housing. I might say that our housing committee went to Montreal. That city has its own program of rehabilitating many premises for the average man. Where is the government's program?
In many cities today, less than 5 per cent of the wage earners can afford to buy a new home or a rehabilitated one. The vacancy rate is less than one per cent in Toronto. People will soon, if not now, have to place their names on a list to wait for an apartment because the same people cannot raise money for a down payment or pay the high rates of interest. When the vacancy rate is less than one per cent, what is the result? There are not only higher prices, but we will soon be in the same position as the U.S.S.R. where people place their names on waiting lists for shelter.
I will now come to grips with what I want to say. On March 13, 1974, we were promised a most novel program. We were promised a $100 million innovation planning program spread over five years, from 1975-76 to 1980-81. Let me review once again this Habitat 2000 Program. This makes one feel it will not be implemented until the year 2000, judging by the housing crisis across this country. On page 2 of the minister's statement of March 13, we find this:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this 100 million dollar fund will be used to support urban projects in many critical areas.
He said we needed to develop innovative projects to show the effective working of new methods of house design and construction, to demonstrate the feasibility of a new, low-energy, urban system, to illustrate new ways of

getting the utmost value from scarce and expensive natural resources by recycling for multiple use and applying new technology in many other critical areas such as improved public transportation and arrangements for finances, and the building and administration of new communities or renewed communities. This is what he said the program was about. This is called the innovative program. It will be concerned with new designs for houses, new types of house construction. There is to be another feasibility study concerned with low-cost energy directed to houses. They will study recycling, whatever that means-I do not know whether they intend to recycle the people, or recycle the houses or recycle a program which doesn't exist at all.


An hon. Member:: How about recycling the Grits?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This program will not build a single house for anyone in the whole of Canada. If the minister wishes to deny it, let him stand up and say so when he speaks later today. The day the program was announced I labelled it, not an innovation program, but an inhalation program. I said, then, that any minister who had the nerve and lack of responsibility to announce a $100 million program to examine the causes of the national housing crisis must have been sniffing glue. I heard the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) speak this afternoon. He said the program announced involved wrong spending at the wrong time in the wrong manner. I could not agree with him more.
A number of reports on housing have already been made public, and I shall deal with that aspect. There was a report issued by the federal task force on housing headed by a minister in the previous government, a man who had been deputy prime minister. He went across the country and made an excellent study on housing. It came to grips with the problem. When it was presented to cabinet, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) threw it into the waste paper basket and denied the basis of the recommendations. I am happy that the minister concerned resigned from a government of that kind, because it shows that someone on the treasury benches had a sense of responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do we need a new report? We have the Dennis report, known as the Basford hidden report-we cannot find out what it is. I could use tougher language but I will leave it to your imagination, Mr. Speaker. We have had study after study. I called CMHC today. I also called my research people. They said it would take days to find out how many studies had been conducted since 1968. Take a look at some of them.
There was the study on housing in Canada, Market Structure and Policy Performance, made in 1971 by the minister then responsible for housing. There was the task force on housing and urban development in January, 1969. There was the new National Housing Act Program for 1973. There was a federal-provincial study on housing in January, 1973. There were the deliberations of the annual conference of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada which took place in January, 1973. There was a mid-Canada Development Conference involv-
March 25, 1974

ing study groups, a CMHC study on housing statistics, the annual reports of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, an interim report on a $200 million low-cost loan program for housing by a study group in May, 1971. There was a study group concerned with planning for mobile homes; a study carried out by the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled, "Housing and People", in the fall of 1973. There was a study undertaken by the architects of Canada for the government in July, 1973, paid for, like most of the others, out of taxpayers' money. And, of course, there was Habitat-the year 2000. Then there was the study on low income urban housing.
I could go on and on. I understand that the number of studies conducted in this area amount to hundreds. Yet the minister tells us he intends to spend another $100 million in the next five years on a spending binge in an effort to solve the housing crisis. I wish he would take the $100 million and do something about building shelters for those on fixed incomes who need them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have to ask this question, Mr. Speaker. We in the Opposition need to find out what the minister is doing. It is not easy, because he is very glib. He is a very charming minister. Why are we spending $100 million for a study? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose is to impress the world at the meeting of the United Nations to be held in Vancouver in the minister's constituency. That is why. And do you know what we are going to tell them? We are going to say: Look at the housing mess in Canada! Please do not follow our program because we are making nothing but mistakes. Once the world sees this it will never follow the housing program which this government is following. We want to show the world why Canada's housing plan should not be followed. Do anything, but don't follow Canada. That is really what we shall be saying.
The government believes the mere fact it establishes task forces, study groups and secretariats solves the problem, but the cost of housing is still increasing, as I have said, at the rate of $4 an hour in Toronto and, relatively speaking, it will be increasing at $2 an hour somewhere else or a dollar and a half an hour somewhere else. Today, people are being burdened with debt for life. The shackles of high payments in respect of interest and principal are around their ankles. That is a situation which presently exists. Yet we are spending another $100 million to find out what the problem is. The disparity between the rich and the poor grows day by day. The heel of domestic inflation caused by the government continues to crush those on fixed incomes.
The minister reminds me of a story about a hungry donkey. He was going down the road, mile after mile, getting more and more hungry. Finally, in a desperate condition of starvation he saw on the right side of the road a pile of hay and he saw on the left side of the road a pile of hay. In his desperate condition he was struck with transfixation. He could go neither to the right, to the left, nor could he move forward. He died on the spot from starvation. That is exactly like the minister. He looks at the problem to the right. He looks at the problem to the left. And he looks at the problem ahead. But he does
Urban Affairs
nothing. He is like the little donkey who dropped dead from starvation, even though there was a pile of hay on each side of the road.


Mr. Caccia:: I like your stories but you should not call the minister a donkey.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not say it. I said he was a charmer. I know you enjoyed my story. I labelled this program the other day as a bunch of fluff. I was misquoted in Hansard,-, Hansard reported me as saying "a bunch of bluff". I make nothing of that. I did not say "bluff" but I will accept either word. The minister has been bluffing with a bunch of fluff. The minister convicted himself in his own statement on March 13 when he said he intended to manage the program and its funds so that "the impact of innovation will be as pervasive as possible". Then, later he said:
Governments must press forward, Mr. Speaker, with immediate solutions employing proven methods ... But we must also adopt strong measures to generate new approaches ... improved technology and innovative solutions.
This minister is on a power binge at the taxpayers' expense in agreeing to spend $100 million over the next five years, a program which amounts to $54,794 each day over the next five years and does not build one house. According to the minister's own words on March 13, he is going to be in charge of this great program. He is going to see whether he can invent some new methods to solve the crisis which exists today, a crisis which has grown worse since 1968, and certainly worse since he has become minister. Mathematically, as I see this program, there are 365 days in a year, which means that over five years there are 1,825 days. Divide that figure into $100 million and the program amounts to $54,794 per day for five years. This program is not going to solve even one of the housing problems in Canada today.
Whether you label this program a spending binge on the part of the minister or not, it is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada $54,794 a day for the next five years and represents the failure of his own government. This must be the most expensive 24 hours ever. I do not know who created this program; perhaps it was the hon. member opposite who comes from Toronto. I am going to give him some facts and figures in a moment, and I have already cited some from his own riding. I want him to go to his constituents and to tell them that he is satisfied with this program, that he is satisfied with the fact that a house which 10 years ago cost $25,000 today costs $85,000. I want him to tell his constituents that when he is on the hustings during the next election campaign, which I hope will be pretty soon since Canada cannot afford any longer this sort of government.


Charles L. Caccia: You are power-hungry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me now continue in a more sombre tone and with less anger, Mr. Speaker, although you cannot help getting angry when confronted with a program like this. We believe in the principle that every Canadian should, as of right, be able to obtain and live in suitable, reasonable cost shelter with the amenities of

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
landscape. Surely, this should not present a problem in a country with as many resources and capable people as ours. Within the natural constraints of geography and necessary economic and social limitations, the aim of government policy should be to generate sufficient housing stock of various forms so that all Canadians may exercise their own freedom of choice as to the style and tenure of housing in which they live. Surely that is not too much to ask.
Several months ago I made a speech on housing, and I do not often receive the compliment of mentioned on the editorial page of the Globe and Mail. I suppose everybody likes to be paid a compliment, and I know my hon. friend opposite does. On June 13, 1973 this is what the Globe and Mail had to say about my speech in an editorial headed "Housing's roller coaster":
Land is not the biggest villain in the rising costs of housing. Interest rates are. This is true even in the urban areas and their commuter satellites, where speculation has sent land prices skywards.
Eldon Woolliams (PC, Calgary North) reduced it to simple figures for the Commons this week. An ordinary bungalow in many urban centres now costs $35,000-
Of course, Mr. Speaker, you cannot find one at that price any more; they have already gone up $10,000 since I made my speech.
-or more, he said. If the buyer puts $10,000 down and carries a 40-year $25,000 mortgage, his total cost when the mortgage is paid off, depending upon the interest rate, would be: $75,000 at 6 per cent interest; $101,000 at 9 per cent; $110,000 at 10 per cent.
At that particular time I set out many other examples and illustrations. Who today can afford to save the down payment on a house, let alone make the payments of interest and principal that are piling up? If inflation continues-I think any Canadian can understand this, you do not have to be a high blown economist- and the cost of housing continues to rise, there will be the largest number of foreclosures in Canada that this country has ever seen, even outdoing the thirties. Surely, somebody in the department can come up with a better plan than wasting $100 million of the taxpayers' money.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, last week we had a public confession by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that the national transportation policy was a mess. Today we should have the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) getting up and saying that the housing policies of the federal government are a hell of a mess. They are a tragedy, a disaster.
The motion now before the House asks us to consider the record, objectives and programs of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in light of the urgent needs of urban Canada. To put it mildly, the record is pitiful; the objectives are based-wrongly-on the profit oriented motive, with reliance on the private sector, and the programs have certainly been meagre. I charge the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with lack of leadership and assistance in solving Canada's number one problem, housing. 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. 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 (Mr. Woolliams) has said, $100 million over a period of five years.
Let me tell the House that this is only a retread of the special innovative program that the government set forth in 1971, the result of which, after an analysis conducted by an independent authority, proved that we were making smaller homes on smaller lots. That was the result of the program in 1971, and when I read the details of the urban demonstration program of 1974, I have the same feeling about it as I had about the other program. This reminds me of a constituent who owned one of these small homes on a small lot. He said to me: "You know, I am going to spend the rest of eternity in a small box and the federal government wants me to spend my days on earth in the same place". I felt that was so true.
All these measures are like giving a starving elephant a peanut. As I say, there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to deal with the housing problem, and when I look at the speech from the throne delivered in the Ontario Legislature, I find the same thing-nothing. I know that Premier Davis has stated that there is no crisis in Ontario, yet we have a 23 per cent increase in the cost of housing in Ottawa and a 25 per cent increase in Toronto. At the same time, people in the lower income groups are expending half their gross incomes on housing.
When I read in the Globe and Mail this morning that the new minister of housing for Ontario, Sidney Handleman, said we must depend on the private sector, which is euphemistically called the developers, I had a sad heart and a sad feeling for the people of Ontario. In no time at all he will probably change his name from Handleman to "mishandleman" in regard to this housing problem.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are reaching for that one.


John Napier Turner: That's really Monday afternoon stuff.


John Gilbert: We in the New Democratic Party want to set forth three new programs immediately in respect of the housing crisis in Canada. First, we should have a 6 per cent limit on all new mortgages for person of moderate and low income, with a direction to the financial institution to set aside a percentage of their investment portfolios to ensure an adequate flow of mortgage money. This would indicate the financial institutions had a sense of social responsibility instead of profit-hungry motive. We would also give tax credits to people now paying more than 6 per cent interest on the mortgages they have.
I did mention very briefly the impact of housing on the cost of living. Let me set forth for you the savings people would make if they paid no more than 6 per cent interest on their present mortgages. If we consider a mortgage of $35,000 over a 25-year term at the current rate of 10!4 per cent, the monthly payment works out at $316, and of that
March 25, 1974

$316 some $295 represents interest charges. If we were to freeze mortgages at the 6 per cent rate, the monthly payments on that same house would decrease from $316 to $223. In other words, the homeowner would be saving $93 a month, or $1,116 per year as a result of that NDP scheme.
When you consider the interest payment as a separate item from the total monthly payment, the figures are even more startling. At the 10 !4 per cent interest rate the interest payment per month adds up to $295, and at the 6 per cent rate the interest payment per month would be only $175, so this would mean a saving of $120 x 12, or $1,440 to the person per year. This would have a tremendous impact on the heavy burden Canadians are carrying in respect of housing, more especially in respect of interest rates, and it would have an indirect effect on rents that are chargeable.
I can just hear the minister and some of his colleagues saying that we cannot afford to do this, that it would be improper or not right. Let me refer him to what has happened in the TransCanada Pipeline Company, that old friend of the government. It sent out a notice of its annual meeting and one of the items in the notice indicated that as of March 4, 1974 several officers of the company were indebted on account of loans in connection with the purchase of their residences. It then sets forth the names of three officers who have obtained mortgages, the highest of which was $20,000, the next $15,000 and the third $11,000. The interest chargeable on those loans was 7 per cent on one, 61/2 per cent on another and 6 per cent on the third. I suggest that the old biblical saying that those who have shall get more applies to the TransCanada Pipeline Company, particularly when we see these senior officers of that company paying those low interest rates.
I might mention that we made an investigation of this particular item because we assumed they were first mortgages, but we found out that these were second mortgages at 6 per cent, 6 Vi per cent and 7 per cent.


An hon. Member:: All $50,000 a year men.


John Gilbert: Surely, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has no right to say that we cannot afford 6 per cent mortgages across the board for all Canadians, and the minister would indicate a social responsibility to all Canadian if he adopted that line.
Moving from that suggestion of 6 per cent mortgages for all Canadians, we in the NDP say there should be a federal land banking program with an immediate target of acquiring at least 50,000 acres of serviced land which the federal government should develop. It should also lend financial assistance to municipal governments in order that they might acquire and service land for building purposes. I can hear the minister say that they have programs along these lines, but these programs have not worked because the federal government has not taken the initiative. It has relied on provincial governments to pick up the programs and implement them, but they have not done so.
I was rather surprised last week when Robert Nixon, the leader of the Ontario Liberal party, made an impassioned speech during the debate on the Speech from the Throne of the Ontario government, setting forth his alarm in respect of German, Swiss, U.S., Japanese and British investors investing in land and real estate in Ontario. He
Urban Affairs
said the reason they had done this was that the 10 per cent mortgages and the capital gains law make investments very lucrative and attractive in Ontario. I hope the Ontario leader of the Liberal party has brought this to the attention of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and I hope that minister will not only listen to that Liberal, but will act. This present minister is not a man of action, but rather a man of words.
A policy of direct loans to municipalities was a recommendation set forth in the Dennis report. That report envisaged the need for municipalities to participate in the acquisition and servicing of land to protect land costs and values. I give the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) some marks for his insistence that federal moneys be directed to municipalities along this line, but I give him no marks for his past record with regard to lifting the ceiling on CMHC rates. I give him no marks in respect of cancelling out 25-year mortgages, allowing five-year mortgages on the rollback theory. As I said, I do give him a few marks in respect of direct loans to municipalities.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We would have had 50,000 units a year less without those two things, just keep that in mind.


John Gilbert: When I think of the hon. member for Trinity and his zeal when rushing across this country to solve the housing problem, almost a religious zeal, and then when I see his performance, I am really sick at heart, to put it quite mildly, Mr. Speaker.
Let me move on to the third point, which I think is very important. We must take the profit out of housing for speculators by tax changes. I am not talking about the ordinary citizen who buys a home, re-sells it and makes a profit, because he is caught in the present bind of high prices. I am talking about the land developers and building corporations which have ripped-off the Canadian public to such a great degree. It is time, in fact it is past time, to stop them. When I read the philosophy set forth in the Hellyer task force report, that all Canadians are entitled to clean, warm shelter, and when I read the principles set forth by our party and by the Canadian Social Development Council, that every Canadian is entitled to decent housing at a reasonable cost, I ask myself what has gone wrong?
Here we have set forth a principle which should be the underpinning of a housing policy in Canada. It should be the social right of all Canadians to have decent housing in the same way they are entitled to Medicare and education. What has gone wrong, because the home prices have soared out of sight. When one thinks of the city of Toronto, the average cost of a house in Toronto as at February 1, 1974 was $46,210. This represents an increase of 50 per cent in a period of 23 months. Housing has become so expensive in Toronto that only 136 NHA loans for new housing were made in 1973 out of the nearly 40,000 new units built in metro Toronto last year. The average price of that NHA house was $36,218 and the purchaser had an average income of $15,293. Because of the $30,000 ceiling on an NHA loan the act, as an instrument of home ownership in Toronto, has become virtually inoperative. With average weekly earnings at less than $150 in Toronto

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
during 1973 the dream of home ownership is virtually impossible of realization.
I could give the same story with regard to similar prices and the similar impossibility of buying homes in all major cities across the country. In fact my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) whose constituency is a fair distance from Toronto the other day told me the cost of an unserviced lot in his area is $6,000 and the cost of a serviced lot is $8,200. In my own area, a home which I could have purchased in 1962 for $26,000 sold less than a month ago for $83,000 cash. The seller went to the real estate agent to list the property and said he wanted $70,000 for it. The agent told him that he would get him more than that. The property was listed at $87,000 and sold for $83,000 cash. This is an indication of how prices have soared out of sight. It is also an indication that something must be done about it.
What would the New Democratic Party do? We would institute a 100 per cent capital gains tax in respect of people who are in the business of buying and selling real estate. In other words, we would skim off the windfall gains of the developers and building corporations. If necessary, we would impose an excess profits tax on land developers and building corporations. Third, we would implement the recommendation of the Dennis Report regarding land developers and building corporations. Back in 1971 when we had the tax reform proposals the government closed the loophole for individuals with regard to capital investment and said that no charges could be applied to this, but it did not close the loopholes with regard to corporations.
We have these land developers and building corporations charging tax deferrals, accelerated capital cost allowances, the cost of holding land which includes mortgage interest payments, municipal taxes and so forth. The result of all these tax advantages has been that companies like the Cadillac Development Corporation in Toronto had, between 1966 and 1971, earnings of $62,968,000 on which they paid taxes of $20,506. This almost reminds me of a comparison in respect of the taxes that a certain president nearby has paid in recent years. In this case, the amount is only $20,506 out of earnings of $62 million. Consolidated Building Corporation, also a Toronto-based firm, in July 1973 purchased 18 acres of land and 17 days later sold it at a profit of $1.5 million. This company, which prior to this was involved in extensive building of homes and development of commercial property, has now gone into the land development business. Their president said that this company is a public company in the business of making a profit. Mr. Speaker, that is not a reasonable profit; it is an unconscionable profit.
These are three areas in which the minister could act immediately with regard to the housing crisis in Canada. I hope he will call together the provincial ministers, in the same way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has called together the provincial ministers with regard to the oil crisis, to consider the housing crisis, accept the federal responsibility and give federal leadership with regard to this important problem. I hope Canadians will not have a total lack of faith in this government, but at this stage they are certainly following that trend. Surely, the minister should assume his responsibility and see to it that he

implements his philosophy and that of most Canadians that Canadians are entitled to decent housing at reasonable cost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for allowing such a debate today, since housing in Canada is a major problem.
This does not mean that there are no other problems. We are now undergoing a housing crisis as well as many other crises, namely as regards employment, unemployment, food and energy. The housing crisis is in addition to all the other crises which the government is trying to get us used to.
While listening to the speeches of the two previous speakers I noted that the housing problem exists practically throughout Canada. Few areas, cities, and municipalities are spared. Perhaps some of its causes have been unconsciously deliberate, but I note that in the province of Quebec, about ten years ago, a so-called quiet revolution began and a number of pretexts were invoked to prompt people to leave rural areas and bring them to live in the cities.
This is one of the causes of the many problems experienced in the medium and large cities. Today we must deal with those problems.
The hon. member for Calgary North asked for the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and an income tax rebate in mortgage interest on family homes. I would point out to the House and particularly to the hon. member for Calgary North that the Social Credit-ers have been demanding the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials for a few years already, and my colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Godin) has brought still another motion before the House on this subject during this session. It is motion No. 2 which reads;
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of granting an income tax rebate equal to the amount paid in mortgage interest on a family home and in municipal and educational taxes, the whole not to exceed $1,000 per year.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that Progressive Conservative and New Democrat members are not the only ones asking for tax abatements for homeowners.
The Social Credit Party of Canada leads the way in that area. We have also been demanding for very long for interest rates on loans that owners would be able to afford.
Any family in need of housing realizes today that interest rates are too high, even under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation program. In some cases, the interest rate can be lowered to 8 per cent, but even that, Mr. Speaker, is too much for some people.
Just like everybody else, we realize that for several reasons, there is a housing shortage in every Canadian region. We have failed to get enough family units under construction, particularly where a high increase in demand was foreseen. For instance, a few years ago, an important development was announced in northern Abiti-
March 25, 1974

bi, that of the James Bay hydroelectric project. That meant that many northern cities would need a far greater number of houses.
In my opinion, home builders, developers and, to some extent, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials which has an office in Val d'Or, have done everything possible to meet the demand, but to no avail, because it was much greater than the supply. The demand is still very great, Mr. Speaker, so much so that many families are wondering whether they will find suitable housing not too far from their place of work. This is a lack of foresight. There has not been adequate planning to provide enough houses in order to meet the demand. Arrangements should have been made since the programs were advertised. There was a lack of foresight. Fewer houses will probably be needed when the work is completed. A very great number of houses will be available, but it will be too late.
I am also thinking about the program announced a few days ago by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), a $100 million program referred to a while ago by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
Mr. Speaker, within such a program, the minister wants new initiatives. I do not think that failed in the past, I even mentioned it when the minister made his statement in the House. There would no doubt be room for other projects, but we should take advantage of those that now exist. However, there are some problems. Certain housing promoters would like housing projects called "modular housing" to be approved. If people do not need a big house at the time they are buying one, they could start with a small one and add to it later on with the modular system according to their needs.
Now the cost price of these modular houses is in accordance, I believe, with the government low-cost housing program.
One can imagine how municipalities dread the building of modular houses or any other low-cost shelters. Municipalities have to contend with services, streets, sidewalks, sewers, water pipes at costs that increase as rapidly as in any other building field.
Those municipalities must also resort to loans, the rate of interests of which also increase and are increasingly hard to get.
Those municipalities prefer the building of houses that, for the same services, will yield much more in the municipal tax field. One can understand that a $25,000 or $30,000 house will be much more profitable to the municipality than a $15,000 or $20,000 one. And the municipality does not have to spend more for building streets where are the more valuable houses.
That is why municipalities dread the building of such low-cost houses.
There is also another risk in the development of these low-cost houses, namely the mass construction of slums. In almost all our towns and cities, we are at grips with decayed houses that are almost no longer livable, and in which families on welfare must live. If we try to lower the cost of construction of low-cost houses, we might build
Urban Affairs
houses that within two or three years will look like the slums we want to replace at present.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should be careful when designing housing plans, because people want and are entitled to demand a livable house, with a minimum of comfort inside. The worse a house is built, the more difficult it is to heat it, and the less comfort there is inside.
Mr. Speaker, we must be careful, I suggest, as regards this kind of low-cost housing and provide the Canadian people with houses of an usual quality, that can be built.
I will quote one single example in this regard, Mr. Speaker. In the town of Amos, houses have been built many years ago under the so-called war time housing program. These houses had been built for low income families. In principle, these houses are still designed for low income families. But in the city of Amos, in particular,-and the same probably occurs elsewhere-one may find that families whose annual incomes exceed $12,000 and even $15,000 are living in these houses, while other working-class families, whose incomes are lower, sales clerks whose incomes are not very high, must pay a higher price to find suitable shelter while families with incomes of $12,000 or $15,000 can be allowed to live in these war time houses for $80 or $82 a month.
In my opinion, this situation should be reviewed. If we are to be fair, we must review this program that was designed for low income families, and continue to offer these benefits to low income families. Some go as far as suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that those houses built for low income families be made available to those with no income, that is those with no income other than social welfare allowances. I think those suggestions should be studied carefully by the minister so the required amendments to that program might be introduced to make housing available to those in need of them.
In his $100 million program the minister asks that new initiatives be taken. I think some have already been taken, and I wonder whether the minister is aware of some of the transformations now taking place in the province of Quebec. The same situation is probably developing along the same lines in other provinces. At least there is a movement going on now, and in the Abitibi area, the Temiscamingue area, northwestern Quebec in particular, some promoters are buying at low prices as many vacant lots as possible, divide those lots in five acre holdings and then put them up for sale. They do promotion work in the United States, in certain states, to offer those lots for sale to Americans. They also offer them to Canadians interested in buying those small lots called hobby farms. Even if today those lots are not located in towns or municipalities with the transportation and communication facilities of all sorts available today it is easy to live away from urban centres. Apparently up to now some retired or near-retirement Americans seem interested in those small land holdings. I think that initiative might have been thought in terms of Americans wanting to come and live in Canada during the nice season. I wonder if more foresight would not be called for. As was pointed out earlier by the hon. member from the NDP who spoke before me and who recognized that most lots made available for house build-

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
ing purposes were much too small I think it would be a way of extending the land, thus allowing families not only to build a home there but also to have a piece of land where to grow vegetables and flowers and space to breathe non polluted air in the summer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a step that the minister should consider and make his own. He should ask his officials to consider steps such as this one in order to find possible ways of relieving large cities, of decentralizing these living areas that are causing all kinds of problems, one of which being public transit, for instance, among a great many others.
Mr. Speaker, these are subjects that the minister should consider carefully. During these few minutes, I have been unable to give him all the information needed, but I know he can find it elsewhere to examine the feasibility of such projects all across Canada.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this motion put forward by the Conservative party on the objectives of the government's urban policy and housing policy provides us with a useful occasion to debate these issues. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the official spokesman of the Conservative party, of course stated that the government's urban and housing objectives as outlined in the Speech from the Throne were inadequate. I had hoped that the Official Opposition would have been at least sufficiently interested in these issues to have their official spokesman participate in the throne speech debate, rather than remain silent.


Mr. Alexander:: He did.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not on housing; the Official Opposition did not have its official spokesman speak on housing and urban policy in that debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We were waiting for today.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted at the reaction I am getting from hon. members opposite. Obviously, they now realize that this is a matter of such concern that they should have had their spokesman deal with it in that previous debate. But of course at that time they had not held their convention, and I presume that at the time they did not have any policy. Now, having had their convention they feel they have a policy. This is a change.
The last time we had a major debate on housing was when the National Housing Act was amended. Some 18 members of the Conservative party took part in that debate, and if one reads their speeches one will see they expressed 18 different Conservative policies.
My hon. friends opposite have put forward some suggestions. One is that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials should be removed. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we all like to remove taxes. There is no question about that. But one would have wished that the Conservative party had given this suggestion a little more thought, at least more than expressed in their policy position as put forward today. Obviously, the principal beneficiaries of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North would be the large industrial and commercial build-

ers, the people who put up the huge office buildings and shopping centres.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are not talking about them.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says they are not talking about them. I have a copy of their policy right here. It says they are prepared for the challenge. Mr. Speaker, the Tories have prepared for the challenge by turning their backs on the twentieth century. There is no mention of this policy being restricted to housing. It is clearly stated that this will assist the developers of office buildings and shopping centres. It is the typical Tory policy of giving the greatest help to those who need it least.
To the extent that the Tories' suggestion would apply to residential construction, again the people benefiting the most would be those with the most expensive housing. That is their answer to the housing problem in Canada. Surely, the Conservatives could have suggested that the tax be removed from housing alone. Surely, we don't need to remove it from shopping centres. Surely, they could have developed a system under which rebates could be paid to those who need assistance most; but they, of course, look after their rich and wealthy friends.
This debate, as I say, allows us to review the government's urban objectives and housing policies. The objectives of my ministry can be explained very simply: they are to improve urban Canada for urban Canadians, to respond to urban problems and urban issues to the utmost of our ability. We are responding to them. This government's record in responding to the problems of urban Canada is outstanding. We are dealing with housing and, in co-operation with other governments, are tackling issues such as urban transportation. We are tackling the issue of housing in new and imaginative ways. We are taking action, and urging action by other governments and the private sector, to deal with housing issues.
The important element, as speaker after speaker in the House has made clear, in housing costs is the cost of land.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Particularly serviced land.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, particularly serviced land. I am glad for the assistance of the hon. member for Hamilton West. For many reasons, not the least of which is the financial burden of residential development in most municipalities, not enough serviced land has been coming onto the market. The objective of the federal land assembly program is to correct that, to bring more serviced land onto the market fast and to help bring supply and demand more closely into balance. This calls for large scale intervention by governments through the provisions of the newly amended National Housing Act, under which funds will be made available for the assembly of land. Hon. members opposite ridicule this program. When, about one year ago, we undertook to provide $100 million a year under a five-year program for land assembly purposes, they ridiculed us. Their official position, as I recall, was that they would provide $20 million.


John Edward Broadbent: Who are "they"?
March 25, 1974


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Conservatives. As a result of the response of other governments to this offer, we exceeded our target in 1973 and were able to commit $150 million for land assembly funds in 1973. We are continuing and will continue to make substantial commitments in this area.
In order to obtain the best effect or return from this investment, I have proposed to the provinces and municipalities a set of guidelines to govern the allocation of land assembly funds. I have urged that priority and funding should be given to those projects that promise quick starts, quick development, and that will put on the market serviced lots as quickly as possible. And, although we need in this country land banks for development in five, ten or fifteen years, we are encouraging land assembly projects which will provide, as I say, for quick starts and quick development. Those are the guidelines we have given to the provinces.
Second, I have proposed that a reasonable proportion of those public land assemblies so assembled should be designated for low and modest income housing. There has been wide acceptance of these principles and these guidelines are being effectively applied with regard to our loans and commitments to provinces and municipalities. The intention of these guidelines, of course, is not only to get land onto the market quickly but to make residential development more attractive to municipalities and to remove deterrents to the opening up of residential land.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) suggested that we should accept the recommendations of the Dennis report with regard to the involvement of municipalities. I have accepted them. I wish the hon. member knew more about housing policy. If he did, he would know that at the Peterborough tri-level meeting we made it clear that the federal government would support municipalities in land assembly project. Also, just before the new year we approved, in a matter of weeks, a $9 million loan for the city of Toronto for land assembly purposes, which can be carried out a" soon as provincial consent is given. We approved at the same time a substantial loan for the city of Vancouver, to enable that city to move into the land assembly business. In a speech in Toronto this morning I repeated our eagerness and willingness to support municipalities in land assembly. Let there be no doubt: we are urging the municipalities to become involved and we have the funds with which to support them.
As with most of the housing issues, the speeding up of planned residential growth is not something which can be laid at the feet of the federal government or solved by the federal government alone. Obviously, such action involves provinces and municipalities. We are urging provinces and municipalities to take every possible step to cut through red tape and bureaucratic procedures which tend to drag out the process of land development and delay the bringing onto the market of serviced lots which are for sale.
Let me remind hon. members, while we are dealing with the question of how we should bring more serviced lots onto the market, that another tool for bringing more houses into production, that is, for the creation of new housing, and for bringing supply more nearly into line with demand is the long standing sewage treatment assistance program with which hon. members are familiar. During 1973 more money than ever before was made avail-
Urban Affairs
able by way of loans and forgiveness under that program. In addition, during this session of parliament I intend to introduce legislation which, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne, will provide assistance for trunk sewers for storm water, in cases where they are used to create new developments. This should assist municipalities in areas of new development and will help to bring more lots on stream. Storm sewers until now have not been included in the program and could be used both to increase the supply of serviced land and as an instrument for planned urban growth.
Third, as an additional means of bringing more land onto the market, we will be introducing very shortly legislation related to railroad relocation. Railroads, as you know, have influenced the patterns of Canadian cities and towns right across this country. One has only to know cities such as Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, as well as many other smaller centres, to appreciate the amount of railroad land to be found within our urban centres. Much of that land, because of changes in transportation systems, is underutilized at present. The railroad relocation proposals would mean that much of this vast acreage of railroad land can be brought back onto stream and used for development. Much of it, I hope, can be made available quickly for housing.
Finally, let me speak of another means of bringing more urban land onto the market. I refer hon. members to the neighbourhood improvement proposals and the repair and rehabilitation sections of the National Housing Act which are to come into effect in 1974. Under the leadership of the federal government, the housing act was amended and provided legislative and financial support for those who live in older areas of our cities. The act will be effective in improving those areas in which housing has been deteriorating and going out of inventory, so to speak. As a result of federal support and federal leadership we shall be able to preserve much of that housing as good housing. Most of it will be available for low or moderate income people. That way we shall preserve the use of that urban land for the people of Canada.
These are important measures, designed to get at the heart of the housing cost problem, namely, the cost of serviced lots on the market. They are designed to bring lots onto the market. They are important measures and ought to be used to the full. 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.
The next problem to be considered is the one of distribution, that is, who has access to housing and who can get into a house. Never before, Mr. Speaker, have there been so many social instruments available to help people on low and moderate incomes obtain housing. Never before in the history of this country has there been so much help available. One could go back a long way before finding programs, even such as the public housing program, which will match the ones I want to mention.
First, there is the approved assisted home ownership program by which the federal government will subsidize people on low income, not to live in public housing and not

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
to go into rent supplement programs, all of which are good programs, but to actually assist them to buy a house as an alternative to public rental. That program is being widely used across this country. Since the program became law, we have approved such loans to more than 8,000 Canadian families. These total almost $160 million for this program. Applications are continuing to come in at a very high rate which suggests that by the end of this year the benefits of this program can be extended to a total of 18,000 families.
People across the way talk of interest subsidies and the need to help the rich by subsidizing their interest. Surely, to the extent that we can apply public monies to interest subsidization, the most effective and efficient way of doing it is through the assisted home ownership program so that that interest subsidization in fact gets directly to those whose need is the greatest.
Second, Mr. Speaker, addressing this question of distribution, I want to refer to the support we are providing to non-profit and co-operative housing organizations. Traditionally in this country we have built housing either through the private sector in accordance with the profit motive or we have built government housing-constructed and owned by the government. It seems to me there is a place in this country for what, in housing circles, has become known as the third sector. Each of the non-profit and co-operative housing sections of the act are designed to give every possible support by way of start up funds, loans and 10 per cent grants to non-profit and co-operative housing organizations.
I was at a federal provincial conference this morning on non-profit and co-operative housing. I had planned to spend the day there. I had to cut short my attendance in order to listen to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


John Napier Turner: Was it worth it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will not reflect on whether it was worth it. The hon. member was gracious enough to describe me as charming, so I do not want to disillusion him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: What I said in Toronto this morning at that meeting of non-profit and co-operative housing groups was that in their efforts to build in this country, they have the complete support of the financial and legislative programs of the government of Canada and the minister responsible for housing. In 1974 we are substantially increasing our budget. Thanks to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), there will be about $170 million in loans, and close to $20 million in capital grants, for new projects and co-operative housing projects throughout Canada.
I am amused at the way Conservative members are sort of ridiculing my remarks about non-profit and co-operative housing groups. Within the last week, the Conservative minister from Ontario made a very big fellow of himself by announcing $4 million in support for non-profit and co-operative housing. I very much welcomed that announcement. Members opposite really should not ridicule their Ontario colleague as they appear to be doing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We were not laughing at the program that is being implemented. We were merely smiling at the toothpaste system used by the minister. He just squeezes it out.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member should know something about squeezing things out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let's keep it clean around here.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In addition to non-profit and co-operative loans and that program which has our complete support, we are continuing to fund, along with the provinces, our long standing program of public housing. In 1973, we committed to this program some $177 million. We are constantly improving the public housing program in both its physical and social aspects. It remains for many Canadian families the most suitable response to their particular housing need.
Hon. members opposite say that nothing has been done on this side. By way of conclusion, I just want to list where this government is exercising and has exercised real leadership in the urban affairs area and in housing policy. First, the support which I have just been mentioning for non-profit and co-operative groups is without precedent in this country. I am delighted to see that the provinces are following our leadership in support of nonprofit and co-operative housing groups.
We are exercising leadership in the allocation of legislation and all budgets in public intervention in the land business by way of public federal-provincial or federal-municipal land assemblies. The provinces are following that leadership.
The Tory party speaks in its pamphlet about the need for better intergovernmental relationships. We are exercising leadership in the establishment in this country of new methods of tri-level consultative processes to assure that all governments in this country, federal, provincial and municipal, are going in the same direction and addressing the same problems in the same coherent and co-ordinated way.
We are and have been exercising leadership in getting municipal governments involved in land assembly and in the support of non-profit and co-operative groups. I refer these measures to the hon. member for Broadview who criticized us in this area. We have made it very clear that those amendments to the National Housing Act allowing federal support of municipally owned non-profit housing is in fact our policy.
This morning in Toronto I made it clear that we have approved in principle a loan to the city of Toronto. It is one of the first cities to get involved in the program of municipally-owned non-profit housing. We approved that loan in principle for a major rehabilitation project in downtown Toronto. I urged this morning, and I again urge, that the municipalities of this country with provincial approval get involved in municipally-owned non-profit housing corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: We are exercising leadership in convincing the provinces and municipalities of this country that
March 25, 1974

unbalanced and run-away urban growth is compounding the problems that face our cities and towns. We have got to pay attention how we manage growth and the rate of growth. We have got to concentrate on how we give health, strength and growth to smaller centres to take the pressures off the Montreals, Torontos and Vancouvers, how to support those smaller centres and how to go back into the core areas of our major cities to recycle and re-use them. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) spoke of this very subject. We are hard at work learning in this country, taking leadership and showing how we, as a country, must manage growth if we are to solve our urban problems.
We are exercising leadership in the establishment in this country of policies of urban transportation and the development of a national urban transportation development agency. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and I are currently consulting and negotiating with the provinces toward the establishment and introduction into this House of legislation for such an agency.
We are exercising leadership in putting before the country and this parliament meaningful policies for the first time to cause the relocation, re-use and recycling of underutilized railway land.
Through amendments to the National Housing Act, we have exercised leadership in going back into our older areas of our cities through the neighbourhood improvement, rehabilitation and repair provisions of the act and conserving the older areas of many of our cities. The provinces are following this leadership by developing programs of neighbourhood improvement and rehabilitation.
Next, we are exercising leadership in the area of native and rural housing. I am glad my statement the other day on the subject was welcomed by spokesmen representing native housing and Metis housing groups across Canada. I shall be consulting with the provincial governments to ensure that where necessary federal-provincial agreement is reached to enable the policies announced by me to come into effect and be operational in time for the 1974 construction season.
Finally-and I see my time is running short-I should like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary North and by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who the other day ridiculed my announcement of an urban demonstration project.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Justly so.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I can only conclude that hon. members opposite are deliberately misrepresenting my statement. First, this is not a research project, and there was nothing in my statement about any research project. Neither is any such project planned. That is clear. Second, it is not a study. It is a proposal for putting in place improved solutions to urban problems. I am sorry, though in a way politically delighted, that hon. members opposite are so out of step with urban needs that they should be opposed to a proposal of this kind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: More toothpaste.
Urban Affairs


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, in the course of his speech the hon. member ridiculed the proposal for recycling garbage. I have read statements of his in the press to the same effect. I can tell him that I hope to have in operation by the end of 1974 in the City of Toronto a demonstration project which will show how to recycle human waste within a building or small community. I am sure this program will prove to be economically feasible. The cost of servicing a lot runs at about $5,000. If we can develop a new way of servicing that lot, as I am confident we can, and cutting out even half of that servicing cost we shall be reducing the price of an urban lot by $2,500. Members opposite are obviously opposed to action of that kind. They are opposed to action which would reduce the price of a lot by $2,500.
What is even more puzzling to me is that the hon. member for Calgary North should ridicule his own party, because in that great statement from the Tory party called "Prepare for the Challenge" we find these words:
There must be an examination of improved methods of refuse collection and disposal in our large metropolitan areas.
I would have hoped that the official Conservative Party spokesman would at least have read the policy statement of his own party before he rose to speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I happened to write it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: He and his supporters are opposed to using funds to develop new ways of transportation. At the same time, their policy statement "Prepare for the Challenge" states:
The Conservative Party will give high priority to assigning federal financial assistance to the provinces and municipalities for the development and construction of pollution-free rapid transit systems.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on!


Stanley Ronald Basford: What, in Heaven's name, is the point of an urban development project if it is not to develop that kind of rapid transit system? Nevertheless, they ridicule it. The hon. member who spoke for the NDP ridiculed the suggestion. At the same time, one group from Thunder Bay, made up mainly of supporters of his party, wants to form a new kind of co-operative which will show us in real terms how to build cheaper housing. But the NDP is against this type of solution, against this type of demonstration.
Mr. Speaker, in moving about this country as minister responsible for urban affairs, I find there is real concern among Canadians who live in the urban areas as to the future of their cities and towns. They have in mind the cities of New York, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and they are fearful that, unless we are careful, the type of urban development those cities represent will appear in Canada and that we should be forced to accept the noise, the pollution, the crime and the urban decay we see elsewhere. Hon. members across the way appear not to recognize this concern. They are saying in effect that there is no need to seek new solutions, that with a budget running to billions a year we ought not to allocate $100 million to find real solutions to these problems.
What the Tories and the New Democrats are saying, really, is that they want more of the same-more urban noise, more urban pollution, more congestion. They are really saying: Keep on doing the same old things in the same old way. That is the traditional Tory position and it

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
really does not surprise me to hear them expressing it. I must admit, though, I am a little disappointed at the position taken by the NDP which likes to pretend that it is in the forefront of development.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The applicable word is "pretend", and must be "pretend".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On behalf of the spokesman for our party, who made such a brilliant speech that the minister now has to refer to it constantly, as well as to our policy, may I say we are prepared to give the minister three or four minutes more, because he has not said much, anyway. If he would like to close his remarks, we would agree to his continuing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So would we, Mr. Speaker. We hope the minister can say something more substantial if we give him, say, another three minutes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am grateful to the House for extending this courtesy to me. Anyway, I had almost completed my remarks, except for one further reference to the Conservative Party statement entitled "Prepare for the Challenge".


John Napier Turner: A very hypothetical document.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is not only hypothetical; the official spokesman over there does not appear to have read it. That statement is, really, a joke. They are preparing for the challenge faced by urban Canada by turning their backs on the Twentieth Century, by turning their backs on real solutions to urban problems. This is why their statement is wholly hypothetical. With that kind of attitude, I am sure they will never be prepared to put that policy into practice.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Public Service-Regional pay differentials-Request for action to correct; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Administration of Justice-Enforcement of maintenance orders issued by family courts-Recommendation of Law Reform Commission.
[Mr. Basford.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Woolliams:
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.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take part in the debate on the opposition motion:
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.
I think we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, of the serious situation which exists in many of our larger cities in connection with the lack of adequate and proper housing. It may seem naive and presumptuous of me, representing a rural riding, to speak on the needs of urban Canada. Two-thirds of all Canadians now live in the cities, and urban growth continues to increase rapidly every day. Our party supports the principle that every Canadian should, as a right, be able to live in suitable accommodation at a reasonable cost.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) announced on Wednesday, March 13, his new $100 million urban demonstration program designed to find solutions to urban problems. This fund is to support urban projects in critical areas. He also stresses new methods of house design and house construction, and new ways of getting the top value from scarce and expensive natural resources. He also mentions improved public transportation. Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that improved public transportation would certainly help housing problems, especially in our two largest cities, Toronto and Montreal. Faster and better train service would enable housing to be built in areas where land is available and not nearly as expensive. In Toronto now, as an example, developers do not bat an eye in asking $35,000 for a small lot.
In theory, and on paper, this program sounds excellent. However, the plan, with its $100 million expenditure over five years, will not build one additional house in Canada. The crying need at the present time and in the foreseeable future is for cheaper land, cheaper houses and, more important, cheaper mortgage money. I believe at the present time it is estimated that only four per cent of the people living in metropolitan Toronto will be able to afford to purchase a home, and only five per cent of the people living elsewhere.
I happen to be one of those rural members of parliament who advocate more housing in the rural parts of Canada to remove the pressure from the large cities. On previous occasions I have pointed out that many people now living in our larger cities, when they come to retirement age, would consider and appreciate moving Lo smaller towns or other rural areas if housing were available at moderate cost. This would provide existing housing for the many
March 25, 1974

people who work in the cities and, of course, wish to live there as well.
I am aware that there would have to be close co-operation between the municipal and provincial governments, as well as with the federal ministry of housing and urban development. I am well aware of the difficulty of getting available lots in many parts of rural Canada, especially in the province of Ontario, because of strict planning by-laws which make it next to impossible to have lots surveyed and severances approved on existing land within a reasonable period of time, if at all.
I have some doubts what this $100 million fund will accomplish. Governments in the past have had many studies made on housing, and this applies to provincial governments as well. The Dennis report on low income housing in Canada pointed out the many needs, and the Hellyer task force report on housing was also an important document. Provincial studies have been made. It all boils down to one thing: we need more and cheaper housing in all parts of Canada, not in the urban areas alone.
As for new ideas and innovations, we would all welcome some new inventions to enable houses to be built with materials other than bricks, mortar and lumber. Synthetic materials are now even more expensive, and therefore out of the question. I am wondering if some of the "brains trust" could come up with a house made out of-I will qualify it and say wind and water, and heated entirely by the sun. This may very well be possible in the future, but we are talking about housing needs today which must be met with material that is available today.
Despite the new and innovative ideas of architects, both young and old, in planning housing the cost keeps going up every day. I believe it is suggested that the cost of a house in Toronto is now increasing at the staggering rate of $4 an hour. Adding greatly to the cost of houses in many areas is the cost of municipal sewage systems. I appreciate the contributions that the federal government makes to encourage small municipalities to instal sewers, also the fact that the minister is broadening government assistance to include storm sewers and is increasing government grants. I certainly feel that in particular cases of need and high priority as far as pollution is concerned, grants should be as high as 90 per cent to enable the smaller municipalities to instal sewage systems. We know that certain provinces-Ontario, I think, is one of the leaders here-have taken advantage of this money. We are also aware that a certain province, the one to the east, has not taken advantage of the money. As a result it now has some serious pollution problems and should be forced to do something along this line.
One other priority which will greatly help increase the supply of housing is the extension of the Veterans Land Act to enable those veterans who still wish to build or purchase homes to be able to do so without any deadline. If this government expects to survive much longer, I emphasize that a statement to this effect must be made at once, and I suspect it will be made later this week. I am also hoping that the amount of available money for each veteran will be increased to at least $25,000 and that the size of the lots will be reduced to the size of ordinary building lots in cases where everything else is in order.
Urban Affairs
Our party, when we become the government, will create a new department of urban community and housing affairs which will be directly responsible for shelter. Central Mortgage and Housing will be made directly responsible to this new minister rather than continue as an independent corporation. We will also set up a planning secretariat, as mentioned by our speaker on housing, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). This secretariat will assist the officials of the three levels of government in formulating and putting into effect an imaginative and co-ordinated attack on our housing problems. With this co-operation we will be able to improve regional rapid transit systems, the location of airports, greenbelt park facilities and handle refuse collection in our large cities.
The minister mentioned that we were not interested in this sort of thing, but let me tell him that we certainly are. I am speaking for both sides of the House when I say that all hon. members are very worried and concerned about pollution. A lot of members from rural areas are a damned sight more worried than city members, because a lot of cities are trying to foist their pollution and garbage on those who live in rural areas of Canada. This garbage originated in the cities and should be disposed of there. I compliment the minister on his statement today that plants are being constructed to convert human waste so it can be used for some useful purpose. I guess he sent out an s.o.s. to that effect, to which we can say that "s.o.s." means "same old stuff". I would add another "o.s." and say "only softer". Let us hope something can be done to solve this problem.
A new and more flexible national building code must be developed, taking into consideration the regional differences and disparities. In other words, what is very necessary for the highly built up areas in large cities is not necessarily a must in the rural parts of Canada. Let me emphasize once again that our great problem has to do with the availability of money and the cost of housing. On many occasions I have recommended to the government that the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials should be abolished. I might add that previous speakers have made the same suggestion, and it has been made in parliament on numerous occasions. Let us hope that at some time in the near future this will become a reality.
The high cost of borrowing money represents one of the greatest stumbling blocks to new housing. We do not believe high interest rates are an effective way of containing inflation, and there must be lower borrowing costs for the purchasers of homes. We further pledge lower interest rates for all CMHC mortgages in line with the existing ceiling on direct loans now made by corporations to the provinces, municipalities and individuals. We also strongly support federal loans for repair, rehabilitation and improvement of existing housing. These loans should be made available to low income home owners wherever they are located in Canada.
As the head of a municipal council for a great many years, I presented resolutions on numerous occasions to municipal associations proposing that municipal property taxes be deductible from federal income tax for homeowners up to a maximum of $500. This certainly would be no
2739a-53

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
rip-off for the wealthy people. It seems unreasonable to me that a property owner should have to pay tax on tax.
There is also a great deal of merit in the suggestion that at least a portion of mortgage interest rates over 6 per cent should also be deductible from income tax. Our friends in the New Democratic Party have spoken at some length and with a great deal of feeling about the minister's proposed $100 million fund. I am just wondering how that junior partner of this coalition actually feels about this, and what that party will do when the chips are down. Certainly, if anyone has to accept the blame for what this government does or does not do, that junior partner in the lefthand corner of this House should accept at least a share. I will be interested to hear their comments in this regard at a later time. Am I to understand that they now agree with members of this party? I certainly look forward to hearing their comments.
I fully appreciate the time the minister has taken to read the coverage of that very successful and wonderful annual meeting held here in Ottawa last Monday and Tuesday. Unfortunately, he referred to policy papers, when in actual fact they were discussion papers for the 2,700 delegates who took time out in bad weather to attend this annual meeting. One can see the great support there is for this party from one end of the country to the other. I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is listening with intense interest.


An hon. Member:: We are delighted to learn that this was not policy.


Stan Darling: I was pleased to hear reference by the minister to the land which is available as a result of railway relocations in the cores of towns, villages and cities. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will be able to apply some pressure on these railway companies with regard to the disposition of those lands.
Let me refer to one case in a small village in my riding, that famous village of Callander. The railway has abandoned its right of way in this area. The land is a useless strip for which the railway has no more use, and I am sure it acquired that land in the 1800's, just prior to the turn of the century, for something less than the staggering amount now being asked. The municipality of North Himsworth tried to buy that piece of land at a nominal rate. It is a useless strip, but the company is asking $200,000. I suggest that is absolutely ridiculous. The municipality had to settle for two or three small strategic areas, and had to pay a substantial amount for those. The rest of the land is still lying there unused.
Until I took on the full-time job of member of parliament for Parry Sound-Muskoka I was a real estate broker. When talking with one of the property men of the CNR I made a bet of one steak dinner, and perhaps I will end up having to buy it. That individual said he could guarantee me that the company would get a minimum of $175,000 for that strip of useless land. I can certainly tell you that such a price is even more inflated than other land values in the area.
I can see or understand such high prices for abandoned railway property in the centre of a large city such as Toronto, because land in those urban centres is a very expensive commodity. I am sure the railways will be

reimbursed on that basis, but surely this is not true of the hundreds of thousands of acres along railway rights-of-way in rural areas. I am certain that our friends to the left in the NDP will agree with us 100 per cent in that regard. When this land is made available, I hope it will be made available for public housing or to municipalities at a nominal rate. I am looking forward with great interest to what my friends in the NDP will have to say in this regard during the debate on this motion.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government places top priority on its responsibilities to urban communities and urban Canadians. It is responding now and will continue to respond to the challenge created for all of us by the conflicting manifestations of urban growth with which we have to deal, and implicit in that response is the need to maintain and improve the quality of the urban environment in our large cities and in our smaller towns and communities.
This responsibility underlies the policy development, research and co-ordination activities of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and the housing programs of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is why last October, at the second national tri-level conference in Edmonton, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) urged the provinces and municipalities to recognize the dangers to Canada of unbalanced, runaway urban growth. The minister suggested then that unbalanced urban growth, and the rate at which it is taking place, is one of the central issues facing all governments. At Edmonton all agreed with very little hesitation on the need for concerted action to respond effectively to urban growth. Implicit in that consensus was the need to respond to this growth in all its regional manifestations. The federal government intends to honour the commitment it made at Edmonton with speed and with effective policies and programs. The urban environment is of first priority for the federal government, and that priority is manifest in a decision taken by the federal Cabinet last summer.
In July, the Cabinet agreed to a proposal by the minister on a federal-regional goal which has two main objectives: First, to achieve a more balanced pattern of cities and towns throughout Canada with increased emphasis on support for improving small and medium size communities and for new communities where needed and, second, to improve the physical and social environment of larger urban centres, particular the core areas, or the inner city. That decision by the Cabinet last summer is one of the most fundamental that has been made by a Canadian cabinet in many years. It will take a few years for that decision to become visible, but in the long run it is going to mean a dramatic diminishing of growth in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver with a parallel increase in growth in smaller centres right across Canada. What this decision means is that federal policies and programs will be massively redirected and reshaped over the coming years to make them more responsive to the needs of an urban nation. And it means that the federal government views "urban" in the broadest possible terms, not solely in terms of Toronto or Vancouver but in terms as well of the
March 25, 1974

smaller communities and their place in the Canadian economy.
This reshaping of policies and programs affects not just the policy development activities of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs or the programs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The commitment made by the Cabinet implies an urban redirection to the policies and programs of many departments and agencies whose activities affect the lives and future of urban Canadians. It means, further, that increasingly the federal government will join with the provinces and their municipalities to effect beneficial changes in the evolving urban future. We are already making headway in many of these policy and program areas as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has already indicated. The amended National Housing Act, for example, has a greatly expanded potential to aid smaller communities as well as the larger centres.
The Neighbourhood Improvement Program can and will be applied to helping smaller cities as well as large ones. The Assisted Home Ownership Program has a high degree of flexibility built into it and can provide positive support for smaller cities and towns. The sewage treatment legislation, which will be introduced shortly in the House, will aid small communities as well as the large centres. The problems encountered by small towns where, because of limited population, the cost of installing sewage systems puts a very high per capita burden on the individual taxpayer will be recognized. For these communities and for others, where, because of topography, sewage costs are unusually high, additional assistance will be provided to make the program as equitable as possible across the country. It will supplement similar assistance which the provinces may provide. It will not displace such necessary support.
The national transportation development corporation, which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs proposed on behalf of the federal government at the Edmonton tri-level conference, will provide a national response to meet the cumulative need for public transportation systems and components. Such a national agency will help marshall our resources to the task of meeting current and future urban transportation demands. The proposal for a national transportation development agency was made contingent on provincial interest. That interest has been thoroughly tested in consultations across the country and everywhere a high degree of interest has been shown. The federal initiative in launching this national transportation development corporation will pay off in a number of ways, Mr. Speaker.
First, the corporation will provide a means of responding in a collective way, an integrated way, to the transportation needs of urban communities. It means that we, and not foreign entrepreneurs, will develop the systems and equipment needed to solve our urban transportation problems and not just for the large centres but, equally, for small and medium-sized centres. Second, we will be enabling Canadian companies to meet the needs of our domestic and foreign markets. This will significantly increase job opportunities as we develop export market possibilities. Third, the corporation's activities will develop and spin off new technology which will be of advantage to
Urban Affairs
other Canadian industries. Fourth, it will encourage the regional location of new transportation development and manufacturing establishments.
The domestic market for urban transportation is estimated at $5 billion to 1990. And the opportunity to develop export markets holds out an even greater economic potential. Total world demand for urban transportation system components, Mr. Speaker, are estimated at $500 billion to 1995. A strong, Canadian urban transportation capability, encouraged by this transportation development corporation, will be able to compete in that market and capture some of its benefits. Failure by the federal government to act when it did might have resulted in a degree of foreign control or influence over the development of urban transportation systems in Canada, a low level of domestic transportation development, a Canadian urban environment conditioned to foreign technology, greater regional disparity, increased importing of components and systems, and a loss of employment potential.
Mr. Speaker, the solution to our urban transportation problems will be solved in part by imaginative federal-provincial co-operation. As a result of an imaginative step by the federal government it will be solved in part by the close federal-provincial co-operation which the national urban transportation corporation envisages. This is important because we have found early on that urban problems require co-operation and consultation among governments, not competition. That accounts for the high degree of success which has accompanied the initiative of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in establishing tri-level action committees in a number of urban communities.
In February, 1973, a tri-level committee was established for the Halifax-Dartmouth area to review plans for regional development, to further regional co-operation and to attack pressing urban problems ranging from core development and transportation to housing and land use control. A tri-level action committee is operating in Quebec City. In Ontario, the first tri-level committee at the provincial level has been developed, while special ad hoc tri-level groups have been formed to deal with regional or local issues such as the federal waterfront park in Toronto and railway relocation at Sault Ste. Marie. Railway relocation and new methods of public transit and land assembly have been studied by the tri-level group functioning since June 1972 in Winnipeg. The Vancouver tri-level committee first met in March, 1973, bringing together the three levels of government to review plans for the proposed expansion of the Vancouver International airport and to discuss a wide range of urban issues related to growth on the lower mainland.
It is through continuing action like tri-level consultation, as well as through new initiatives, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is responding, and will respond to urban problems and the needs of the urban environment. In respect of the railway relocation legislation which we hope will appear in the House soon, the minister at the Edmonton tri-level conference last autumn in a paper delivered there indicated some of the things we can expect in the legislation. Among other things, we can expect the use of funding in order to relocate railways which run across our towns and cities and to put the land freed from railway use to more optimum use from the point of view of
27398-53J

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
the municipality concerned and also-and this seems to be missed by most people who read about railway relocation-there is a potential for using this proposed legislation for upgrading existing rail lines for rapid transit purposes such as in an area like mine, a southshore constituency opposite Montreal, which is traversed by rail lines which long ago ceased to carry passenger traffic. This proposed legislation has the potential for putting to use tremendously expensive capital facilities which are not now serving the public of Canada as they should. This legislation we are looking forward to-and members generally are extremely interested in the legislation the minister talked about at the tri-level conference last autumn- along with the energy crisis, is one of the emerging urban issues, because energy shortages will have a profound effect on the urban environment.
It is hard for us to even imagine all the effects which a fuel shortage, and all the problems that follow, will have on the way we live in cities. What we are going to see, and what we are already seeing, is a re-thinking of many wishful thoughts we all had about the future, about technological progress, about how our cities are laid out, about how we travel within and outside our own hometowns, and about the dependence we North Americans have built around machines and cars and other fuel gobblers. And, parenthetically, this development, if no other, makes our federal initiative in proposing a national transportation development corporation all that much more important.
On this continent in the past century we have thought of resources as being unlimited and have lauded anything that increased consumption, production and development. The energy crisis has challenged that ethic as has virtually no other happening. The world does not possess infinite supplies of oil and gas. The world has only a certain number of coal deposits and uranium deposits. Some experts look at this process of rethinking as another gift of the Magi. They express a rather masochistic gratitude to the oil producing countries for forcing the world to it. Rising costs of fuel, whether based on political whim or real problems in finding sources, are making some previously economically unviable sources-in Canada the obvious example being the Athabasca oil sands-feasible prospects. But whether we pay more for the already available fossil fuels or for bringing into production known reserves, the fact is we will pay more to fuel our urban system.
How should we deal with these rising costs? First, we can manipulate supply, which is the traditional approach. We can continue to search out alternate sources of conventional energy sources, or we can begin to make wider use of alternate energy sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, and so on. Second, we can manipulate demand. That is, we can force policies of conservation of energy. We can learn to change our habits and our life style.
The phenomenon of oil shortages had a pocket book impact. So, naturally, we are reacting fast. We are involved in, we read about, we take heed of advice on saving oil, inspecting the installation in our homes, putting radial tires on our cars, and staying home on Sundays. These small acts may already be having an impact on the urban environment. Already, in the city of Ottawa, the

cost of gas has contributed to changes in traffic patterns and to increased use of public transit-moves that were long needed. I think the energy crisis was the final blow to many motorists and the best of all added attractions to public transit.
In the last week or two, the government announced certain measures which would help to contribute to a solution of these energy problems that are facing our cities. The minister has alluded to them at some length in his remarks. But I feel that this reference to the official reaction of the opposition bears repeating, and I intend to repeat it not only here but elsewhere. This $100 million program which was a program not for research or for studies as opposition members have tried to make the public believe but for $100 million worth of practical projects in cities, small and large, across Canada-proposes innovation, new methods of solving problems such as ways of recycling sewage and garbage, disposal of garbage so as to produce heat for either small towns or city cores, new modes of urban living, new attacks on public transportation problems, and this is what official spokesman of the Official Opposition said:
... the government is setting up a bluff of $100 million. It is a joke.
This appeared at page 454 of Hansard.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I support that statement.


Ian Watson: It is to be expected that the Official Opposition would be opposed to innovation and new ideas. While that was to be expected, the amazing thing about that particular announcement was the reaction of the NDP. This is what the official spokesman of the NDP said:
I suggest in all seriousness that all this program is going to mean is $100 million down the drain . ..
When these practical projects are put into effect across Canada, it will be a pleasure for me to remind some of the recipients of what the two major opposition parties in the house said about one of the most imaginative and innovative programs that this government has announced in a long time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us build houses now.


Ian Watson: If we are going to set about conserving energy, we can have an immediate effect on the character of Canadian cities, and the principal change will be made in public transportation. In the United States, transportation consumes about one quarter of the total energy budget of the country. More than 95 per cent of that fuel comes from petroleum. Here in Canada, 44 per cent of all petroleum products used go into transportation, and one half of that in urban areas.
It is not too far out to predict that the energy crisis will change and accelerate that change in what the experts call "urban form". It will change what the city looks like and how it is laid out. The response to the fuel situation and the need to look at means of conserving fuel over the long term will take the form of innovative urban experiments with both technology and behaviour, hardware and software, if you like. This is part of what this $100 million program is all about. We already hear of experiments with district heating in which whole blocks of homes are heated by a central plant. We hear of the possibility of whole
March 25, 1974

cities with a thermostat-climate controlled environments. I do not know whether we can do that with the $100 million program. In any event, there will be a number of practical innovative projects that will benefit Canadians from coast to coast in this venture which the minister announced to opposition laments two weeks ago.
In Canada, money has been set aside by the federal government through CMHC for provincial and municipal assembly of land for new communities, the ideal locales for some of these experiments in energy conservation and recycling. I should like to speak for a moment on the question of land assembly and the federal programs designed to deal with that matter. Let me say that since 1954 the federal government has had on its books legislation which permits federal-provincial partnerships in the ownership of land for land banking purposes, 75 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial. Since the early '60's we have had an additional option on our books which provides for 90 per cent of the money for the cost of land assembly to be lent to a province or municipality by the federal government. These provisions, which were taken up to some extent in the 1950's, such as the Malvern project which dates back to almost 1954, is a good example of what could have been done, the potential that was there. This must be one of the major tragedies of postwar Canada-the legislation and the money were there and yet the provinces, and Ontario in particular, did not take advantage of them.
When I hear the Conservative members from Ontario, and from the Toronto area in particular, talking about what is lacking in federal housing policies, I think that if ever there was a national scandal it was the deliberate decision by the Ontario Conservative government that it would leave to private developers the development of land around Toronto, with the result that we have in the Toronto area the highest land costs in North America. This is a direct result of the lack of usage by the Ontario provincial Conservative government of legislation which has been on the federal statute books since the early 1950's.
I am surprised that the Tory opposition would even dare to propose that a day be set aside for discussion of urban problems when their party has been so deficient, not only in advancing its own policy federally but as well in the principal province where the problem occurs, and where events have shown them to be so dramatically wrong. The solution lies in the public assembly of land around Toronto for new cities, something which is provided for in our legislation. It lies in land banks. Unless this is done in much greater measure than is the case now, then not only the population of Toronto but the population of Ontario as a whole, as well as the taxpayers of Canada, will suffer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate for a few moments in a debate on what I think is one of the most important questions facing governments at all levels,
Urban Affairs
a question that has faced the federal government since it assumed office in 1963. This is a debate that concerns the actions, or really the lack of actions, attributed to the federal government since it first assumed office when there was time to undo, or at least to remedy some of the situations that any vigilant government-if you are to believe its own propaganda-ought to have seen developing. It is a matter of some profound regret to me, representing an area which is largely urban, that the situation in urban Canada has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that even this government, which as a result of its dinosaur attitude faces extinction, finally decided in 1973 that there was a problem and something ought to be done about it.
We have just had an interesting two or three weeks in this House. Last week we had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) say that the farmer was in a bind. We had the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) make his public confession of failure. We had the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) indicate that the government has wasted millions of dollars on a computer program that is just about as unco-ordinated as the government's housing program. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has done nothing but issue press releases about the programs which he intends to institute at some future time. Each time the cost of living index comes out the focus is turned on the failures of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Now we have the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), who deals with something that is just as fundamental to the development and well being of our citizens as food, and we have his record and his litany of failure with respect to housing.
It is easy to make partisan comments about the question of housing, but we have to remember the parameters within which this debate is taking place. Housing for Canadians, indeed housing for all people is a primary social, economic and physical need. It is unfortunate that we have to say these things but in Canada that need in terms of government, indeed in terms of governments in the plural sense, has been a matter of secondary consideration, at least until the federal government had its deathbed conversion in 1973. There is in fact a persistent shortage of housing across Canada in terms of the available number of units, and the shortage is growing. There is a tremendous shortage in terms of choice of housing for Canadians.
It is fair to say that sophisticated studies are not necessary to learn that there are still thousands and thousands of Canadians who are ill housed, and this includes the native peoples. It also includes the people in our cities, people in our towns, and some people in rural areas. It is axiomatic that if the government is entitled to credit for its achievements, if there are achievements, then it is also entitled to and should be condemned for its failures, and in respect of housing its policy over the years has been a monument to failure.
A few days ago the minister launched another study. His parliamentary secretary has taken great pains to say that it is not a study.


Ian Watson: There is not one mention of study in it.

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs


Walter David Baker: I quote now from Hansard at page 453 where the minister said on March 13:
This demonstration program is designed to foster projects that will find solutions to urban problems and demonstrate those solutions for adoption and implementation in all regions of Canada.


Ian Watson: Not one word about study.


Walter David Baker: The difference between this study and the conventional study is that in the conventional study the result comes out on a piece of paper, having been written by those who make the study, but in this particular study program the result will be in bricks and mortar, perhaps on an experimental basis, and perhaps with mistakes. If you read the minister's statement you see it is a study leading to an event that culminates in a structure in the minister's riding called Habitat 2900. A rose by any other name is still a rose. This is a study.
It was roundly condemned by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Normally, I do not agree with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby but I must concede that his description of it was correct. He stated, as recorded at page 454 of Hansard:
The minister said he wants this conference to be known as Habitat 2000. I suggest in all seriousness that all this program is going to mean is $100 million down the drain, of no help to people in meeting housing requirements in Canada.
That is a fairly true, fairly sound assessment of this program in the first instance. If I needed any reinforcement as to the soundness of that assessment and the truth of that assessment, it was to be found in the reaction by the parliamentary secretary to the minister a few seconds ago, he being thrust into this debate to defend the indefensible.
A little further on the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby stated:
-most of the studies that have been done have led to total inaction.
He was commenting on studies done by the department of Urban Affairs. There have been hundreds of studies undertaken by the government. Now, we have a housing situation which is supposed to respond to the clarion call given by the minister a few minutes ago. He talked about support for municipal projects, and for non-profit and co-operative groups. Why did he wait until 1973 suddenly to think of that? Does he give any forecast as to the extent of this program, how it is going to be received, and the number of units that are planned for development under it?
The minister talked about leadership in legislation and an increase in budgets. Has he indicated to the country the effects of inflation on the efficacy of those budgets? He talked about better intergovernmental relationships, and said the government was providing leadership in that field. But what do we have in this region, Mr. Speaker, close to the area which I represent? We will have them developing the so-called southeast city, the city which would be established in the township of Gloucester according to the election promise in 1972. That idea put forward by the minister and the department is not acceptable to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or to the township of Gloucester. The very purpose of the concept is questionable. If that is an example of this govern-

ment's leadership in intergovernmental affairs, I say it is a fraud.
The minister has provided no leadership with respect to housing. Lacking forecasts-yet being abundant with words, the minister has perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people. Canadians have looked to the government for housing in this country. I will never forget my conversation with a young couple in an apartment building which was never meant to accommodate young families with children. In my election campaign I discovered that many people like them lived in such high-rise apartments. I will never forget what that young person said to me in Park-wood Hills. He said, "Mr. Baker, I am imprisoned in this place." He wanted to get out. He was saving money. Because the government failed to act in the field of housing, and because what it did made his dollar less valuable, he could not afford a house and found himself imprisoned. Some, of course, want to live in a high-rise and I respect their choice. But what of those who do not? What are they to do as the choices become ever more limited for more and more people? That this should be so stands as a monument to the failure of this government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Apparently the hon. member opposes giving them a choice.


Walter David Baker: Not at all. I want them to have a choice. In his speech on this motion the minister tried to defend the policies of this government. I want him to remember the young man of whom I spoke. Oh, yes, there are task forces, studies, commissions, and so on. But they will not solve the housing needs of that person. They will not answer the housing needs of the native people of this country. They will not answer the difficulties of people on lower incomes who want houses. They will not meet the needs of our senior citizens.
The time for words such as those the minister spoke this afternoon has long passed. For ten years this problem has been growing. The government has been warned, but has done nothing. For that it stands condemned. The problem has been apparent for all to see: there is the rub. I emphasize in the strongest way I can that the government ought to be roundly condemned for perpetrating against Canadians what I can only charitably characterize as a fraud.
The government has embarked upon another $100 million study or demonstration program. Let me put some figures on the record with respect to the national capital area, the area touted by the minister as a model for communities in Canada, not merely in terms of bricks and mortar but, I hope, in terms of quality of life as well as availability and choice of housing.
It is interesting to note that the average price of housing sold in Ontario rose by 26 per cent between 1970 and 1973. The price of the average Ottawa house lot rose from $5,000 in 1965 to $12,500 in 1972. The price of the average house and lot went up from $25,100 to $39,000 in the same period. The Ottawa Housing Authority, which has been involved in low-rent and limited dividend housing since 1962, has been running into increasing difficulties in every area of its operations in this period. The waiting lists for families
March 25, 1974

and senior citizens' accommodation have grown to appalling proportions.
As of December 31, 1973, 2,089 senior citizens and 1,541 families were on the Ottawa Housing Authority waiting lists. Under construction at that time were 1,643 senior citizens' units and 380 family units. With the need growing, that construction does not even begin to keep up with requirements. Without doubt, the lack of serviced lots is driving up the price of house lots and is a factor in housing costs. There is also no doubt that the situation is becoming more serious. Current housing programs at the federal and provincial levels are not integrated. If the government assures us that it is showing leadership in the field of housing, then the blame for its failure to integrate housing programs must be laid at its doorstep.
Members of the NDP sometimes suggest that reducing the mortgage interest rates would provide the answer and would make available more houses for the people of Canada. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) suggested something like this in his remarks this afternoon. With all respect, I do not think his position is correct. House prices have been forced upward primarily as a result of demand. If interest rates were lower, demand would not decrease, neither would price. I suggest that price would actually continue to increase. At first blush, it might appear that the hon. member is right; however, having given the matter much thought I do not think the NDP suggestion would reach the root of the problem, which is how to satisfy demand. Surely leadership in this field must come from the federal government, which must co-operate with provincial governments in solving the existing housing crisis. We require more co-operation.
What is the government doing? Every now and then we hear of a housing conference between federal and provincial governments. In his speech the minister said he had spoken in Toronto earlier today. He meant to imply, no doubt, that he had delivered one of his epistles inscribed on tablets of stone. I suspect the conference was improved once he left it because the question could then be discussed realistically with those in the field. There is no ongoing consultation between the federal and provincial governments. Such consultation is so necessary if we are to meet the housing needs of this country.
The minister talked about the federal home ownership assistance plan. On paper it is a good plan and the idea is good on paper. The trouble is this: it is not working effectively, particularly in the large metropolitan areas where assisted home ownership is needed. CMHC mortgage loans under this program are not forthcoming in most cities. This is the result, primarily, of the distortion in house prices. That is unfortunate as this is basically a good plan.
For example, in Chicoutimi, where the average home sells for $22,000, 204 loans were approved by the end of 1973. In Toronto, on the other hand, where the average house price is $45,000, only 27 loans were approved in the same period. In Ottawa, 40 loans were approved for the eastern Ontario region, but only 20 of those were for metropolitan Ottawa. Montreal is the exception in Canada. Housing costs there are not so high. In that city, 1,927 loans were made. The difficulty is this: in those areas where the home ownership assistance plan is important
Urban Affairs
and needed, the plan is not working. The minister should face this.
I think the real monument, or perhaps tombstone of the minister is what has happened to the consumer price index with regard to housing. In October, 1972, it stood at 145.3; in February, 1974, it stood at 159.4-an increase of 9.7 per cent. That is higher than the over-all index for all commodities and services in Canada. The figures are devastating. In St. John's, for example, there has been an increase of 8.6 per cent. That area suffers from unemployment as well. In Ottawa there has been a 7.3 per cent increase in that period of time. In Vancouver the increase has been 6.3 per cent, and in Halifax 8.7 per cent.
Those figures are really the minister's tombstone. They are the best indicator of the failure of this minister's policy. It is not all the fault of the minister because he has had some assistance in this failure. It is really the failure of the government to fight inflation and deal adequately and in a straightforward manner with this basic and fundamental problem. The housing cost figures are alarming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, some remarks could be made before six o'clock in relation to the debate that is taking place, but before doing so and with Your Honour's permission I wish to read into the record some statements and reveal their source. They were made by a political figure. He is quoted as saying:
"What we are trying to do is expand supply; it is the old-fashioned market philosophy-if you increase supply, the price will come down and stabilize."
In relation to housing, he is also quoted as saying:
-war against speculation is twofold: public wariness, and private negotiations. In public he is giving notice that the government is going to attempt to "depress and even roll back prices," and in private he is negotiating with what he calls "the other two points in the triangle- the municipalities and the private sector."
Another quotation of interest is the announcement of a housing action program as follows:
-to increase the supply of housing available, naming areas, target dates and housing prices. The theory is that this increase in supply will depress the cost of housing ...
"A lot of this speculative boom is psychology," Mr. Handleman said. "People say you can't lose by buying land-and they've been right. What we would like to do is at least start throwing out the idea among the people who are speculating-'Hey, maybe this guy is going to put an end to this; we better start by being careful.'
"... And when the first guy says, 'No, I think I'll put my money into stocks and bonds instead of buying land and that is mutliplied several times, the market forces will begin to work. As word gets around, you can break the psychological circle, or start to, by just warning people."
These remarks were made by a person who today fills the position of minister of housing for the province of Ontario. They were published in today's Globe and Mail. An innocent bystander in the galleries today who had been listening to this debate until now would wonder what on earth is going on in this country and who is responsible for what. In this statement the Ontario minis-

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
ter of housing admits responsibility for the provision of housing in that province. This has not been put forward in one speech by the proposers of this motion, including the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) does not misquote me. I referred to the federal responsibility within the terms and conditions of the constitution. I thought the hon. member would understand the constitution. There is some provincial jurisdiction and some federal jurisdiction. I am always fair with the hon. member and the minister. I hope he will be as fair with me as I am with him.


Charles L. Caccia: Just this afternoon the hon. member for Calgary North accused the federal government of hiding behind the constitution. How can he make the statement he just made, having said only three hours ago that the federal government is hiding behind the constitution? He knows very well that one of the basic reasons houses are so costly is the high cost of serviced land. Whose responsibility is that, if not the provinces'? Who is hiding behind what? Obviously there is a very important responsibility that has to be discharged by provincial governments. If it is not discharged, that is not the place to raise it and accuse the federal government of shortcomings.
A copy of the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North ought to be delivered to the Premier of Ontario: he is the person who at federal-provincial conferences in Ottawa publicly states that housing is definitely a jurisdiction for the province to preserve and protect. How can you have it both ways? Can you blame the federal government for not providing serviced land in the Toronto area, and at the same time deny the Premier of Ontario the right under the constitution to do that very job? Obviously not.
There is a lot of inconsistency of logic on the part of the Tories, particularly by the hon. member for Calgary North, whether he likes it or not. We admit that we have a responsibility in the other component in the cost of housing, namely, the cost of mortgages. For those who cannot afford it, the federal government should and is doing something about subsidizing mortgages. Under the assisted home ownership program the federal government has made a very significant step toward providing assistance to low income families, probably newly formed families, to recover a portion of the cost of mortgages.
It is becoming quite clear that the value of these programs is limited to the two areas where the cost of land and the cost of mortgages is still relatively low compared to other parts of the country. It is going to benefit small towns and certain rural areas. That is fine. However, we agree with those who say it is desirable for the federal government to introduce a plan of financing mortgages on a national basis and on a proper scale. This would permit for a limited number of years, perhaps ten, newly formed families to acquire their first house for the children and have a portion of the mortgage subsidized. This would, of course, require substantial expenditure. That is an important factor in such a policy. However, to come here and say, as did the hon. member for Calgary North, that prices in metro Toronto are high because of the federal govern-

ment's housing policy is not knowing what one is talking about.
If we do face a tight situation in Ontario, particularly in metropolitan Toronto, it is because the level of government charged with responsibility for providing serviced land has failed to take the necessary action. During the last 20 years it has failed to take advantage of the land bank provisions which have existed in federal statutes since 1954. At that time, loans are subsidized to the tune of 75 per cent. Later, the subsidy was increased to something like 90 per cent. But it is only very recently that Ontario has shown an interest in this legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is just one province.


Charles L. Caccia: I do not know about other provinces. Perhaps the province from which the hon. member comes has done the same thing. It is another Tory province. The Tories, in their hunger for power, are saying one thing from one corner of their mouths and the opposite from the other corner. They are criticizing the government because of the effect of inflation on poor people in particular. Yet they are, by tradition, the chief proponents of private enterprise and in that capacity they are the first to protect the interests of the lending agencies, the trust companies and the banks. These are the people who would encourage the operations of the land speculators. It is they who quote in this House figures given by the Urban Development Institute. It is the hon. member for Calgary North and his hon. friend from Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) who speak in support of the Urban Development Institute. These are the proponents of the big interest groups. They now have the nerve to condemn the government and accuse it of causing inflation, when inflation is really caused by speculators behind the scenes.
A debate like this does, of course, tend to deteriorate when it becomes political. I am afraid I have been tempted into following the pattern set by the hon. member for Calgary North who, instead of trying to throw some light on the subject, slipped along the road of political expediency and ended by shedding as much light on this subject as a blind glow-worm attempting to find his way home in a one-way lane in Toronto. The hon. member for Calgary North is a master at confusing himself, confusing his colleagues and sometimes confusing even the press. He was at his best this afternoon.
Seriously, though, when we look at the question of housing we realize that once the political speeches have been made and the political dust has settled, we are confronted by an extremely complex problem. It is one which requires-


Mr. Blenkarn:: A good government; a government which cares.


Charles L. Caccia: I am glad to see this is beginning to hurt and that some response is forthcoming from over there. Its solution requires the co-operation of three levels of government, each of which is jealous of its independence. Second, housing is needed where there are jobs. Houses provided in areas where there are no jobs are likely to
March 25, 1974

remain empty. Thus, a housing policy is, of necessity, related to job location.
In an economy such as ours, generated chiefly by the large cities, more and more jobs are created in the principal urban centres. Effectively, the time comes when we run out of land in these urban centres and the question then arises: What do you do when you run out of a commodity which you cannot replace? Is the answer to increase the urban sprawl until, beginning in Ontario, it ends at the North Pole? The opposition tells us that cities should be contained within certain limits; that urban sprawl should not be encouraged.
The solution appears to lie in creating jobs in areas where the cost of land is still reasonably low and to which people should be encouraged to move in the expectation of finding employment. At this point, policy becomes the concern of the government at the federal level. I frankly recognize this. If we believe that every Canadian family should own a house, the answer might well lie in the policies put forward by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson): this is the department which is trying to create new jobs in less populated areas, thus relieving the enormous pressure on the larger centres.
If what I am saying is acceptable as a theory, another important role has to be played by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In addition, there is a role to be played by the Department of Finance in providing certain specific incentives. To expect that the supply of houses can be increased today by the tens of thousands in areas where appropriate land no longer exists is, in my opinion, to entertain hopes which are altogether unrealistic, unless hon. members are prepared to argue in favour of a policy of building high-rise apartments, a policy of replacing neighbourhood low-rise with high-rise structures-a policy which every sociologist has criticized as being inadequate.
Another important question is whether our policies are adequate in terms of providing housing for people with low incomes. We have been fairly successful in developing a variety of programs which meet the needs of middle income Canadians, but it is becoming clear now that the opportunities open to low income Canadians are rapidly diminishing. Housing and jobs go together. This is a subject not only for debate within the political arena; it is one which calls for creative thinking and the provision of practical alternatives, in the absence of which we shall still be debating housing when we are grandparents and great-grandparents, with extremely limited results.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-I am sorry he is not here this evening-thought he was going to shed some light on the housing problem facing those of us who live in urban areas, and in particular the urban area known as metropolitan Toronto and its envi-
Urban Affairs
rons. Sir, he did not shed any light at all. He attempted to make an apology for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) by suggesting that the minister was not responsible for doing anything about housing, that really it was a matter for the provinces. I think all members of the House would agree that it is a matter of joint responsibility of the municipal, provincial and federal authorities, but that a great portion of that responsibility rests with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in this parliament.
On March 13 last the minister stood in this House and made a great pronouncement. He said he was going to enter into another demonstration program. Almost like one of the famous streakers, he came forward with a new program of which he was so proud. He was going to demonstrate to all in Canada the kind of new, innovative housing that was possible today. He said that this demonstration would culminate in the creation of Habitat 2000.
The minister then sat down, and from every corner of this House opposition spokesmen said what they thought about this minister and his program, and the minister slumped further and further into his seat. This is the minister who really is responsible for nothing except sound and fury. What he says really signifies nothing. He is like Nero playing the fiddle. He is the kind of fellow who really has nothing to offer other than famous words and slogans.
Last year the minister introduced AHOP and NIP. Last week he brought to us MIC. What have they produced for the people of Canada? A great big zip. The minister of housing should be called the minister of zip, for that is what he is. This minister fiddles while the price of houses climbs and climbs and climbs. A year ago, less than 5 per cent of the people of this country could afford to buy a new, single family dwelling. Today the percentage is much less than that. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), speaking in Ontario this weekend, said that a person had to earn $23,000 to qualify for a new home in Toronto. Pretty soon only the very wealthy will qualify for a home in this country. Members of parliament cannot qualify for a new home in metropolitan Toronto even on their salary, and we are supposed to be so well paid, the leaders of the country.
We told the minister last year that there was a shortage of serviced land. We pleading with him all last session and asked him to put some money into serviced centres, transportation, water mains and sewers. We asked him to lend municipalities money, to make grants to them. But what did he do? He land banked for tomorrow. That is the kind of minister he is. "Old tomorrow", they call him.


An hon. Member:: What about the national dream?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I will be coming to that. A year ago when I spoke in this House about housing costs, the price of lots in my riding was $20,000. They are now up to $42,500. All the minister has done is land bank. What has he done to curb speculation in housing? The reason he has done nothing is that he and his government are responsible for the highest inflation this country has ever seen. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that this government went to the people of Canada last week with a bond issue. The bond market in this country said, "Keep your bonds. We

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
don't believe in your paper money. We don't believe in investing in bonds because we know that if we do, they will buy us nothing when we get our money back". The people of this country are looking for something more solid to put their money in.
Since this government does not care about inflation, Canadians are running out and buying real estate because at least real estate is bricks, mortar, land-something of value. The government does not care. It says, "Protect yourselves. We cannot do anything about it; inflation is a worldwide problem". People are realizing that this government does not care and they are buying real estate in order to protect their savings. So what we have now is the sort of situation that exists in my constituency, where a house which sold for $23,900 four or five years ago sold only last week for $59,500. When the house was first sold at $23,900 it bore a first mortgage of somewhere around $16,000. In the resale the new mortgage will be $40,000. The mortgage company that put up the mortgage money is a company supervised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) through the Department of Insurance.
This mortgage company is making loans to enable inflation to continue. The government is pumping money into the economy in drunken fashion so as to enable speculation in real estate to continue and roll over and over. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs does not know anything about that at all, because he does not understand that housing is purchased and sold on a low down-payment basis with huge leverage factors.
When asked what he is going to do about this problem, the minister just shrugs his shoulders and talks about land banking, AHOP, NIP and MIC. What have the minister and this government really accomplished for the people of Canada? I suggest they have accomplished nothing at all. Instead of getting down to the needs of the people and doing something about controlling financing which enables speculators to make such excessive profits, this government does nothing whatsoever.
I was in Calgary last Saturday, sitting in a coffee shop at two o'clock in the morning waiting for a flight. I met a constituent who informed me that he had purchased a house for $35,000 in March of last year and was now moving to Montreal and had sold the house last week for $54,000. That is an increase of only $20,000! He was not happy about it because he has a son who married recently and is going to buy a house. This is the kind of speculation in financing allowed by this government. This government lacks any planning in respect of control over the money supply. This is the kind of response we get from that minister across the aisle. I suggest he does not care.
Ministers over there continue to tell us that they can do nothing about inflation because it is an international problem. I suggest they cannot do anything about it because they do not want to do anything about it. At the present rate of inflation, particularly in respect of housing, it will not be very long before only the very wealthy will be able to afford accommodation, and perhaps even they will require subsidization. What hope is there in that situation?
The number of housing units being built for those of deprived circumstances in our economy, including people on old age assistance, on welfare and on widows' allowances, is far less than we require. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, speaking earlier today, indicated that the number of people who line up for social assistance in respect of housing is continually growing. At one time those entitled to assistance in housing could earn only a maximum of $4,000 to $5,000 a year. That maximum has now increased to $7,000 or $8,000, and I suggest that soon you will be able to qualify for social assistance in housing with a salary of $12,000. And that will eventually increase to $15,000 or $18,000, the way price structures have been rolling over and over. This government has an obligation to step in and make sure that we no longer allow increases in profits on housing to the point where homes will soon be unobtainable to all citizens.
One of the greatest problems in the housing situation can be directly related to our presently accepted methods of financing and the leverage involved. Traditionally, houses were sold with a 10 per cent or 15 per cent down payment and the balance was paid through mortgage financing. Under the present system, mortgage companies and lending institutions will lend 75 per cent of the sale price. If a house is worth $20 a square foot, a house with 1,000 square feet is worth $20,000 to build. When such a house sells for $60,000 one can only assume that the remainder represents the cost of the land. We wind up with 75 per cent financing on the total package. This leads to financing speculation on the land. The minister should realize this, and it is about time he got down to brass tacks and did something about it. I suggest we are getting no leadership from this minister, with his AHOP, NIP and MIC.
This government could not only do something about the cost of financing; it could do something about the housing shortage. The major difficulties in metropolitan areas have resulted from an acute lack of serviced land. It is all very well for the minister to say that this is the responsibility of the provinces, but with the taxing system in this country the federal authority has the taxing power and the ability to do something in this regard.
With the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, this government has an obligation to plow back at least that money into the cost of servicing land. Every brick that is laid in my municipality carries an 11 per cent tax, but the city of Mississauga does not get a dime of that back in terms of assistance toward the cost of building roads, commuter lines, water mains, parks and recreational centres to serve the people who come there. The people in my municipality throw up their hands when talking to the Ontario minister of housing. When questioned, Mr. Han-dleman always asks where the province is going to get the money for services. We all know that the province cannot print the money, like these fellows opposite us. The province must get its money legitimately.
The federal minsiter keeps telling us housing is a provincial responsibility. That is a wonderful way to duck his responsibility, which is to make it possible in areas of the country where growth is taking place to have on hand a surplus of serviced land. This could be achieved through the enormous revenues this government is obtaining from
[Mr. Blenkarn.)
March 25, 1974

the building tax; and the people who pay the building tax are in areas where the growth is taking place. I suggest that the minister could do one of two things. He could abolish the building tax and thereby reduce the cost of construction, or he could use the tax to offset the cost of servicing the land. The minister has not considered these possibilities. He thinks in terms of Habitat 2000. He thinks in terms of Habitat in Montreal, which is a marvellous demonstration of building where the wealthy can live in the downtown area. Let us have a Habitat for the ordinary guy who is trying to raise a family. Let us have a place where the ordinary man can buy a lot and build a house. I suggest the only way that can be done is by making money available for servicing land.
The minister's parliamentary secretary spoke about land banking and blamed the province of Ontario for not accepting assistance in this field. I would ask him what he proposes to do. Does he intend to go to the McLaughlin and Cadillac corporations and ask them to buy up the land, allowing them tremendous profits; or is he prepared to adopt a policy of servicing this land with the use of funds such as those created by the building tax in order that developers will not be able to speculate but will have to develop these areas in a legitimate way?
Is the minister prepared to step in and stop the speculation on vacant land? These speculators are not just the big fellows. Is he prepared to step in and say that they will be taxed to the ears for taking advantage of the ordinary citizen? I suggest he is not prepared to make a move like that. All he is prepared to do is talk about AHOP, NIP and MIC. He does not have anything new to offer. His whole concept in housing was out of date ages ago. The minister tours the countryside attending housing conferences. He has studies made and he initiates building projects through Central Mortgage and Housing. But he does not do a thing to assist the ordinary guy in his responsibility to look after his wife and kids.
A year and a half ago I knocked on many doors in apartment buildings that were not designed for people with children. Unfortunately, the children had to learn to ride their tricycles in the corridors. What has happened since then? The rent for those apartments has gone up, not $10 a month or $20 a month but in some cases $50 and $60 a month. At that time there was a vacancy rate of about 2 per cent or 3 per cent, but now it is less than 1 per cent. People are being forced to pay outrageous prices which they cannot afford, because of great speculation in housing.
It is up to the government to do something about this speculation, and not just wash its hands and say it cannot do anything about it because it is an international problem. How did housing ever become an international problem? Do we live in some far away island, in the United States, in Germany or in France? No, we live in Canada and there is enough land for all Canadians. There is more land for each person in Canada than there is in almost any country in the world. It is disgraceful for this government to say there is no place for a young family to plant its seed and grow simply because there is no serviced land with transportation arteries, water, sewage and the like.
Urban Affairs
To say it is necessary to bank land in order to put it away for some time in the future is a disgrace. The problem is right now. Young families are growing up, and they cannot afford houses. It is up to the government to do something about this problem. The government should use its funding, its taxation and resource abilities and step in and get on with it, instead of demonstrating. We have had enough demonstrating, new ideas and innovative thought. The people of my riding, and I am sure the people of all ridings of this House, want housing; they want four walls and a good roof to keep them warm in the wintertime. They want a place where they can live with their children. They want a backyard.
They do not want to hear about demonstrations and Habitat 2000, international conferences or the sending of $100 million down the drain in respect of demonstration Habitats 2000. They are not interested in these things. They are interested in the ordinary things they are entitled to have. They are entitled to have a piece of Canada, a place to plant their seed and raise their children. That is financially possible, it is economically possible and it is the responsibility of this government to produce.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have been rather discouraged by the empty, silly rhetoric coming from the other side, the party which introduced the motion today. I have not yet heard one constructive suggestion. They seem determined to badger the minister and they use every possible initiative in doing so. They really are not interested in setting out policies to deal with a very serious problem. They are just interested in scoring political points. I think that is disgusting in respect of a serious problem. They confuse the whole issue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would be fair. I certainly made five or six specific suggestions in respect of our program. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House, but the kind of nonsense he is peddling is an attempt to get propaganda. We do not have to take it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All hon. members are entitled to make speeches, including the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson).


Barnett Jerome Danson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I sat through the whole of the hon. member's speech and do not recall hearing any constructive suggestions; but perhaps my memory fails me. I think we have a serious problem in respect of inflation. No one denies that. However, I wish we could separate the two problems. They are interrelated, but I do not think we are discussing inflation now. The fact of the matter is that year after year since I have been a member of this House, every previous prediction with regard to the number of housing starts has been exceeded.
27398-54'

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
I stood on platforms in the election of 1968 and said that if we did not have at least 200,000 housing starts per year I would not stand on an election platform for our party again. I knew we would meet this commitment. We not only met it but exceeded it. Last year there were 269,000 housing starts. Qualitatively, and quantitatively we are the best housed people in the world. This has not been accidental. I do not say it is good enough. We should be the best housed people in the world and should be doing better. However, I do not think there is anything to justify the type of comments which have been made.
When I talk about 269,000 housing starts, this was in a year when the net family formations were 130,000. So the net family formations have virtually matched the number of single family dwelling starts in Canada last year. I think that is a record. I am sorry I do not see my friend the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) here, because he picked out the ludicrous statistic about houses in the year 2000 costing $200,000. This type of thing does not get to the root of the problem. Of course there are major problems. There are major population movements which themselves involve problems. Although many of us are aware of this, the comments which appear in the paper on public consultation on population questions of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs bears repeating:
The proportion of urban population constituted 76.1 per cent of the total population in 1971. The corresponding figures for 1966 and 1961 were 72.6 and 69.6 per cent respectively. The majority of urban population live in urban centres with population over 100,000. The high concentration of population in big urban centres reflects the great transition from an agrarian, to an industrial, and now to a service-oriented economy with the dominance of commercial, professional and industrial activities. With the exception of Nova Scotia, all the provinces registered an increase in the proportion of urban population between 1966 and 1971.
So we see the situation and it is pretty obvious it is upon us. I think we must ask ourselves what the urban concept is. I think we also must ask ourselves what a home is, when we speak of price. Instead of talking about big, growing cities I think we have to be thinking in terms of urban systems. Transportation is critical to this concept. Those of us from the Toronto region I think rejoice over the decision to operate the Barrie commuter service to Toronto and also the one from Toronto to Richmond Hill. This provides an opportunity for new communities to spread out over a broad area with provincial planning. We are not splitting hairs about whose responsibility it is. We have met our responsibility. The government has allocated $500 million for the land banking of serviced land. This is half a billion dollars.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Half a million?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, half a billion dollars. What has my great province of Ontario done? I have not heard about any of this money having been picked up yet. We are providing the tools to do the job. The provinces guard their prerogative jealously, and I do not quarrel with this because I believe it is a provincial prerogative. Since 1954 the federal government has paid 75, per cent of land assembly costs. One might ask where the provinces have been in this regard, because the problem is obtaining serviced land. There have been loans for sewers, low-cost loans with a 25 per cent forgiveness clause. It has applied
(Mr. Danson.l
to sanitary sewers but now applies to storm sewers, which again helps land assembly.
Where is the province of Ontario and where are other provinces on this? We are providing money, we are responding. I wager there would be more money forthcoming as soon as the provinces responded. It is the province which has the prime responsibility for the planning, for land assembly. I have not been able to get the facts, but I wager that the province of Ontario has taken some of this money. I would bet my bottom dollar that they will use it for land assembly at Cedarwood near the proposed airport site. If that is the case, I would consider it to be a misuse of funds because the Cedarwood development was committed before this fund became available. The fund is designed to open up new areas. If the province of Ontario is using this fund for Cedarwood, I would say that they are hoodwinking the people of Ontario and the people in the Toronto region. I urge my colleagues from that region to look at this very carefully. If Ontario has taken part of that fund and is using it at Cedarwood, they are misusing the fund because they would be spending that money anyway.
I would not like that to be a repetition of another development, Malvern, when people in the region had to draw lots and in some cases pay under-the-table money to even have their name considered for houses at a lower cost. What happens when one sector of the population buys housing at a lower cost than others? Who gets that right, and what right have they to resell houses which were purchased at a lower cost because of the foresight of the federal government and the delay of the provincial government? Who makes a profit on this lower-cost housing?
With the greater opportunity which is presented to the provinces by this federal funding, and the federal decision to run commuter trains north at Toronto as well as those running east and west-and I give the province full marks on getting the east-west commuter service going-their planning requirements are intense. The danger is that we will continue this sprawl which my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia) mentioned. It could go right up to the North Pole, although I say at least to Lake Simcoe. That could happen if the present government of Ontario stays in office, but I do not think there is too much fear of that.
We have to open up areas for new communities, use this money for intelligent planning, for smaller communities to grow and thrive under proper plans. We should use this money to put into force the Toronto-centred region plan because, in spite of all its weaknesses, it is a reasonable plan. Frankly, I can criticize portions of it but the thrust is great. It leaves great areas for green belt, but regrettably the province narrows down the areas of the green belt just to let the hydro lines through. The plan must provide adequate recreational areas and agricultural areas. These are the important things that develop an urban system- not to concentrate people in the downtown core and make better living areas there.
I have serious doubts about central core renewal and its value. To be able to get decent single family dwellings on a decent piece of land one has to move away from the
March 25, 1974

central core because in the central cores of the cities there will be high density, high rise and very high cost or heavily subsidized housing. I am not sure that that is the route to take. If those people who want to live there persist, they must be prepared for high density, high rise and high cost. I object to subsidization for normal housing and I would rather use those funds more constructively in developing more humane communities where there is some greenery, some air and a recreational area.
My friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), probably has the same trouble in Calgary that we have in Toronto. The inflationary problem with respect to housing is a serious one to young people in particular. When I came out of the army I bought a house for $7,600, which at the time I thought was an awful amount. It was away up in North York, which is metropolitan Toronto now. Everybody thought I was crazy, and I did too; but I could do nothing else. It was my first house. I have traded up until I have a decent one now; a very old one, mind you, but one with which I am very happy. Now it is worth 20 times the amount I paid for the original house. But at least I had a start.
The house I bought had two bedrooms, one small bathroom and a kitchen that did not have push-button gadgets all over. It had an attached garage, but no paved driveway. It was a heck of a lot better than living in my parents' home or in an apartment, although those who choose an apartment can have it. It was enough to get a start. Now the houses we are talking about have 2'A bathrooms, finished recreation rooms, many of them have dens, libraries and are landscaped. Really, I think that is beyond our expectation. What should be our expectation? I think it is great if people can have all that if they can afford it, but we must look after those who cannot afford it.
The determining factor is the price of serviced land, because it is so expensive that you can only build expensive houses on it. If you went to see what was built as temporary housing at the agricultural farm in Ottawa during the last war, you would see that these are rather attractive houses. Over the years flowers and trees have grown around them. They are not a bad place in which to start a married life. From there you can move on to somewhere else. Neither are they a bad place to go to when you are older. I think we have lost the concept of that type of house.
Last week in my constituency, in Richmond Hill, there was a display of mobile homes. They are not really mobile; they are prefabricated homes. I was astounded to find them quite attractive. They are roomier than any moderately priced apartment I have seen. They are attractively appointed and are selling for $18,000 to $20,000. These were fully furnished. Some had a washer and dryer, all had a refrigerator and a stove, and they were very attractive. Perhaps someone would not want that for the rest of their life, but it is not a bad place in which to start or for when you are older and your family is grown.
We do not have to go after a $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 house. It is not everybody's right in Canada to own a mansion. This is what we are talking about in relative terms. We are talking about people who are forced to buy houses which they cannot afford and which are away above their means. We have to watch it very carefully
Urban Affairs
because cities are becoming oppressive places in which to live. There is a lot of action and excitement in them. I happened to be born and raised in Toronto and I love it dearly. I have lived in every province in Canada and in places abroad, yet I am always delighted to come home. But there is an oppressiveness in cities; and the bigger they are, the tougher they are.
There must be relief from tension. We see it here in Ottawa which on its doorstep has the Gatineau national park and is particularly favoured in that way. I stayed in Ottawa this weekend and yesterday went cross-country skiing. One can get there in 15 minutes and it is beautiful. People in Ottawa, although they have a difficult housing problem in that housing is so high-priced, can still live on a more humane scale. In the city of Toronto they have done a pretty good job of parks, but we have to keep this up. Regrettably, in Toronto we take a beautiful wooded ravine, which is a great asset, with a river flowing through it, and then we pave it to make it into the Don Valley parkway. This is very unfortunate. It helps the traffic to move but we have given up something else.
I urge the people in my province and in the area in which I live to pay greater attention to urban national parks. I believe the minister himself urged them to follow through on this initiative which brought the waterfront park to Toronto. The city of Toronto owns the Langstaffe jail farm in my constituency. It is 640 acres, sitting north of the city. I plead with the mayor of Richmond Hill, Mr. Lazenby, and the mayor of Toronto, Mr. Crombie, never to let that go for major development. They wanted to build a dome stadium on it. I opposed that. I may not have been popular with them, but I think you could do some imaginative things with that land in the form of reforestation. I do not mean a camping area but a place to grow trees so that kids from the city could go out there and see trees growing. It could be turned into a recreation area of some type. I say, let's get the trees planted. You can always cut some down if you have too many, but first get them planted. It takes time for trees to grow. They provide oxygen, and are a rejuvenating force in urban life.
Then there is talk about 18,000 acres for a major airport. Mr. Speaker, it could end up as Toronto's equivalent of the Gatineau park. Even if the airport is built, it would take up only a small portion, maybe only one quarter of those 18,000 acres. The rest could be turned into a park, with trees, streams and ponds and a recreation area. It is needed now, and if that is what this debate is all about-


An hon. Member:: It is about housing.


Barnett Jerome Danson: It is also about urban matters and you cannot dissociate the two. What is needed now is a continued infusion of federal funds to permit the provinces to do sensible planning so that we can get lots of serviced land in urban areas upon which people can build their homes. Here I am not suggesting that these be poor homes: I mean adequate, attractive homes. People should be helped to get them. I happen to think that owning a single, detached home is part of the great Canadian ideal. Those who want an apartment can have that type of life, but the other is the Canadian ideal.

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
The fact remains that we have provided the initiative. I regret to say that the province of Ontario has been very slow in picking up that initiative. I could almost promise, Mr. Speaker, even though I do not have the authority to promise anything, that if the province of Ontario got off its seat with its new minister of housing and really used these funds to acquire land, more federal funds would be provided to follow up that initiative.
In the meantime we have a way of life second to none in the world. But as Canadians we are never satisfied. It may be recognized that on a purely material basis we do not have the highest standard of living, but we have the best way of life in the world. Surely we can all recognize that. It has not been achieved as the result of political backbiting: it has been the result of long-term planning and proper use of land. And, Mr. Speaker, the land is strong, by gosh!


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: The land may be strong, Mr. Speaker, but by gosh the price isn't right these days. It is always worth while to listen to the hon. member preceding oneself because often that way one can pick up a few notions. I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). For one thing, he did save me a task that I felt I might have to undertake following the recriminations of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) which were so severe that I thought the minister would be totally shattered. I would like to see him shaken occasionally, but not totally shattered. Anyway, the hon. member for York North did pick him up a bit, so I do not feel obliged to rescue the minister.
I also have gratitude to express to the hon. member for York North for his suggestion, his serious suggestion, that the Toronto area needed more parkland. I totally agree with that. About a year and a half ago, during the federal election, the government saw the light. Somebody discovered that the city of Toronto did need parkland, and right in the middle of the election we had the offer of a Toronto harbour waterfront park at a cost of $30 million to $40 million. But we still have to wait to see that park manifest itself. I was down there recently, Mr. Speaker. I saw a tiny bit of lawn along a pier, and some park benches. They were not imported from Expo, so they must have been bought somewhere. But we are still waiting for the park.
There are many other areas in Toronto which need parks, and perhaps none more than the area I represent, Scarborough, and particularly my riding of Scarborough West. I know that if the minister takes a look at Scarborough West-which, by the way, is that part of Toronto just east of Victoria Park-he will say, "The hon. member for Scarborough West might have a good idea, but how can he bring it off, because most of the area is taken up by housing, or expressways, or roadways, or railways, or factories, a couple of small golf courses and a few ravines which have not been completely paved over," as the hon. member for York North remarked a while ago. "Where indeed," he might ask, "shall we build or establish a park in Scarborough West?"
I would ask him to look at a map of that part of Toronto and he will see a marvellous piece of free, green land; that is to say, land free of housing, factories and roadways. But it is not free to the people because they cannot get into it.
[Mr. Danson.1
However, Mr. Speaker, it is there, it is green, it is ready and it is available. It is known by some people in Toronto as the Toronto Hunt. I get a reaction from one of the Toronto members. I do not expect to get a reaction from western members because they do not understand what it is to ride to the hounds in a red jacket. In Toronto that kind of thing is still done-


An hon. Member:: You're kidding!


John Paul Harney: -metaphorically at least, and it is done in my riding which is predominantly a workingclass riding but where the upper crust of the city come out to entertain themselves on a magnificent piece of land. As a matter of fact, if you consider the whole area of Scarborough West which faces on Lake Ontario on a piece of magnificent geography, the Scarborough bluffs, it is about the only free space on the Scarborough bluffs. Yet the unfortunate part of it is that it is completely sealed off to the population of Scarborough West. This is a fairly densely populated part of the city of Toronto. I do not need to point out that the population of metro Toronto is now some 2.8 million.
As the hon. member for North York suggested a while ago, the pressure of population just cries out for recreational space, for green space, for places for trees to grow and indeed for people to go. I would suggest to the minister, were he here-but I am sure some of his colleagues are here and hearing-that there is a marvellous place in the eastern part of Toronto which could be taken over for a park. I am sure many people in Scarborough would appreciate it, although some people in the Toronto Hunt would not appreciate the insidious and practically seditious suggestion I am making here tonight. I do not know what they do in Victoria, but I suggest this is the only place in Canada where people still evoke riding to the hounds in red jackets. There are many people in Scarborough who would enjoy that initiative. Actually, some of the neighbours of the Toronto Hunt Club would not until recently have appreciated that suggestion because, naturally, the area immediately adjacent to the Toronto Hunt Club contains some relatively high-income people. They are in the Fallingbrook area.
The Toronto Hunt Club, in its disdain for the entire neighbourhood, including the Fallingbrook area, has put up a 12-foot wire fence to keep out the upper middle-class Fallingbrook residents because they are not quite good enough. The minister ought to know that the few members of the Toronto Hunt Club enjoy the freehold of this property for the paltry sum of $10,000 or $11,000 a year in municipal taxes. When you consider that they control 100 acres of choice, green, open space in an area in which people cry out for access to open spaces, that is very cheap territory.
I suggest to the minister that his ministry, on behalf of the federal government, should get in touch with the provincial government and, together with the municipality of Scarborough, purchase or appropriate in some decent and proper way the Toronto Hunt Club land so that it can be used not only by the people of Scarborough West but, as well by the people of Scarborough East-I see the
March 25, 1974

hon. member over there nodding-and also perhaps, by people as far away as York North. They, too, would like access to that magnificent body of water, Lake Ontario.
I was intrigued, when I heard the Speech from the Throne on February 27, to hear some reference to problems facing this country. The pertinent paragraph in the speech is worth reading in part. It is:
In the domain of social policy the government is playing a vital role to achieve a more balanced pattern of urban growth and to increase the quality of life in our cities in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities. Improved means of public transportation are indispensable to the achievement of these urban goals. Measures will be introduced to establish a national urban transportation development corporation to co-ordinate and market the development of required new technology in this field.
It was good to hear that reference to the problems our cities face. It was good to hear that the government is aware of the problem of urban growth. It was even good to hear that it is concerned about urban transportation. Even though members who have spoken have assailed your ears about the problem of housing, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that problem has not gone away. However, there is an added problem. People in large urban communities do not simply face the problem of finding adequate housing; they also face the difficulty of going home to their houses and of going to work from those houses.
If you ask the people of my riding what it is they complain of most apart from high food prices, high living costs and high rentals, they will tell you that they complain most generally about transportation. You do not need to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The venerable and honourable Toronto Star had a survey commissioned in Scarborough a few weeks ago. It discovered that people were proud of being residents of Scarborough. Although they are part of a large urban conglomeration known as Toronto, the people of Scarborough tend to identify themselves as being from Scarborough. If asked, they say, "yes, we are from Scarborough." They mention that area instead of Toronto; whereas the people in Etobicoke, the mystical and mythical land at the far western end of our city, tend to identify themselves as Torontonians. As I say, the people of Scarborough tend to identify themselves as citizens of Scarborough. Although they like to live there, some 59 or 60 per cent of them say that their major concern is that of transportation.
I was pleased to see that the government had promised in the Speech from the Throne a national urban transportation development corporation, until I read the words "to co-ordinate and market the development of required new technology." If you study those words, what do you have? Nothing. There is nothing in the speech but phraseology, and phraseology we have had in superabundance from this government. I have listened to the speeches made by the minister and other cabinet colleagues and have heard nothing specific about the problems facing the cities except fine phraseology. Go back over the record of this session and of the previous session: yes, all the promises are there in the finest, flossiest Liberal language-but there is nothing specific.
Let me allude to one of the problems which faces major urban centres in this nation and my riding of Scarborough, the problem of transportation. This government really has had nothing to do with the major debate which
Urban Affairs
has raged in Toronto as to what system of transportation we should develop. Some of us have taken sides. I, myself, opposed the development of the Scarborough expressway. Some in my area think differently. We had an excellent report produced by Mr. Richard Soberman. He produced a report a number of years ago, for the Department of Transport, on commuter rail. His recent report came out squarely against the construction of the Scarborough expressway. It was a milestone decision. Furthermore, it was an important decision because of the alternative it proposed. It said that we in eastern Toronto should be served by what is known as light rail transit; that is, not a subway, not a heavy rail operation such as the Go train, but light rail transport.
There are several advantages to such light rail transit. For one thing, it is relatively cheap. We can build a light rail transit system extending from downtown to Guild-wood in the relatively far eastern end of Scarborough for about $85 million which, when compared with the cost of expressways, is peanuts. The light rail transit system would be flexible. It could adapt itself very well to our innercity transit system and could connect us very well with our intercity transport system. It would be flexible in a way in which no subway system can be flexible. There is much to recommend it, including the fact that the rolling stock can be produced in Canada. It is true, as Mr. Soberman points out in his report, that we would now need to buy the rolling stock from the United States because we have stopped making fast, light streetcars in Canada. Yet there is no reason why in the next two or three years we should not develop such an industry in this country. We have the plans, the capacity, the skills and the resources to produce our own rolling stock.
It is worth while pointing out to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) that if we decide to build our own rolling stock, not just for Toronto but for the other major cities, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Vancouver and other places, we would develop an extremely worth while Canadian industry which would make appropriate use of our resources and the skills of our working people. It could do this without interfering with the famous, or infamous, auto pact, depending on how you see it. There is no reason why we should not enter the field of light rail transit in this country to satisfy the transportation needs of our urban populations. For one thing, such a system is much cheaper to operate than some other systems. Light rail transit would be more efficient than the automobile in taking people to and from work and in and out of their communities.
Without going into the complicated engineering figures, we know it costs some 50 per cent more per passenger-mile to transport a person in an automobile than it does to transport the same person in public transit of the kind I have been describing. These days, particularly when we are energy conscious, we should be doing everything in our power to redirect the use of our resources in the most economic way possible and in the way which pays the most heed to conservation. This is all very well but, you might ask, "What can the federal government do? It is sitting here in Ottawa, and you are talking about something that is going on in the cities of Canada." If we

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
wanted to make urban transit more attractive, one of the best ways to do it is to make it less expensive. The federal government could, for example, dispose of the federal sales tax on diesel fuel. It could, for example, dispose of the federal sales tax on rolling stock and equipment used by our public transit systems across the country.
Let us think of it for a moment. Does it make sense for one public entity, the federal government, to tax another public entity, a municipal or provincial government, so that it in turn can tax the citizens? It is true that we have three levels of government in this country, but the citizens of this country are not split three ways. We are all dealing with the same taxpayer. Let us get out of the habit of taxing one public entity at another level, because obviously this is a silly thing to do and in fact there are huge diseconomies involved in it. To make public transit more attractive, let's make it cheaper and insist that the federal government take the steps that it can take, rather than produce mere phraseology, in order to make public transit more available, more effective and less expensive.
Are there other measures which can be taken by the federal government? I hesitate to suggest the next because it has something to do with transport, the Department of Transport and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who has confessed to us that he is relatively powerless. We did not know that. We suspected the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) was relatively powerless and that is why he had to resort to phraseology, but we thought the Minister of Transport had power until he told us he was relatively powerless.
If we had a powerful Minister of Transport, he could say to the railroads of this country that their rights of way in the cities of Canada can be used for the development of light rail urban transit and they shall make these rights of way available at nominal cost. After all, Canadian National Railways is public property, and Canadian Pacific has been given public property. Therefore, there is no reason why they should stand in the way of our cities and municipalities. They should make these facilities available as readily and as freely as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue only with the consent of the House. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Paul Harney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will see if I can cover the rest of this universe in two minutes. I know it is impossible, but I will try to make one point. I have heard a lot today about the need to control what is happening in our cities, the need to control urban growth. I doubt if I have heard anything of significance from either side of the House. Let me give a couple of examples of the kinds of things that worry me.


An hon. Member:: All that in two minutes?


John Paul Harney: I will give the worst examples. People in my area, again, stated in a recent survey that they want less growth and more parks. They are, very simply, saying that they want more of the amenities of life. They do not

want to be forced into a situation where a community is growing out of control.
In my last minute or so I want to ask the government what suggestions will be coming forward. What legislation will be coming forward to control urban growth in a serious and sensible way? What shall be done? What shall be proposed to control the depredations of the speculators? Nothing that I have heard from either side of the House. To put the matter as simply and bluntly as possible, we will not be able to control urban growth. We will not be able to see that the amenities of life are brought to the citizens of our large cities until we decide on a policy which will ensure that the major part of the land in our cities is publicly owned. As long as the main consideration and ownership of land is financial, and solely financial, private interests will be able to change the face of our communities without reference to us, the citizens, or to any level of government.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it is usually a pleasure to speak following the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), but tonight it just seemed that the old coalition was back at work. They really said nothing about the serious housing problem in this country-just a lot of niceties. I notice that even the minister had to leave the chamber. It is unfortunate that the minister is not in the House, but considering the dismal failure of his department it is not surprising that he would find it opportune to be absent when so much well deserved criticism is aimed directly at him and his department.
One aspect that cannot be overlooked in this entire debate is that regardless of the location of the riding of the member who is speaking, the problem is the same. Whether the speaker be, like myself, from an urban riding in British Columbia, or from a rural riding in Newfoundland, the needs of our respective constituents are equally great. When the cost of a home is out of reach for the average Canadian, then something is drastically wrong. And, Mr. Speaker, when a wage earner must be making about $17,000 per year to qualify for a mortgage at current market prices, we are indeed facing a crisis in the housing field.
There was a time when the Canadian people could look to their elected government for guidance, assistance and leadership in an area so critical to their very well-being. The Canadian people, however, have long despaired of such policies from the government's housing minister. His mammoth bureaucratic monster has succeeded only in spending large amounts of the taxpayers' dollars. The building of this giant white elephant has not even succeeded in bringing forth the squeak of a mouse. Undaunted, however, by the past failures of his department, the minister has proposed the expenditure of $100 million as an urban demonstration project. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, that is approximately $55,000 per day for five years.
It is typical of the minister's department that this $100 million will not actually build a single home. His department can find millions upon millions of dollars and can build bigger and bigger bureaucratic organizations. In fact, Mr. Speaker, about the only thing the minister's
March 25, 1974

department cannot do is build homes for the Canadians people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Watson: Only 269,000 this year.


John Douglas Reynolds: I will be glad to include that in my speech. The hon. member says "only 269,000 homes this year." Tell that to the people of this country who cannot find a home to buy. I, like hundreds of thousands of Canadians people, want to know when the minister is going to do the job he was elected to do. One would think that after the mistakes made in his previous portfolio, he would have learned that not only the Canadian people but his own party expect some results, however infinitely small they may be.
The Canadian people will no longer tolerate the government's policy that nothing can be done about inflation, that it is purely dependent upon international events and we will simply have to roll with the punches. While this may be convenient for various ministers of the Crown and may afford them the opportunity to hide behind the failure to come to grips will the inflationary cycle, it does nothing to alleviate the problems facing this nation, particularly in the field of housing.
There are steps which could be taken immediately if the government wished seriously to attack this problem head-on. Some of these points have been raised on numerous occasions by the leader of this party, by our housing critic, the hon. member for Calgary North, and by other concerned members of this party including myself. Mr. Speaker, let us cut out the nonsense, let us cut out the red tape, let us cut out the millions of dollars being wasted on smoke-screen, political gimmickry and let us get on with the job which the people of Canada elected us to do.
A person does not have to be a financial wizard, and economist or even a contractor to identify the problems. It would appear, however, that the only thing a person does not have to be to identify these problems is a minister of housing. Two weeks ago in this House, during the debate on the address in reply to the throne speech, I referred to an advertisement in a paper from Houston, Texas, in which was illustrated a 1,700 square-foot house selling for $22,900. Now, if houses can be built and sold in the United States at this price in one of the largest metropolitan areas, then surely they can be built here in Canada. But government interference at all levels has so tied up the housing industry that the frustrations alone are multifold.
Recent changes in the tax structure in this country have adversely affected the profitability of constructing apartments. As a result, demand for these dwelling units is far outstripping availability. With almost 99 per cent occupancy of available space, the resulting situation is a sellers' market and nothing else, and those forced to rent units have been charged all the traffic will bear. For young families, the situation is impossible. Not only must they earn substantial incomes even to qualify for a mortgage, they must also make substantial down-payments. For a young family this is not always possible. Add to this the current interest rates, and we are faced with a situation in
Urban Affairs
which the vast majority of Canadian cannot hope to own their homes.
In both the United States and in Great Britain a home owner is allowed a tax deduction in respect of interest paid on a mortgage, with the result that a far greater proportion of people are in a position to consider the purchase of a home. If the minister were serious about tackling the problems in his department, he could begin here. If the minister were serious about tackling this problem, he could immediately remove the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: He doesn't care.


John Douglas Reynolds: If the minister were serious about tackling this problem, he could recommend that tax incentives he reinstituted so that dwelling units would once again become an attractive form of investment and stimulate apartment and townhouse construction.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In all of Canada, not just the Vancouver area.


John Douglas Reynolds: If the minister were serious, he could develop a policy directed at lowering interest rates on all CMHC mortgages. If the minister were serious, he could establish a federal fund, utilizing federal participation, which could be used on a regional basis to set up regional land banking agencies for serviced land. If the minister were serious, he would develop new and flexible national planning and building codes taking into consideration regional differences and disparities. If the minister were serious, he would incorporate rapid transit systems to serve land banks, thus making these available land banks attractive to potential home owners. One of the worst areas in the country as far as rapid transport is concerned is the minister's own riding.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


John Douglas Reynolds: The minister knows it is a serious problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia. He is a member of the federal government, yet he has done nothing. All they did before the last election was offer a bunch of money to build a crossing which was rejected by the province and rejected by the people. But they thought a few dollars going into that bridge might get them elected, and I must say it did; the ministers on either side of the bridge are still in the House. However, I think they are only here until the next election, because the people know the Liberal government is doing nothing for British Columbia, and the two ministers from British Columbia are part of the Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: Bring back Rudnicki.


John Douglas Reynolds: It makes me sick to hear members on the other side criticize my party for not putting forward housing policies. We have a distinct housing policy. The government knows it might work, but they just sit back and hope the problem will go away. I think they will get a surprise, because their government will go away after the next election.

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the proposals recommended by the leader of this party in an effort to meet the most basic need of all Canadians, the need for reasonable and comfortable shelter. Certainly the minister responsible for housing cannot continue to head his department without showing some sign of progress, somewhere-anywhere.
Only a few days ago the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) referred to me in an interview as a fool because I questioned whether there was a connection between his removal as minister of consumer and corporate affairs and the scandal involving several well known British Columbia cement companies and accompanying political ties. I do not feel that his comments were warranted, I felt, rather, that they were spoken out of frustration at not being able to come up with a plausible explanation to offset what I had stated in the House. On the other hand, based on the minister's past performance in both portfolios, consumer affairs and urban affairs, some people might be inclined to wonder if the minister wasn't talking about himself, because only a fool would continue in the job which he had not been able to do properly since he began it and which it is obvious he will never be able to do properly as long as he holds it. Possibly the minister is content to be the government's court jester. I can assure him, however, that the people of this country are not.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of rhetoric today, most of it quite negative, I am afraid. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn). There seem to be more problems in his riding than in any other riding in the country. One of the solutions would seem to be to remove some of the growth which is going on around Mississauga to other parts of the country where growth is needed; for example, the maritimes, northern Ontario and the west. This would solve some of the problems experienced by members from the Toronto suburbs.
I was appalled at the reaction of the Conservative Party to the minister's announcement. I would point out that the announcement was not intended to solve all housing problems. It was intended to look into the future to see what we are going to do about housing problems then. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was so confused that his confusion spread to the New Democratic Party. I think we should try to understand what this bill is attempting to do in the long term.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a bill.


Paul Edmund McRae: It was not meant to solve all our housing problems. The amount involved is $100 million spread over five years, roughly $20 million a year. This is about 2 per cent of what is being spent on housing, so it is not a vast amount of money. The bill does not initiate research projects. The bill is for demonstration projects. Research will be going on, but that is not the purpose of the bill which will follow.
I should like to consider the urban problems of the future and see the type of world we are moving toward and ask whether we ought to carry on using the same type of urban development 20 years from now. If the answer is

no, we need to redirect our thinking and find new ways of approaching this challenge.
The urban areas of the developed world will double in about 25 years. If we continue with this growth rate in Canada-and I shall have something to say about that at another time-we are going to need about six Torontos between now and the turn of the century, though I am sure we can do better than having six Torontos, or 20 Ottawas. That gives the House an idea of the kind of growth we can expect. Therefore, I ask, is it satisfactory to continue building homes in the way we are building them now, using the same patterns, methods of building, the same techniques, building materials, and so on, in order to double the number of houses we have now? I think the answer is no.
One very serious problem being faced by the construction industry, the industry that builds our cities, our commercial buildings, houses, industrial plants, and so on, is the shortage of conventional resources. One of the west coast firms moved into Thunder Bay last year and the province gave them reserves that had already been cut over, though I do not know whether the province realized this. This company is going to have a lot of difficulty getting sufficient wood to plan its operations. In order to supply the wood required, the province asked all farmers to cut reserves to supply MacMillan Bloedel only. In other words, if you were cutting in Nipigon you would have to move your supplies to Thunder Bay, and so on. The reason for this is that we are running short of resources. Even though these resources are renewable, there is a limit, and given the kind of growth we have in the construction industry we will soon be reaching those limits.
So far as methods of construction are concerned, much has to be done here. Galbraith, in his latest book on economics, talked about the planning economy and the market economy. The best example he gave of the market economy, the best in terms of power and productivity, was the housing industry. We would never put automobiles on the road if we had to build them as inefficiently as we build houses. All kinds of new techniques are needed to develop a new housing industry, one that will function efficiently. Land development, methods of construction, building codes are all problem areas.
One of the most serious problems in the field of housing-and I am not the first to say this-is the high cost of mortgages. This is a question that must be attacked by the government and by this House. If one looks at the profits made by the banks of Canada during the last 12 months, one finds they increased by 200 per cent in some cases. This is one reason interest rates can be lowered. I suggest that part of a first mortgage, say the first $10,000, be at a lower rate than the rest and that this be established as a pattern across the country. The government should be introducing measures to solve this kind of problem.
Another serious problem that we face is shortage of land. By this I mean shortage of land suitable for housing, not farmable. It is not a good idea to convert good farmland to use for housing. I would prefer to see the kind of land that we have in northern Ontario used for housing, instead of land around the Niagara fruit district, which is
March 25, 1974

high-priced agricultural land. We cannot continue to use this kind of land for housing. Food production is going to be all important over the long term, which is why we must not use for housing land that is presently used for producing food.
As far as energy is concerned, we in Canada need a great deal of fuel to keep our houses warm. About 50 per cent of our consumption of energy is used to heat houses and buildings. In addition, the cost of energy is increasing and shortage of energy supplies over the long term is a matter that must be considered.
Let me say a word or two about demonstration projects. Last week I had the good fortune to attend the meeting of a group called the Castle Green Co-op. This is a group that is building 200 housing units and is funded by a bill passed in the last session of parliament that gives assistance to co-ops and co-op housing. About 100 people attended this meeting, all of them members of this particular co-op. I have never seen a more enthusiastic gathering at a straight grass-roots project. I am proud the project is in Thunder Bay and I am proud to be associated with the government that provided funds for the project. I spoke to this group-one of my shorter speeches-for about two minutes, outlining the Minister's proposal for demonstration projects.
I had not left this meeting for more than half an hour when I received a telephone call asking me whether I would meet the caller and talk about this project. We, that is, the people directing the project and myself, spent the better part of the night, until two or three in the morning, talking about the possibilities for this kind of project. We talked about extra funding for central heating, about locating housing to take full advantage of solar heat. We talked about closed sewage systems in areas where it was difficult to dispose of sewage. We talked of recycling garbage and using it to create energy for heating and cooling systems. We also talked about recreational activities and other things.
This kind of project is fascinating and is strictly grassroots. The whole idea of this demonstration project is to develop the grass-roots talent that we have. I explained to them very carefully that it was not a research project. If technological know-how is required, they will have to use technology already developed. But this does not mean we are not researching today projects that will be introduced four or five years from now.
I should like to say a few words about the cost of energy, not in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of the remaining energy resources of the world. I think this is what the people at the Castle Green Co-op meeting were talking about. The first thing that came to their minds was the question how to set up economic housing units in terms of energy cost in a cold part of the country, not as cold as the territories, perhaps, but nevertheless cold enough.
If we look at the energy demand curve in Canada as we double our population, the energy curve rises gently to start with but by about 1978 starts to go up and is almost perpendicular by 1982. This kind of curve is constant throughout the world. All energy curves are drawn in this way. On the other hand, supply curves tend to rise gently, and then between the years 1978 and 1982 or 1983, depend-
Urban Affairs
ing on how gentle or steep the curves are, they cross, which means that by 1983 at the latest we might be in for some serious trouble, especially if present demand continues.
My feeling is that we must do something to anticipate this, and this is why we should take another look at housing construction. Houses in a cold country require a lot of energy. Therefore, we should look at ways to cut this demand effectively now. That is what I think we can do with this particular program. In terms of developing countries, Canada stands forty-second or forty-ninth in relation to the efficient use of energy. We tend to use our energy in a very inefficient way; we waste a great deal of it. Sweden, on the basis of its population, uses only about half the energy per capita, with the same gross national product. I suggest we have a long way to go toward solving some of our energy demand problems. Just as an example of this problem, many of our commercial buildings are extremely wasteful in terms of energy use. I understand the Commerce Court building in Toronto uses the same amount of hydro as the city of Peterborough. This is the type of energy waste which we can no longer afford.
Many suggestions have been made, including some by the Castle Green Co-operative. One suggestion has to do with the better use of waste heat, that is, heat from 80 to 100 degrees from thermal nuclear generating plants. There are many ways of using this heat to create energy in various forms, and this is the kind of thing that must be done. Some of these things can be done under the demonstration project activities suggested by the minister.
Another suggestion relates to the use of garbage as a fuel. It has been found that a pound of garbage can be used to produce 4'/2 pounds of steam. I have not worked that out in terms of BTU's but it would be extremely significant. Another suggestion is that we use raw sewage for conversion into methane. Such a conversion project has been carried out in Toronto. This is something we should be looking into as the kind of project that should be funded. I understand that one industry in Toronto has established a plant at the Toronto stockyards to convert biomasses into methane.
There is also a fairly simple operation which allows the mixture of coal and oil, producing about the same flame with the same amount of heat one gets from using straight oil. Such an operation would have the effect of increasing the life expectancy of our oil reserves by about 33 per cent. I suggest there is a tremendous area in respect of alternate means of developing heat. Heat conservation is another area that must be examined. Various kinds of insulations should be developed and tested. We must also develop, examine and test various alternative and improved building materials.
Perhaps the shortages of conventional building materials, including wood, will reach the point where we will have to reconsider the effectiveness of conventional insulation. Perhaps it will be proved that we should not be burning all our oil, but should be converting it into plastics of various forms which are better building materials. Perhaps they can be produced in the planning sections of

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
our economy rather than in the market sections-produced much more efficiently with much better insulating qualities. These are some of the things I think can be done.
Having pointed out these things, let me say there is a very definite need to find new techniques if we are to double our housing needs in uiban centres in the next 25 years. This is not a matter of taking a new research approach but is a matter of demonstration projects. What we must do is use some of the technology that now exists. This same Toronto industry used existing technology in its conversion of sewage to methane. This is the kind of thing that can and must be done. We must use existing technology of this kind, perhaps in a model city or a community, in an effort to show how we can avoid this kind of waste. Perhaps then the proposed $20 million a year will be money well spent. If that is how it is intended we spend this money, I think the money will be well spent and I support such an expenditure for that reason.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to some of the comments of hon. members on the other side, including the minister. When the minister finished his speech I was quite convinced that there was no housing crisis in this country. He indicated that as a result of the many great things he is doing there is absolutely nothing else that can be done. I suggest this is the kind of rather negative attitude in respect of our housing situation which has created the severe problem which exists in Canada today.
I am inclined to think the minister has failed to take action of any kind in the area of providing additional serviced land and cutting down interest rates because the people involved in the financial institutions and development corporations which are making huge rakeoffs on serviced lands are friends of and contributors to his party. It is well known that the Liberals are in the pockets of these institutions and do not want to do anything to rock the boat too much.
The hon. member who preceded me made a good deal of fuss about new techniques and new ways of doing things. This is an indication of the fact that people on that side are living in a world of daydreams and are not really prepared to grapple with our problems, using the knowledge and information we have at hand, but are content to sit back and do nothing but suggest they are trying to think up new techniques to solve our problems.
The parliamentary secretary used the same old type of criticism we hear from Liberals all across the country. The only thing they can say about the Conservative Party is that we have no new policies. It is obvious that those hon. members have not done their homework or they were not in the House when the minister spoke. Anyone who had listened to him would have seen that the minister had a copy of our policy discussion paper in his hand when he spoke.


An hon. Member:: You should have heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Stanley Ronald Basford: One of your members said it was not even a policy paper.
[Mr. McRae. 1


Paul Yewchuk: I am not so sure that the minister knows that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) did have a good deal to do with the production of that paper. It is obvious from the minister's statement that he does not know what he is talking about. However, I was happy to see him holding a copy of the paper, and if he reads more than the first page-I doubt that he has done that so far-I am sure he will find it contains some good ideas.


Walter David Baker: He may even find something he can steal.


Paul Yewchuk: Perhaps while he is still temporarily the minister he will be able to implement some of the good ideas which are contained in that paper, which will go a long way toward salving some of our problems in respect of housing. In spite of the glowing terms used by the minister when he spoke about his housing policies, I think his record speaks for itself. The policies which have been in effect for the past 11 years of Liberal government have led us to the point where we are becoming a nation of renters with virtually no one able to afford his own home today, and the situation is getting much worse. Fewer people even dare to dream about owning their own home.
We do not have to look far to see what has happened in respect of the housing market this year. Let us look at the situation in Ottawa, where in the past five years the price of the average house has doubled. One of my hobbies is to follow fairly closely this market and I should like to give an example of what has happened in Ottawa. In the neighbourhood in which I live, a house was sold last April for $45,000 to $47,000. That house was resold about three months ago for $72,000, and it is now advertised for sale at $95,000. In less than a year this house has more than doubled in price.
With that kind of inflationary pressure, I do not understand how the minister can sit back and smugly say he is doing everything he possibly can, or that there is really no problem in respect of housing in this country. I think it is fair to say that if something is not done about the inflation we are experiencing, the housing situation will be aggravated severely. Conversely, if the housing market is not stabilized, this will contribute to inflation. Inflation breeds high housing costs, and high housing costs breed inflation. This is a cycle that has to be broken somehow.
We have also heard many members on the government side state over and over again that we do not have in this country the land required for housing. That is a strange statement. The fact is that this country has more land than any country in the world. It is presently a matter of not having a government which has a policy to service the land and make it available to Canadians at reasonable cost. When we think of the millions of acres of land presently unoccupied in Canada, we find it rather difficult to understand why a building lot in the city of Ottawa, which I believe is a typical community, should cost $35,000 or $40,000. I am referring to a lot which is perhaps 100 feet by 100 feet.
I saw an advertisement in the paper the other day concerning a lot with trees on it. That made it valuable. It was advertised at $75,000. This was a lot which would
March 25, 1974

contain a one-family dwelling. While this type of situation occurs, it is no wonder the price of housing is becoming out of reach of the ordinary Canadian. It might be useful to look at the cause of this difficulty. Part of the cause, no doubt, is the fact that a large part of the development is left entirely in the hands of the developers. In spite of the minister's statement that there is a huge land assembly program, I have no knowledge of such a program working very effectively anywhere in this country. I do not see any such program in Ottawa.
We have a situation, for example, where a developer might buy a section of land perhaps for $2,000 or $10,000 an acre. About a third of that land will be taken for parks, roads, lanes, and so on, and he will wind up with probably three or four building lots per acre which he will in turn sell for $30,000 or $35,000 a piece. These lots are not available to individuals but are simply used by the developer for the construction of houses which are sold at a huge profit.
Another thing which would seem to be contributing to the high cost of housing, on which the minister, did not touch, of course, is the speculation which is carried on in land. People buy land and hold it for a month, two months, or less, and by this method tie up whatever land is available, simply to resell it at a profit. I think the minister should loolc into this situation to see that reason is instilled into that part of the housing situation.
Although I am a believer in the private enterprise system, I think there are certain areas where this system becomes self-defeating and does not serve the public interest. I hate to say that, but it seems to be the case in so far as the availability of serviced lots for individuals wishing to build homes is concerned. Even though the minister says there is a land assembly program in operation, it just does not work. It is not making land available at cost or slightly above cost. The demand is still for higher than the supply at the present time. So I really wonder whether the minister is serious about his land assembly program. He seems to be quite satisfied to sit back and do nothing more. It seems more like political window-dressing.
Another aspect of the housing problem which is contributing to the high cost of housing is financing. Over the past decade we have seen varying rates of interest. In 1966-67 the rate was around 6 per cent. At that time, and with that kind of interest rate, there was no undue inflation. The financial institutions seemed to survive and did not fold up because of the low interest rate. Things seemed to go along pretty well. Now, however, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) tells us it is impossible to do anything about interest rates which are in the vicinity of 10 per cent and 11 per cent.
The present interest rates are a crushing burden on any home owner. It is almost impossible for most individuals to consider owning a home because of this burden. I think the fact that the minister continually refuses to consider taking action to lower the interest rate suggests that the Liberal Party is subject to a good deal of pressure from various financial institutions. It could be that they are sharing the pot. I do not know for sure, but this is a possibility and perhaps it is why they are not willing to take the kind of action necessary to reduce interest rates to a reasonable level.
Urban Affairs
Another thing which could be done with regard to the financial market is to ensure that a larger percentage of the funds available is allocated to single family housing. I think this would be a step in the right direction. An additional factor in the high cost of housing is building materials. In the past year or so there have been rapid increases in the cost of building materials. Builders in some cases will not even quote a price on a house before it is built because they do not know from day to day what will be the cost of the materials necessary to construct the house.
Inflation has been so rampant in the area of building materials that something must be done quickly. We should ensure an adequate supply of building materials. There are various ways to do this, including reduction of exports and increased production. Another method is the removal of the sales tax on building materials. The Liberal way is to tax everything to death, but I think at this point the Conservative way would be better; that is, remove this tax and give people a chance to have a breather so far as building materials costs are concerned.
Then there is the cost of labour. I believe it would be appropriate at this point to compliment labour, including the labour unions which I think have shown, in the face of absolutely uncontrolled inflation, a good deal of restraint in not seeking unusually high wage settlements and by continuing to do their jobs. Therefore, labour is not the most serious aspect in respect of housing costs at this time.
It may be that the most important thing we could consider in relation to housing is the quality of life which is provided by the various housing programs in the country. Research seems to have shown that the aim we must have is that every individual or family which wishes to have a home should be able to own a private, single-family dwelling as opposed to the various multiple dwellings now available. It is not necessary for me to go into the various advantages of this apart from saying there is no structure which leads an individual family to feel more at home and enjoy privacy than the single-family dwelling.
Perhaps there has been too much of a trend in recent days toward townhouses, condominiums and dwellings of that nature. No doubt this is a reaction to the shortage of houses-a reaction to a crisis. In its reaction to this crisis, the government does not seem to have given any thought to the quality of life actually produced by this type of multiple housing. So when looking at the housing situation we should not simply look at it in terms of numbers but also in terms of the kind of housing starts we produce.
If we look around Ottawa we see hundreds upon hundreds of townhouse structures. Just imagine what those places will look like 30 years from now. My prediction is that they are slums of the future. We have not learned from past experience of crowding too many people into small areas for the sake of expediency at present. It is true that when these units are new, they are attractive and fairly pleasant, but I know they are not what Canadian families want and the danger is great that in 20 or 30 years' time they will simply be slums with which a future government will have to cope. So I would like to see a trend away from building these townhouses and con-

March 25, 1974
Urban Affairs
dominiums that are now spotting the urban environment a little too frequently.
One of the other things I wanted to speak about was land development and the type of lots that are made available to people today. Almost all the new developments in the major cities of Canada consist of building lots without any back lanes. When we consider the quality of life about which we are so concerned, this is a serious omission, for several reasons. One of them is that children are forced to play in the streets if they want space to run outside the boundaries of their own lot. The other reason is that lack of a back lane leads to a highly unsatisfactory sanitary arrangement because there is no room for the storage of garbage and people are forced to store it inside their garages or their basements where it attracts flies to the building. They take it out to the front of the lot once a week and in the summertime when it attracts flies, this is very unsatisfactory.
The other thing that makes lots without back lanes not very useful is the fact that there is no access to the back yard for machinery. If an individual who owns the house wants to get into the back yard to put in a swimming pool, plant a tree, etc., he cannot do so because houses are built too close together and there is no access to the back. For these various reasons I think the national building policy should encourage communities to return to the old system of subdividing lots with the inclusion of back lanes or at least the inclusion of a 20-foot strip of publicly-owned land which is not fenced and which would provide a playground or access to backyards.
I have been told that part of the reason for building subdivisions with no back lanes is that we have too many European planners coming into the country who are accustomed to planning in conditions where there is a severe shortage of land, so they try to get the maximum use out of each acre, and the maximum number of lots. The other possibility is that we are leaving this planning too much in the hands of developers who, because of the profit motive, are interested in getting the maximum number of lots out of each acre of land which they are servicing. Whatever the case may be, I consider this to be a very unhealthy trend which will lead to a reduction in the quality of life that people enjoy in our new neighbourhoods.
Finally, I want to say that Canadians should realize that what has happened in the housing market in Canada did not happen by accident. It happened as a result of 11 years of Liberal policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by Standing Order has expired. He can continue with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear a "no".


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in the very short time allotted to me I would like to point out some aspects of the housing situation as it exists in this country and particularly as it exists in my riding. In my

constituency the needs are not restricted to the urban areas where I am concerned with the increased cost of housing and land and a steady rise in population, adding a further strain to the existing difficulties. They are also felt in the rural areas where the government has done little or nothing in the past.
It is time that some interest was shown in order to bring adequate housing to those who have been cut off from the benefits of an urban society. Rural housing must be supported with generous rehabilitation loans and grants made available to co-operative and non-profit housing groups as well as low income families. CMHC rules as applied to rural housing must be made flexible to accommodate those who can least afford to comply with the standards necessary in order to qualify for financial assistance. CMHC policy toward the Indian people must also be made as flexible as possible because these are the people who deserve as much support as is possible in the field of housing. Inadequate housing and lack of concern in the past has contributed to poor and unsanitary housing conditions that are so obvious to those who have the responsibility of dealing with such conditions.
The federal government, with the support of the Conservatives, passed the residential mortgage financing act which was Bill C-135. This was supposed to provide the necessary funds for mortgage investments and supplement Bill C-133. However, that act meant that the supply and control of mortgage funds for residential housing will be determined by the free play of market forces. It will not ensure the availability of adequate mortgage funds for new and existing dwellings in rural areas as there is no provision for compulsory allocation of funds in these areas. It will not provide special housing for Indian people or those on low incomes. It is simply a means of attracting capital to an area where a good profit can be realized at the expense of the home buyer.
Therefore, it is important for the government to take the necessary steps and to assume responsibility for ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage funds at low interest rates, to determine housing requirements together with the provinces, and to set annual targets and obtain firm commitments from financial institutions to meet housing needs in this country. There is no excuse for inaction in an area of the Canadian economy where adequate shelter for all Canadians must be the primary objective of the federal government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10 p.m., proceedings on the motion being debated today are deemed to have been concluded pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
March 25, 1974

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in his always kindly way, the venerable President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said that my question on March 15 relating to regional pay inequalities in Canada was based on lack of knowledge. If he said so, then of course that must be the case because, after all, he is the head of the Treasury Board and his attitude on all matters relating to his department is above reproach. Or is it? Well, I may not have the learned gentleman's knowledge, but what I do have is some appreciation of what constitutes fair play and equity so far as his pay policies are concerned. So once more, as so many members of my party have done in the past, I want to bring to the attention of this House the inequitable and regressive attitude exhibited by this government toward the concept of equal pay for equal work for employees under Treasury Board jurisdiction.
The President of the Treasury Board has taken a militant and unprogressive stand in support of an entirely indefensible position. One might say that he, in his neanderthal way, has redoubled his efforts in this regard having lost sight of his objectives, which surely should be to do away, on a gradual basis, with the situation that exists in this country whereby employees under Treasury Board jurisdiction, whether they are nurses in New Brunswick or shipyard workers in Nova Scotia, are paid differently than their counterparts in other areas of Canada.
It is not realistic to bring about an absolute removal of wage disparity all across Canada at once because of the sudden disruption this could cause in a number of trades where economies of scale are at play. However, there is no doubt that our national economy can accept the philosophy of equal pay for equal work, which should be carried out in two basic steps. One step is immediate acceptance of equal pay increases so that disparity is not further increased. The second would be to commence immediately reduction of the existing differential so that it can be eliminated over a period of time.
I and others in my party have put on record the great differentials in pay with regard to nurses under federal jurisdiction. I am sure it is well known that the bitterness that these nurses felt, and still feel, has caused a considerable amount of justifiable concern to their representatives such as Mr. Phythian, Mr. Spruin and others in the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada who worked so hard on their behalf in trying to have the arbitral award dated October 16 of last year reviewed. The President of the Treasury Board, of course, resisted any such action.
The nurses' situation is deplorable, but there are many others; for example dockyard workers who suffer from the same sort of illogical disparity. Let us look at the status of dockyard employees in Canada under the existing agreement between the Treasury Board and the Federal Government Dockyards Trades and Labour Council, which expires on March 23 of next year. The differential in wages paid to dockyard workers in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, or to be more precise in Halifax and
Adjournment Debate
Esquimalt, is very substantial indeed, yet the cost of living in these two cities is practically identical.
The contract rate for machine-tending at level 3 is $4.31 at Halifax, and $5.03 at Esquimalt. A classification in which the federal government should be very interested in a sense, since its members are so very good at it, is that of manipulators. For manipulating, at Halifax the rate is $4.92, and at Esquimalt $5.56. There are greater differentials existing than the ones I have cited.
It is a very ironic situation which finds that in those parts of Canada which suffer most from unemployment, inflation and various other economic maladies, workers receive considerably less wages than workers in the more prosperous parts of the nation, both doing exactly the same work. While the President of the Treasury Board attempts to explain the validity and the equity of his position with regard to the foregoing, Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the same time he will explain why he and his government are permitting the federal civil service to expand by another 13,000 employees and why projected government spending for the year starting April 1, 1974, is up so dramatically.
He should also keep in mind that the estimates are double what they were six years ago and four times what they were ten years ago. Yet this minister said on CTV "Question Period," if I am quoting him correctly, that so far as the main estimates were concerned, the government's purchases of goods and services other than transfer payments are substantially the same in the current year as they were last year.
In spite of that, the President of the Treasury Board refuses, in the midst of all these expenditures such as $750 million to be paid to outside consultants to the civil service, which itself is costing the nation in excess of $4 billion, to allocate funds to correct this very inequitable pay policy which goes straight to the heart of regional inequality and basic fairness so far as working people are concerned. I doubt if he could get one provincial premier to support the stand he takes in this regard. But of course the government has never been too concerned about what the provinces think. When we look around this chamber and see the representation that the government has from most of the provinces in Canada, the results of its attitude are plain to see.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being here at ten o'clock when the adjournment debate started. I was detained by the miscellaneous estimates committee which was discussing the estimates of Treasury Board. The committee spent some time discussing the reason for the substantial difference between the total estimates the federal government sought from parliament ten years ago and those of today. I will not endeavour, in the space of three minutes, to repeat what I said in a somewhat longer period before the committee, but I suggest that if the hon. member refers to the minutes of that committee meeting he will find that I have not been wasting my time.
I find that the hon. gentleman is inconsistent. He complains about increases in expenditures by the public service on public servants, indicating that there is a distinct lack of care for the taxpayer's pocket, yet at the same time

March 25, 1974
Adjournment Debate
he accuses the government of niggardliness in not giving effect to the dogma of equal pay for equal work anywhere in Canada. I have endeavoured to explain to the House on earlier occasions that the government believes it is the government's duty to taxpayers to provide an efficient public service, that is, a service to the public and an efficient one, which means one that is not wasteful of the taxpayers' resources and is performing effectively the duties placed upon it in satisfying taxpayers' needs and demands.
In the case of regional pay policy, the government for years has taken the position that it will not be a leader in matters of pay and salary but will follow the pattern set by what is generally known in this country as the private sector. Given the choice of trying to equate the pay of the public service to that of the private sector on a national level or on a regional level, the government must, for common sense reasons, use a regional basis.
The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), I am quite sure, commends the recognition by the government that there are regional disparities, that different regions of Canada should receive even from the federal government different treatment, and that the purpose of the federal government in its employment policies is to produce the least possible regional disparity or dislocation. As a consequence, where there are large groups of employees in a region whose mobility from region to region is either very limited or non-existent, an endeavour is made to equate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his allotted time has expired.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS ISSUED BY FAMILY COURTS- RECOMMENDATION OF LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight will be short and to the point. On March 11, as recorded at page 353 of Hansard, I asked the following question in the House:
In light of the fact that 75 per cent of all family maintenance orders made by Canadian family courts against deserting husbands are defaulted, and in light of the fact these defaults cost Canadian taxpayers $365 million annually-
I am sure that in Manitoba the loss amounts to $10 million annually of which only a small percentage is recovered.
-does the minister intend to adopt through legislation the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission which would give family courts an investigative and enforcement apparatus to track down elusive fathers, thereby assuring compliance with any maintenance order issued?
As could have been expected, the so-called answer I received was in fact a non-answer. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whose jurisdiction in this matter is only partial, said something to the effect that the federal government will be discussing this matter with the provinces. The problem, however, is that this is a matter of utmost urgency.
As things now stand, a court order to a man for maintaining financially the family he has abandoned is often worth no more than the paper it is written on. While the divorce law is federal, the laws that govern other aspects

of marital break-up, maintenance, child support and property rights continue to vary as provincial responsibilities under the BNA Act. These responsibilities, though, are seldom enforced by the provincial courts: they leave that job to the deserted mother.
The federal government must act through whatever means possible to ensure that the job of tracking down deserting fathers is not left to deserted mothers. Presently, a deserted mother not only has to track down her spouse but has also has to keep returning to court for new maintenance orders if he defaults. As well, she has to hire a lawyer if he refuses to comply.
At present it is believed that about half the number of children entitled by court order to receive financial support from their father do not receive a cent. This is indeed an injustice. Under the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, any provincial maintenance order affecting persons outside the province lacks force until it has been confirmed in a court in another province or country. An Ontario court, for instance, can order maintenance, but if the husband moves to Alberta he does not have to pay until the order has been reconfirmed through an Alberta court. Upon being contracted by an enforcement agency, a delinquent husband must either make a payment or a show cause summons will be issued. If he ignores this summons, the court seldom acts, though in rare cases if he is still around and refuses to pay he may be arrested and jailed.
Considering this disastrous state of affairs with regard to family law in Canada, the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada are most welcome and should be implemented immediately. Basically, the commission would give the family courts an investigative and enforcement apparatus to track down elusive fathers, inquire into their finances and advise the courts on how much they could pay and, by methods unspecified, "ensure due compliance with any maintenance order issued". The commission also implies that in cases of default it would favour having the courts themselves pay all moneys to the family awarded in a maintenance order, with the money coming either from the father or provincial welfare funds. The commission does not discuss methods of enforcement but these can be worked out on consultation.
The commission's major recommendation is that all matters of family law should be gathered together under one court. As the commission points out, it makes sense that the judge who grants a divorce should also deal with the division of marital property, child custody, access to the child by the parent who does not have custody, and the welfare and maintenance of the child. However, as was mentioned, the constitution presents a barrier for it splits responsibility for these matters between the federal and provincial governments and, therefore, the same case is handled by different judges and different courts. It seems obvious that the commission's recommendations should be adopted.
In conclusion, I am hopeful that the federal-provincial discussions concerning the commission's recommendations will be a starting point for these much needed changes.
March 25, 1974


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my hon. friend for bringing to our attention such an important matter, which is interesting not only from the legal point of view, but also because of the human factor.
I note that my colleague has seen the conclusions of the Law Reform Commission working paper. I think we agree that the matter should be studied immediately, promptly and efficiently.

The study paper on family courts issued by the Law Reform Commission of Canada a short time ago, in which it was proposed that family courts be given more effective means to enforce maintenance orders against elusive spouses, is merely a study paper and these proposals are not at this stage recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. The Law Reform Commission will be making recommendations on the subject of family courts in due course. This report may or may not endorse the proposal advanced in the study paper.
Adjournment Debate
If the proposal is recommended by the Law Reform Commission, it will be discussed with the appropriate provincial authorities since the matter of enforcing maintenance orders is one which lies within provincial jurisdiction. The proposal advanced in the study paper, if endorsed by the Law Reform Commission, is one which might profitably be explored through the medium of the Conference of Uniformity Commissioners on Legislation in Canada which meets annually to examine ways and means of achieving uniformity in laws throughout the various jurisdictions.

I can assure my hon. friend that this matter interests me personally, as well as the department which I am representing tonight because I admit that it is time to truly deal with these problems unrestricted by jurisdictions which are necessary, but must not have priority over the population and the serious and important problems that my hon. friend has described and that I promise to refer to the minister. I also promise to give them particular attention myself.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Tuesday, March 26, 1974