1975-12-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent to move a motion respecting a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Having just been advised of serious flood conditions in Fraser Valley East threatening homes and livestock, with predictions of increasing danger within the next 24 hours, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That the government declare this a national emergency qualifying for immediate financial and material assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important issue of pressing necessity.
Since the development of our Canadian cities is done haphazardly without any planning to maintain the aesthetics of the cities, control pollution, relieve traffic and respect the human factor and since adequate action can be taken to take advantage of the experiences of large American and European cities which, in some cases, have already coped with those conditions and in other cases, have suggested interesting solutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the House should now consider the urban development problem to establish as soon as possible a specific and coherent policy so that our urban centres remain functional and livable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to the veterans of Canada who were incarcerated in prisoner of war camps during world war II.
For many months the Department of Veterans Affairs has had in its possession a unanimous recommendation from the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs to pay a disability pension to prisoners of war related to the number of years for which they were incarcerated. The minister has stated that the matter is under discussion in cabinet, but the government House leader has given no indication that he is ready to bring the legislation before this House. Since I am certain that there would be agreement on both sides to pass this legislation through all stages at one sitting of the House, and since the enactment of such legislation would provide benefits to the veterans in keeping with the Christmas spirit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House direct the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government House leader to introduce forthwith legislation to implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs tabled in this House on Thursday, June 12, 1975.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even with some reservations about the emergency nature of a matter that may be brought before the House in another way, the Chair will still put the question. The motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 3, 1975
Oral Questions



POST OFFICE


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I, too, rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the longest postal strike in the history of this country has caused untold financial and economic damage from coast to coast, and, while the postal workers are now in the top 15 per cent bracket, its union leaders continue to threaten the disenchanted and bitter Canadian public with yet further slowdowns and unrest within the post office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Postmaster General express on behalf of this House to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers executive that if their counterproductive effect continues on union affairs affecting the national interest he will seriously consider having the union placed under trusteeship until more democratic and constructive leadership can be appointed by the rank and file.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, to accept the current motion as being the subject of a national emergency, just following the settlement of the strike to which reference has been made, would seem to me to indicate approval for every motion under Standing Order 43 which might be a matter of general concern. Surely, there should be at least some element of emergency in the motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who I can see is very anxious to give information this afternoon.


Mr. Fairweather:: Is there a crisis in the government, or is there a government?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister will recall that on November 5 he said the government has "served notice officially to the Argentinian agency" that it wants to renegotiate the commercial terms of the CANDU contract, which I understand could otherwise cost Canada in the vicinity of $100 million, plus or minus some millions. Has the minister or his department yet received any official reply from the Argentinian government or the appropriate agency and, if so, has there been any indication that Argentina is prepared to open up the financial aspects of the agreement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is an indication that Argentina is prepared to sit down and negotiate the terms of the contract. I believe the meeting will take place sometime within the next couple of weeks.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-POSSIBLE SIGNING OF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having regard to the safeguard aspects of the agreement, in respect of which the minister said also on November 5 the government is very close to a "successful conclusion of the safeguard agreement", and the minister hoped it would be signed before the end of the year, can the minister give the House any assurance that such an agreement will be made available to the House before the Christmas recess, and whether such an agreement will entail anything more than a promise by Argentinian authorities not to use the materials or technology in the manufacture of explosives?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go into the details of the agreement. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has indicated that when the agreement is signed it will be tabled in the House of Commons. My view as of November 5 still stands. I believe we are close to concluding such an agreement.


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS-PRESENCE OF REPROCESSING PLANT AS A FACTOR IN DECISION TO SELL
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, because a fuel reprocessing plant is vital and necessary to any nation in the manufacture of nuclear weaponry, would the minister be good enough to inform us whether the presence or the intended presence of a reprocessing plant in any nation is or is not a factor which has engaged the government in its deliberations as to whether it should sell a reactor to such nation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the presence of a reprocessing plant is, of course, considered by the government. The safeguards are intended to ensure that Canadian materials will be safeguarded.


URANIUM-CANADIAN POSITION AT SUPPLIERS' CONFERENCE ON PRESENCE OF REPROCESSING PLANT WHEN CONSIDERING SALE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the supplier nation conferences which have been taking place, and there have been at least two now, will the minister inform us if it has been Canada's position that to be supplied with uranium, either enriched, yellow cake or raw, or in any other form, a nation should not have a reprocessing plant? Has that been Canada's position?


Alastair William Gillespie: Our safeguards I think are well known to the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: No.
December 3, 1975


Alastair William Gillespie: I would invite the hon. member if he has not read the statement of my predecessor of about a year ago to re-read it.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-EFFECT OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR REPROCESSING PLANT ON SALE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government is aware that the Republic of South Korea has already entered into negotiations with France for their reprocessing plant, and if that has been any sort of a factor in respect of the sale of a CANDU reactor to South Korea.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it has been a factor as I have indicated in the sense that our safeguards are intended to protect the supply of Canadian materials or a Canadian reactor and the use of materials in a Canadian reactor further processed by such a reprocessing plant.
*


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In view of the decision taken in British Columbia on Monday to extend provincial rent controls from the residential to the commercial area, would the Prime Minister clarify the policy concerning whether the white paper in referring to rent controls was referring to rent controls both residential and commercial and whether the Prime Minister and the program are therefore encouraging the provincial governments to move into commercial rent controls.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not informed myself of what was done in this regard in British Columbia so I answer subject to that ignorance on my part. The white paper talked about rent controls without being specific. I think we mainly had in mind rental for private occupation rather than for commercial enterprise with the feeling that commercial enterprise if it were under the 500 employees rule would be caught by the guidelines in other respects. But there is certainly no prohibition against a province wanting to extend its control, within its area of jurisdiction, to other ways of controlling inflation.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many representations which have been made by small businesses such as barbers, beauticians and people who are trying to struggle in the independent business field and are complaining about their rents, would the Prime Minister now give consideration to broadening that anti-inflation policy to the commercial rent field so that we can see investment move into residential as well as commercial because with commercial uncontrolled you are directing investment only into the commercial area rather than the residential
Oral Questions
area. Would the Prime Minister reconsider the position his government has taken on this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without conceding the conclusions drawn by the hon. member, I would point out to him that the little businessmen to whom he refers would not come under the obligatory aspects of enforcement of the guidelines. It would seem rather improper to give them the benefit of the guidelines when they are not obligated by law to compel themselves to follow them.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I wish to put to the right hon. Prime Minister a question that has been on my mind for many weeks.
Today at 1.30 p.m. I listened to the CBC national and international news broadcast in which we were told about a hold up in Paris, the designation by the King of Spain of the president of Parliament, that a number of hostages were being held in the Netherlands, that there had been an Israeli attack in Lebanon, that Russia and the United States had made an agreement regarding disarmament, that the King of Laos has resigned and that President Ford is visiting China; that should be the outline of national news. There was also a brief reference to the postal employees' strike that ended, as well as to the anti-inflation legislation debate. Here is my question: has the government enough authority or influence to ask the CBC to broadcast mostly national news because Canadians are primarily interested in knowing what is happening in their country, while giving some attention to what is going on elsewhere. One would think, however, that the intention is to keep Canadians abreast of all the events in the world, yet Canadian events are forgotten. Can the government make those representations to the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member expressed his point of view to the House; I shall see to it that it is also conveyed to the president of the CBC. If the hon. member will allow me to give another example of the unfortunate omission of Canadian news: there was, if I go by the hon. members' list, no mention of a very important meeting held last night in Duvernay to choose the delegates of the Progressive Conservative party.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO CHILLIWACK AREA OF BRITISH COLUMBIA-POSSIBLE USE OF ARMED FORCES
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime

December 3, 1975
Oral Questions
Minister. Has he been made aware of the disastrous flooding that is presently taking place in the Chilliwack area in British Columbia and, if so, has he received any request for assistance or indicated his readiness to render any and all assistance possible to meet that serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a quick check of my notes indicates that I have not received a request for assistance, but I must admit to the hon. member that I may not have had a sufficiently complete briefing. I was detained at a very important luncheon today, a luncheon for the glorious mass of Liberals who were elected in 1965, and I had to set aside all important matters of state.


Mr. Baldwin:: How about the Senators who came in in 1968?


Alexander Bell Patterson: In the absence of the Minister of National Defence would the Prime Minister give the assurance that the personnel and facilities of the Canadian forces base at Chilliwack will be available in meeting the critical situation facing the authorities and the residents of that area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is somewhat hypothetical. As I say, we have not received that type of request, but the hon. member can be assured that the Canadian forces and other instruments of the federal government are always ready when called upon to assist the provinces to meet this type of disaster.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the question is for the government House leader. Would he bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs tabled on June 12 this year? I ask this because I have reason to believe that members on both sides of the House would be agreeable to passing this bill through all stages at one sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a bill of this kind has been on the cabinet agenda for some time. It has not yet been approved. As hon. members are aware, the cabinet is engaged in trying to restrain government spending and it has to look at that bill in that light, as I am sure the hon. member would feel is appropriate.


LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE CONCERNING PRISONERS OF WAR-PROGRESS IN CABINET CONSIDERATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many questions have

been put to the House leader regarding the bill on compensation for incarcerated prisoners of war, and in view of the fact that each answer on successive occasions indicated consideration of the bill by the cabinet, can the House leader advise the House on the state of progress at present? Has there been any progress with regard to that legislation which affects many low income people to whom the antiinflation guidelines would not apply?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have had the report of the committee and the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made recommendations. These have been under consideration but we have not yet reached a final decision.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You have had it for six months now.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the growing urgency facing Panarctic because of the difficulty in raising capital for exploration, has the government given any consideration, or is it giving consideration, to entering into arrangements with Panarctic with respect to a delivery system for the commercial oil deposits in the Arctic down to areas where they might be refined? Similar consideration has been given and similar arrangements are about to be entered into with Federal Navigation, Commerce, Leach and Canadian Steamship Lines. Is the government considering a similar arrangement with respect to Panarctic?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the first venture in relation to an ice-breaking cargo vessel is the one which has recently been announced, and it can be useful to Panarctic as well as others in terms of supply, if not in terms of removal of product. The over-all question of removing the product is, of course, much more complex than that, although this particular technique will certainly be better known by us as a result of having one vessel in place. However, at this point there have not been further specific discussions about a second or additional vessel.


J. Michael Forrestall: Panarctic has to start moving the oil out in the next two or three years, or four years at the outside, in order to get some cash flow. I wonder whether the minister might consider referring this matter to one of his appropriate departmental committees for possible review; otherwise, we are going to wind up with foreign-registered vessels removing this oil from the north, and that would again be an unfortunate situation.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member assumes that a vessel will be the technique for movement, and that is certainly one of the alternatives. The question is, of course, under consideration by a number of departments of government at this time.
December 3, 1975


FINANCE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the severe losses, financially and otherwise, which have been suffered by business, and which have been particularly rough on small businesses which have been forced to pay service charges on moneys which should have been available through accounts receivable, will there be any compensation, tax-wise, or does the government contemplate anything for those people?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be covered under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act.


Philip Bernard Rynard: How about the government sales tax accounts? Will there be any service charges on those?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member. To what type of accounts is he referring?


Philip Bernard Rynard: The sales tax accounts which were to be mailed out every month. Naturally, because of the postal strike, they could not be received. What is the government doing about this? I believe there has been some harassment in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will have to take that particular question as notice.


TRANSPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister if he has received any appeals from British Columbia regarding the action of Coast Ferries Limited of Vancouver, which has discontinued its coastal ferry freight service to the isolated logging camps and communities on the mainland of British Columbia. What action does the government intend taking to avert the hardship which this action will cause to the people living in those communities, who are dependent upon this freight service for their food and fuel?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been aware of this problem. The member of parliament for the area brought it to our attention a number of weeks ago, and we have been looking at it. It is a ferry service which simply serves within one province, and ordinarily we would consider that to be the prime responsibility of the province in question. We have been considering whether, in the absence of any action on the part of that province, we could take any steps pending further refinement of our own policy in relation to ferries. I would say, however, that the very pointed remarks about
Oral Questions
the importance of the service might be taken by the hon. member to the provincial government of British Columbia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that Coast Ferries Limited of Vancouver are licensed by the Department of Transport, may I ask the minister if he has received a request from that company for a government subsidy and if so, what action is the government taking? Will the minister undertake to look into this matter to see whether this service can be resumed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my previous answer indicated that this matter had been brought to our attention. I referred to the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin but in addition, the ferry service itself had made the request to us. We indicated that while we would look at the question, we did consider it primarily a problem for the province.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and follows information eventually received, after a year on the order paper to the effect that Canada, in the last decade and currently, has been selling military equipment to 73 countries with no regard to their military activities or political stability. In light of the great and legitimate anxiety over the sale of nuclear equipment, may I ask the minister if his department or any other takes any interest in the sale of conventional military equipment as a foreign policy judgment or if Canada regards the sale of non-nuclear weapons as a purely business transaction where the dollar value is the only value worth considering?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the brief answer to the question is no. We do have regard to sales of military equipment of all kinds in all directions. We have a policy that specifies certain NATO countries to which we supply arms on a reciprocal basis; we have another category of countries to which we will supply arms of a certain class; we have a number of countries to which we do not sell arms of any kind at all and this includes countries in the Middle East. We also have some categories that might be termed military equipment of a rather innocent character and perhaps some of the countries mentioned received equipment of that kind.


POSITION OF CANADA IN RELATION TO OTHER COUNTRIES SELLING MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the minister informed that this interesting list of categories he has just given places Canada No. 6 in the sale of arms in the world?

Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that statement requires some analysis. There are certain types of arms and equipment for warlike purposes that we do not supply. Many of the things we supply are not intended for the purpose of killing people.


Mr. Hees:: They are sort of "soft arms", are they?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This week the CTC turned down the application of Skywest for a prairie air service. This means that central and western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan are still without east-west service. In view of the fact that we have a new air terminal in Brandon and no air service, would the minister review the application of Transair-which the majority of people want-to supply jet service to Prince Albert, Regina and Brandon to Toronto on a daily basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of such service would ordinarily be determined in the first instance by the Canadian Transport Commission and I presume they could look at a further application in this regard at this time. I should say that, according to my information, the application by Skywest was not turned down but the hearing was adjourned on the ground that there was insufficient information put before the CTC by the government of Manitoba.


SUGGESTION AIR CANADA SUPPLY SERVICE IN WESTERN PROVINCES IF TRANSAIR APPLICATION REJECTED
Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question. On the Transair application to supply this service the main opposition at the CTC hearings was from Air Canada. If Transair is not allowed this route, would the minister ask Air Canada to supply this much needed service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I can at least partly answer the hon. member's question by indicating we may want to look at the position Air Canada takes in a number of these questions when a particular airline is going to supply service.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to recent reports, the loss in park revenue in Atlantic national parks this year was from 10 per cent to 32 per cent as a result of the new park fee. With

the recent projection of the president of the tourist association of Prince Edward Island that there is a likelihood of a $5 million to $6 million loss to the tourist industry with the imposition of this fee, has the minister had an opportunity to review these figures and will action be taken to deal with them in the light of the importance of tourist development to Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in pointing out the diminution of traffic. That does not only apply to the Atlantic provinces, however, but across the country. I think you have to look to other factors than the fee when you look at traffic. Surely, the hon. member is not suggesting the fee is the only consideration. There is the increased cost of gasoline, hotels and food, for instance. That is where the president of the tourist association should be looking for his increased costs.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-COMPARISON OF USE WITH THAT OF OTHER PARKS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. Has the minister had an opportunity to compare the situation in the Prince Edward Island national park, which did not have a fee this year, with the park situation in neighbouring provinces? Could he indicate whether there was any difference between the situations in these parks which would allow for the additional reasons the minister provided and would focus on the essential problem of the deterrent fee?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at the figures. There is a significant variation between all parks in the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A final supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the recent signing of the second phase of the development plan and the importance of the tourist sector in that plan, has the minister or his officials studied the impact of the deterrent fee and have there been any consultations between the minister or his officials and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the negative implications which this decision might have had have been examined as yet, but I can assure the hon. member that I shall see to it that they will be examined. And if some corrections can be made, they will be.
December 3, 1975


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to provide the House with information with regard to the question I posed on Thursday last about lay-offs by Canadian National Railways of personnel, including C.N. police? Further, is it the intention of Canadian National to close out the servo-centre for Sydney which would result in further lay-offs?


Otto Emil Lang: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his usual congenial reply. May I ask if he will assure the House that he will bring the report back here and allay the fears of those who will be affected?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the recent announcement made by Knowlton Nash, vice-president of programming for CBC, regarding the cancellation of the program "Viewpoint", could the minister pass along the suggestion that this program be replaced by a special program of backbench members of parliament selected on a rotation basis from all four corners of this House?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member's suggestion is very worth while and I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the minister and of the CBC.


George Harris Hees: That is a sweetheart question.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It deals with the Dang Van Quang affair which is becoming a notorious farce. What is his present status in this country and what major problems is the minister encountering now? Can the minister give the House an assurance that if no other country will take this person that he will carry out the deportation order issued July 7?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the situation has not changed since I replied to the hon. member a few weeks ago.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD INQUIRY AS TO UNION REPRESENTATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
Before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions answered to a question he was asked that neither he nor the members of his union would agree to sit on the Anti-Inflation Board. Can the minister tell the House whether direct invitations have been made to unions across Canada so that labour be represented on the Anti-Inflation Board and, if so, what has been the answer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say that labour is already represented on the Anti-Inflation Board by Mr. Bill Ladyman of Winnipeg.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. There has been considerable concern and objection to the CNR's locating a new piggyback terminal in southwest Winnipeg on Wilkes Avenue, adjacent to the Tuxedo residential area. Yesterday the Minister of State for Urban Affairs announced a $436,000 loan to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation for the purchase of land for housing west of the proposed piggyback terminal. Will the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for rail line relocation, then get in touch with the president of the CNR and recommend a new location for the terminal, away from housing developments, existing and proposed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to engage in consultations, but will do so before deciding on recommendations.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. The government having announced that it will lease, even before the cornerstone is laid, I believe, space in Hull to accommodate 6,000 new civil servants, can the minister rationalize for this House and veterans in general why veterans are being treated with austerity, and those to be located in Hull with such generosity?

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister is disposed to answer the question, he must answer at some time other than the question period.


BANK ACT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's references yesterday to the possibility of introducing revisions to the Bank Act by the middle of next year, will the minister indicate if the government proposes to bring in a green paper or white paper on possible amendments to the Bank Act, in order that there may be public reaction to the government's decision on the proposed recommendations before those amendments are actually brought forward?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member on the bandwagon which is undoubtedly going for him at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: Especially in Rosedale.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I may elaborate further my statement of yesterday, I indicated we intend to give first reading to the bill next year without proceeding further with it, so that there will be full opportunity for the community to study the bill and comment on it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Finance say what is to be the fate of Bill C-7, which is still on the order paper, bearing in mind that the proposed bill contemplated the incorporation of banks by letters patent and the possibility of provincial governments having shares in banks in Canada? Is this bill to be brought forward or dropped?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will not proceed with it in the present session.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-   RECONCILIATION OF STATEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR REPROCESSING PLANT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is supplementary to questions asked by my leader and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The minister told us that the guidelines on nuclear safeguards were published about a year ago. I want to know how the minister can reconcile these statements, of an immutable nature, with the knowledge that has just come to him recently, of an agreement being worked out be-

tween South Korea and France for the acquisition of an enrichment plant.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to await the tabling of the Canadian document.


Mr. Horner:: You don't know what's in it, do you, Alastair?


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I still think the minister owes us an explanation. How is he to be assured that the safeguards will control the reprocessing plant when it is installed in South Korea? This is preposterous, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Elgin.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture?


An hon. Member:: You will not get an answer.


John Wise: As stocks of skim milk powder on hand this year are three times larger than last year's, being 300 million pounds, compared with approximately 100 million pounds, and as CIDA bought less skim milk this year than last, has the Minister of Agriculture made representations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or to CIDA directly, in the hope that additional volumes of this product will be purchased for world food aid?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have done this. As I reported earlier to the House, we have asked the head of the Dairy Commission and our trade officers to explore every avenue possible for the sale of skim milk powder. I am sure the hon. member knows that the world surplus of skim milk powder is larger than ever, and the distribution problem is still as great or greater than it has ever been.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. The postal strike now having been resolved, postal officers immediately junior to postmasters will receive some $1,500 a year more than many Canadian postmasters. As postmasters are not in a position to bargain for their salaries, what is to be the position of the government on increasing the salaries of Canadian postmasters?


An hon. Member:: Tough luck, that's all.
December 3, 1975


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was going to say that the question is particularly relevant. I discussed it this morning with the deputy minister because, naturally, there is an historic relationship between the wages of employees and of supervising officers. I hope this matter will be settled shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a brief question to the Prime Minister? When the Prime Minister visits Cuba in January, will he make representations to Premier Fidel Castro, requesting him to remove the 3,000 armed troops he has placed in Angola in support of communist forces endeavouring to take over control of that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have some doubts as to whether I will be receiving advice from Premier Castro with regard to the placement of Canadian troops, and it is unlikely that I will give such advice to him.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, I think, misunderstood my question. I was not referring to Canadian troops. At present it is reported that the Cuban government has placed some 3,000 Cuban troops alongside Communist forces in Angola. I was asking the Prime Minister, since we provide aid to Cuba, if he will consider asking Premier Fidel Castro to withdraw the 3,000 Cuban troops supporting the communist forces which are endeavouring to take over Angola?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all respect, that is precisely the question the Prime Minister just answered. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Considering that the minister's attempt at moral suasion failed to get the pulp and paper companies back to the bargaining table to settle a national dispute which has lasted many months, what new initiatives will the minister take to get negotiations under way?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I advise the hon. member that some companies are in the process of returning to the bargaining table. As I indicated yesterday, the reaction of the Anti-Inflation
Oral Questions
Board to the Irving settlement might break the logjam and we may see further settlements shortly.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In the light of an announcement by the government of British Columbia that it intends to embark on a major program of expansion in the field of transportation and industrial development, and since this announcement would involve a large amount of money from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, can the minister tell us whether the election under way in British Columbia at this time removed the stumbling block he has experienced in getting the province to use the services of the department?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not comment on the hon. member's last statement concerning the electoral campaign which is now taking place in British Columbia. Instead I shall deal with the project which has been announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and which aims at a significant development of the coal industry in that province. This topic has been under discussion with our department for quite a while. It is considered a very important project for the development of that province. There is no doubt that if the B.C. government is interested in going ahead with the project we, ourselves, are interested in discussing with them to explore the possibility of joining in this development project which is, in my view, a very important one.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to put my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Mr. Speaker, as the government must pass judgment on the sale of Westinghouse to a foreign company, as the uncertainty surrounding that decision is creating problems for the dealers of that company, and as they are unable to give the usual guarantees on the merchandise, can the minister tell the House today when the government will announce its decision regarding the possibility of that sale? If he cannot do so today, would he give it special attention in the interest of those who depend directly or indirectly on the company?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member

Oral Questions
for Joliette that the transaction is of concern to the government, but that the responsibility involved falls on the shoulders of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When a decision has been reached, I am sure Parliament and the people generally will be advised of it. I could perhaps refer my hon. friend to the statement the minister made last Friday before leaving on a business trip.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: One question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. gentleman answer the question I put to him yesterday with respect to the number of firms with 500 employees or more, and the number of construction firms, which will be monitored under the anti-inflation program and whether a staff of 200 is sufficient to look after this particular operation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm it is estimated that of firms with 500 or more employees 2,500 or 3,000 will be subject to monitoring control. I cannot give a definite figure at the moment with regard to construction firms. At the present time there are some 265 persons assisting the Commission in its work, of whom all but 28 have been seconded from within the public service.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Am I to infer from reading the first figure which was thrown out in the White Paper, 1,500 firms, that the government rushed into this matter without knowing what it was doing?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: My question is to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Because of the apparent disposition on the part of the government to go ahead with Skywest in spite of recent difficulties, and understanding the cash flow problems of Saunders Aircraft Corporation of Manitoba, would the minister indicate when Saunders might expect payment for the aircraft involved in order that they might be able to remain open and continue to provide employment?


Otto Emil Lang: I have been taking the position that the right time to buy the planes was when it was known that they would in fact fly on the routes intended, and this meant I was awaiting the outcome of the CTC deliberations on the question.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of the Environment arising from the fact that once again the Fraser Valley is experiencing considerable flooding problems. Bearing in mind that several projects are ready to proceed, subject to the commitment of funds by the federal government, and in view of the fact that the British Columbia government has indicated its willingness to go ahead and has money available for its share of Fraser Valley flood control programs, would the minister immediately press the government for its share of funds for projects previously scheduled to start in 1975 and which are ready to proceed?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: The construction of dykes in the Fraser Valley still remains a very high priority in our program of protection works. The plans for the construction of those dykes were made some time ago. Some of the projects are under construction; work on others has had to be delayed pending the approval of supplementary funds by Treasury Board. Between the time the plans were made and the time we were ready to start we encountered inflation problems; construction costs rose considerably, so we had to go to Treasury Board to seek supplementary funds. We have a request before Treasury Board at the present time for the extra funds needed to go ahead with this work.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What progress has been made toward the establishment of a national grassland park in western Canada?


J. Judd Buchanan: We have reached a tentative agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan with regard to the establishment of this park. Unfortunately, there was recently a change in the pertinent ministry-a new minister was appointed-and there are still some questions to be ironed out. I am still optimistic we shall be able to establish this park.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It pertains to the reported intention of the government to

December 3, 1975

increase the price of passports issued to Canadian citizens from $10 to $12. Is this the government's intention, or policy, and if so how can the increase be justified?


Mitchell William Sharp: The question is under consideration. Any increase would be justified by the increased cost of supplying passports.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Since the reported increase would amount to 20 per cent, thus exceeding the guidelines laid down by the Minister of Finance, how can such an increase be justified?


Mitchell William Sharp: The guidelines do not speak about percentages in the case of prices or fees. They talk about prices reflecting increases in costs. That is how we would justify any increase we might make.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Dupras.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings ]

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), concurrence in the report I presented last night at ten o'clock. I might tell the House, in moving my motion, that I have met the commitment to consult each of the four House leaders and they have given their blessing to it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) seeks the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of concurrence in a committee report. The motion cannot be put without unanimous consent in view of the fact that the report was tabled only last evening. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 2, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,106, 3,107, 3,184, 3,218, 3,233, 3,235, 3275, 3,297, 3,488, 3,553, 3,554, 3,578, 3,594, 3,599 and 3,617.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


BUDGET FOR &quot;PREMIERE BIENNALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE CANADIENNE&quot;
Mr. Epp: 1.	What was the approved budget for Premiere biennale de la franco-phonie canadienne?
2.	What amount was contributed by the (a) government (b) each department to the budget?
3.	What role does the Minister of the Environment have in the Premiere biennale de la francophonie canadienne?
4.	Was promotional material printed at government expense and, if so, in what language?
5.	What is the purpose of Premiere biennale de la francophonie canadienne?


Coline M. Campbell: 1.	$170,000.
2.	(a) and (b) Department of the Secretary of State (Official Language Minority Groups Directorate): $50,000.
3.	The Association canadienne d'education de langue fran?aise had invited the Honourable Jeanne Sauve to the first Biennale de la francophonie canadienne as a private individual, and not as the Minister of Environment Canada.
4.	No.
5.	The purpose of the Biennale was to allow Frenchspeaking Canadians from the ten provinces of our country to come together to determine the present situation of the Canadian Francophone population, with the general theme of "The position of the Canadian Francophone population".


PROPOSED POST OFFICE-STEINBACH, MANITOBA
Mr. Epp: 1.	Has the government any plans to build a post office or federal building in Steinbach, Manitoba and, if so, what is the present status of the project?
2.	If a building is to be rented, on what date does the government expect to lease space?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Department of Public Works has been requested by Post Office officials to schedule expanded postal accommodation in Steinbach, Manitoba tentatively for the summer of 1978. Major considerations in providing this accommodation by that date will be priority allocation within the Post Office National Facilities Plan and availability of funds. Necessary studies are not yet sufficiently advanced to indicate whether the Post Office need will be met by new

December 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Crown construction, an addition to the existing building, or by lease.
2.	See 1 above.


CNR STAFF REDUCTION IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Is it the intention of CNR to reduce staff in Newfoundland and, if so, what are, in details, the reasons for this reduction and the timing?
2.	Are discussions being held with the appropriate unions concerned to relieve the economic pressures on the employees affected?
3.	What is the breakdown of total employment figures in all areas of CNR in Newfoundland for the years 1968 to 1975 and the projected figures for 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways Company advises as follows: 1. There have been and will be staff reductions to keep our work force in line with the traffic offering and service required. Reductions will depend largely on the traffic and cannot be forecasted accurately at this particular time. Increases have also occurred related to specific traffic needs.
2.	When positions are abolished, notice is given to the labour union representing the employees concerned. Benefits (weekly lay-off benefits, severance payments, relocation expenses) are available to employees who are laid off.
3.	The following figures are for the month of September: 1968, 4,989; 1969, 4,980; 1970, 4,700; 1971, 4,956; 1972, 5,302; 1973, 5,404; 1974, 5,950; 1975, 5,803. The figures for 1976 will depend upon traffic offering and service requirements.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PERSONNEL
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the (a) salary range (b) expense account of Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board?
2.	What is the (a) salary range (b) expense account of Mrs. Beryl Plumptre, Vice-chairman of the Inflation Board?
3.	What was Mrs. Plumptre's salary range as Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board?
4.	(a) What is the salary range of Anti-Inflation Board employees (i) Mr Ken Prettie (ii) Mr. A1 Donnelly (iii) Mr. Richard O'Hagan (b) what was their salary range in their previous jobs in the Public Service (c) on what date was their salary range increased or decreased?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) D.M.-2, $47,500-$60,500. (b) According to Treasury Board Regulations.
2.	(a) D.M.-l, $41,000-$54,000-Mrs. Plumptre will accept only $40,000, her salary in her previous position, (b) According to Treasury Board Regulations.
3.	$40,000.
4.	(a) (i) Mr. Ken Prittie, IS-7, $24,500-$30,600. (ii) Mr. A1 Donnelly, $25,500, Governor in Council, (iii) Mr. Richard O'Hagan, SX-2, $31,500-$41,500. (b) No change, (c) Not applicable.


ONTARIO-UNITED STATES BORDER IMMIGRATION OFFICERS- BILINGUALISM
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Manpower and Immigration about to institute bilingualism for immigration officers stationed at border points along the Ontario-United States border and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many French-speaking immigrants entered Canada at these ports during the last year for which figures are available.
3.	Has the institution of bilingualism already begun and, if so, are arrangements being made for two bilingual immigration officers to be stationed at Niagara Falls, Ontario?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. In 1973 all positions within the Department of Manpower and Immigration including those occupied by immigration officers stationed along the Ontario-United States border were linguistically identified according to the established standards concerning the provision of service in either official language. These positions are reviewed from time to time to ensure that current demands are met.
2.	During 1974 there were 30 persons admitted to Canada as landed immigrants at ports of entry along the Ontario-United States border who had a language capability in French but not in English. In addition, there were 258 persons admitted who had a language capability in both French and English. Immigrants admitted to Canada represent only a minute percentage of persons entering Canada at these locations. Approximately 11 million permanent residents of Canada return home via these ports each year and their needs for service in either official language must be taken into consideration.
3.	Yes. The study mentioned in part 1 above indicated that there was a significant enough demand at Niagara Falls to warrant the identification of two immigration officers' positions as bilingual.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD-PERSONNEL
Mr. Nystrom: What is the salary range of (a) Mr. Robert Johnstone, Executive Director (b) Mr. Donald Yeomans, Associate Executive Director of the Anti-Inflation Board (c) what was their salary range in their previous position (d) on what date will their salary increase or decrease become effective?


André Ouellet: (a) SX-3-$35,500-$47,500. (b) SX-3-$35,500-$47,500. (c) No change, (d) Not applicable.


NEW HORIZONS GRANTS-VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Since inception of the New Horizons Programme, has money been allocated t,o the Constituency of Villeneuve and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each project in the Constituency, what (a) is the title (b) is the amount allocated (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. $52,895-approved since 1972.
December 3, 1975

2.	(a)
La Gamine d'Or Club d'Age d'Or Saint-Martin Association dcs Pionniers de Cadillac Club de l'Age d'Or Inc.
Le Conseil Pastoral de Senneterre Les Residents du Foyer de Val d'Or Les intrepides de Chibougamau Villa Saint-Martin Inc. Club de l'Age d'Or Club dc l'Age d'Or Dubuisson Inc.

(b)	(c)	(d)$ 950	1972-73	Val d'Or$14,460	1973-74	Malar tic$ 5,680	1973-74	Cadillac$ 5,550	1973-74	Val d'Or$ 4,350	1973-74	Senneterre$ 1,900	1974-75	Val d'Or$10,800	1974-75	Chibougamau$ 5,375	1974-75	Malartic$ 900	1974-75	Val d'Or$ 2,930	1974-	75 1975-	76	Val d'Or
2. (e) None. The New Horizons Program is an activity-oriented program, not a job creating program. It was established to enable retired Canadians to participate in activities beneficial to themselves and the community, and all participants are volunteers.


INCREASE IN CONTAINER RAIL RATES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government aware of the pending 10 percent increase in container rail rates through Halifax proposed for January 11, 1976?
2.	Is the government aware of the additional five percent hike in such rates proposed for mid-1976?
3.	Is the government aware that such rates, if implemented, will bring to seventy-three percent the total increase in the rail rates for containers alone out of the Port of Halifax since 1969?
4.	What action does government propose to ameliorate this situation, if any?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	The railways, as corporations operating in Canada, will be subject to the Anti-inflation Legislation. The railways will be required to live within the guidelines as published by the government. The Canadian Transport Commission will be asked to see that the railways respect the guidelines, with the assistance of the Administrator of the Anti-inflation Program, when necessary. The CN and CP railway managements still have the responsibility of making their own pricing decisions and these decisions will be subject to the scrutiny of the CTC and the authority of the Administrator.


RETURNS OF NON-RESIDENT PERSONS
Mr. Wise: How many non-resident persons deriving rental income from sources in Canada whose income tax return had been submitted to the Department of National Revenue later than two years after the end of each tax year (a) 1972 (b) 1971 (c) 1970 received tax refunds?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Statistical information on this subject is not compiled by the Department of National Revenue at such a level of detail as would permit an answer to be made to this question.


FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND THE MAINLAND
Mr. MacLean: Has any agreement been reached or any arrangement made whereby continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Mainland can be guaranteed, even when labour contracts are being negotiated?


Otto Emil Lang: No agreement has been reached nor has any arrangement been made whereby continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Mainland can be guaranteed at all times, especially during the ice season and during labour disputes.


GULF FERRY SERVICES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	For the peak traffic period of 1976, what ferries will be operating on (a) the Borden-Cape Tormentine Service (b) the Wood Islands-Caribou Service (c) the Souris-Magdalen Islands Service?
2.	What will be the rates charged for passengers and passenger automobiles in each case?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The
following is the planned vessel utilization for the peak traffic period of 1976: (a) Borden-Cape Tormentine Service: M.V. Vacationland, M.V. Holiday Island, M.V. Abeg-weit, M.V. John Hamilton Gray, M.V. Confederation, (b) Wood Islands-Caribou Service: M.V. Prince Edward, M.V. Prince Nova, M.V. Lord Selkirk, (c) Souris-Magdalen Islands Service: M.V. Lucy Maud Montgomery.
2. The current tariff structures for passengers and passenger automobiles are as follows: (a) Borden-Cape Tormentine Service: Adults, $0.65; Children (5 to 12 years inclusive), $0.25; Children (under 5 years), N/C; Passenger Automobiles, $2.50. (b) Wood Islands-Caribou Service: Adults, $0.75; Children (5 to 11 years inclusive), $0.35, Children (under 5 years), N/C, Passenger Automobiles, $3.00. (c) Souris-Magdalen Islands Service: Adults, $8.00; Children (5 to 12 years inclusive), $4.00; Children (under 5 years), N/C; Passenger Automobiles, $18.00. All fares quoted are for one way and, at present, there are no plans to alter the tariff structures.


HON. JEAN MARCHAND
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Honourable Jean Marchand, as Minister of Transport, travel to the State of Florida in the United States and, if so (a) on what dates (b) to what places (c) for what purpose (d) what was the means of transportation?
2.	In each case, where a government aircraft was used, what is a (a) full description of the aircraft (b) complete list of all persons on board at any time including job designations and addresses?

December 3, 1975
Motions for Papers


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. The Hon. Jean Marchand, as Minister of Transport, did not travel to the State of Florida, in the U.S.
2. Not applicable.



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Honourable Jean Marchand, while a member of the Cabinet at any time previous to becoming Minister of Transport, travel to the State of Florida in the United States and, if so (a) on what dates (b) to what places (c) for what purpose (d) what was the means of transportation?
2.	In each case, where a government aircraft was used, what is a (a) full description of the aircraft (b) complete list of all persons on board at any time including job designations and addresses?


Jean Marchand: 1.
The Hon. Jean Marchand, as a private citizen, while a member of the Cabinet and previous to becoming Minister of Transport, did travel to Miami in the State of Florida in the United States on various occasions for private matters and on commercial airlines.
2. Not applicable.


DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT CHEQUES
Mr. Stevens: What was the cost of the distribution made on Supply and Services in advising Members and others with respect to the temporary measures taken by the government with regard to the distribution of government cheques (a) who received the information kit (b) what was the individual cost of the folders in which the five pieces of paper were placed (c) what was the total cost of the folders involved in the distribution?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) All members of parliament; (b) 36.5 cents; (c) $98.55.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-RETENTION OF LAWYERS IN CONSTITUENCY OF VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Supply and Services during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Fabian Hugh Poulin: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when this debate adjourned I was referring to the white paper and the conclusions reached in the white paper. I indicated that in my opinion most Canadians would agree that something should be done about inflation and the rising cost of most of our commodities, and that they would welcome the intervention of the government in this regard. There has been much discussion of the Conservatives' proposal that there be only temporary intervention, as opposed to the government's proposal for a more or less indefinite intervention. In addition to that there has been considerable input from the general public who are now finding controls extending far beyond what they had envisaged.
I think there is interest now in having this legislation passed, not because the Canadian public is impressed with it but simply because they want to see the regulations to discover how badly they are going to be hurt and how much disruption will be caused in the country. Speculation as to how this legislation is going to work should end. When the regulations are published, the public will then discover how they will affect wages, salaries and other forms of income.
Mention has been made of prices and profits. Everyone knows that there is no control over prices, just as there is no control over profits. We all know that the government is going to do nothing about the fact that the banks increased their profits by 85 per cent in the last year. As far as the government is concerned, that is not inflation. So really, Mr. Speaker, almost everyone agrees that we are talking here about salaries and wages and other forms of income.
Teachers have now been put into a different labour category. Before this legislation was introduced, the teachers considered that they were paid a salary; certainly they did not relate themselves to the labour movement as such. However, they now find that they are being regulated by the pronouncements of the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board even though regulations have not yet been published. The chairman of the board is saying to one group of teachers that their income will be restricted within certain guidelines; to another group of teachers he has made a different pronouncement. Thus, the teachers are totally confused as to what they can look for.
I have also had discussions with the other side in that particular dispute. The trustees and school boards want to know what the guidelines are because they, too, are scared that they will suffer from the very harsh penalties contained in this legislation if they take action that conflicts with the guidelines. I doubt whether that will be the case. I
December 3, 1975

doubt whether any board, union or management in this country will have any difficulty justifying a contract settlement in terms of any penalties under this legislation, because such negotiations will be out in the open and it will be very difficult to prove that these people ganged up just to defeat the objective of the government by coming into conflict with the legislation. In my view, that particular provision in the act will be reserved for very few cases. I was very interested to hear that the board is working very hard, before the legislation is passed, to find a case they can prosecute so as to sort of balance the scales, but they have been unable to find one.
The people who will be hurt by this legislation are not the school boards, producer boards or marketing boards, teachers, workers or any other group that is negotiating in public. They will be able to justify their position and negotiations will take place normally. Already the AntiInflation Board has allowed the postal workers a settlement that is considerably above the 10 per cent limit. I think very few negotiations will settle for 10 per cent; the settlement will be at least in the region of the cost of living, which is 13 per cent, and, as I say, I very much doubt whether any penalty will be applied.
So who is it, Mr. Speaker, who is going to get hurt? It will not be the banks, the mortgage companies, the insurance companies or wholesalers. Those who will be hurt are people unable to negotiate for themselves in any way. The government has indicated to the public that the minimum increase within the guidelines will be $600, and in committee this was raised to $750. We suggested that it should be $2,400 and that the minimum and maximum should be reversed, with $2,400 being given to the poor and the smaller increase to the rich. Most members of parliament would have agreed with that in their own case, to set an example. But this is not the case. The old age pensioner, the disabled, those living on the minimum wage or on fixed incomes in this country will not get the $600 or the $750 because the bill provides no method for giving it to them.
You can rest assured that the people who will get the $2,400 will be those who have the power to get such a raise. They will get the increase, but those at the bottom income levels will not. We are creating inequities, by this bill, in terms of the poor people of this nation. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation. This reminds me very much of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) talking about patriotism. I suggest that the cost of patriotism can be very high; many of our citizens paid very dearly for patriotism during the last war. This government apparently has made a decision not to bring forward any legislation in respect of our veterans to increase their allowances or pensions no matter what their needs may be. These people will have to pay again because of patriotism.
I remember the other side of the coin. During the last world war, farmers were asked to increase production as much as possible as their contribution to the war effort. They did that, and most continued to do so-I suppose on the basis of patriotism-for 20 years following the end of the war. Many of the farmers of this nation are still doing it. I hear members of this Anti-Inflation Board talking about looking at marketing legislation in this country. Let me quote just a few figures in regard to commodity prices
Anti-Inflation Act
and then ask whether marketing legislation is what the board should consider, or should this new board consider the fact that this government is making no attempt to control prices at the wholesale level?
This is a comparison of certain commodity prices in Manitoba from 1972 to 1975. It uses, as one example, a 16-ounce loaf of bread Apparently, one pound of wheat yields one pound of bread. In 1972, one pound of wheat yielded 3.1 cents to the farmer. The wholesaler sold a pound of wheat in the form of bread for 23.3 cents. The retail price was 28 cents. This meant that the farmer was getting slightly over 3 cents, the wholesaler was getting slightly over 20 cents, and 5 cents was added on at the retail level. The retailer and the farmer were not making very much from a pound of wheat or a pound of bread but the wholesaler was making 20.2 cents.
In 1975, the farmers were getting 5.4 cents, the wholesaler was receiving 32 cents and the retailer was selling the pound of bread for 39 cents. The farmer was receiving about 5lA cents, the wholesaler was receiving about 27 cents, and the retailer was getting about 7 cents. This was still no big deal for the retailer and certainly no big deal for the farmer. The wholesaler was still doing very well.
One could make a similar comparison in respect of milk. The farm price for a quart of milk in 1972 was 18 cents. The wholesale price was 32 cents, with a 2-cent mark-up to 34 cents at the retail level. In 1975, the farm price has been 29 cents a quart, the wholesale price has been 48 cents, and the retail price has been 51 cents. The retailer is still making only 3 cents. So we cannot really blame the retailers for the high cost. The farmer is not making the big money on these commodities, but there is a very large mark-up before the product gets to the consumer and most of it is at the wholesale level. These are the things consumers will be looking at to see if there is any price increase; they will be considering the cost of food, the cost of energy and the increase in the cost of other commodities they have to buy no matter how poor they may be or how little they are getting.
After listening to the arguments I am shocked to find the Conservatives in the main are saying that the government must cut down on spending. What will the government cut down on? I suggest it will have to cut down on benefits to the low income people in this country. That is the segment of our economy that this government can most easily control, specifically in the way of minimum wage controls and assistance to our senior citizens and the disabled. In my opinion, this government will have to increase the income of these people to $740 per month. The government is not prepared to do this. After listening to Conservative members, I think the government will have to reduce these social benefits. It will not be able to pay $600 a month, never mind $740, so these people will receive less than now. But prices will continue to rise.
In the next few months I believe we will see a consolidation of the feelings of those who work for salaries and wages in this country. They will become collectively opposed to government intervention, to government interaction and to government boards and organizations. This bill will act against these people and in favour of their enemies. Their enemies will be those who are exempted from the provisions of this measure.

December 3, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act
The government says it will control incomes at the profit level. I suggest there will be no apparent increases in profits but there will be great increases in the capitalization of the multinational corporations in this country. This may not happen in Canada, but these corporations will increase their capitalization as a result of this legislation. This increase will be paid for by the poor and the unorganized, those who are least able to look after themselves in our society.
If this is the government's answer to the free enterprise system, I suggest it should look very carefully at the confrontation it will force upon the people of Canada. It should look very carefully at its philosophy, because I am sure it will find there will be a decision on the part of those who have never supported the socialists in this country to consider seriously the idea of socialism, with equality and justice for all, providing for those who are least able to help themselves.
I look forward in the next few months to seeing many of those who are not supporters of unions joining what, in effect, will be a union of the people. I think they will in this way really become their brother's keeper in order to look after those who cannot look after themselves. I think they will align themselves with the union movement. We will very shortly see the teachers, the civil servants, and all those who have not to date been associated with the labour movement in this country, joining together in a move to fight for those not able to fight for themselves. With this bill, the government may find it has finally accomplished something we have not been able to accomplish for years; it will polarize the people of this country who wish to support the poor and the needy. If that is the result of this bill, then probably we should welcome it.
In the meantime, a great deal of injustice will be done to a large segment of the economy of this nation. Unemployment will increase, and a reduction in unemployment benefits to those out of work is an individual disaster. If we are not to give more money to governments, what we will be doing is cutting down unemployment insurance benefits and other types of assistance to those being hurt by this legislation. I am sure those who will administer this legislation have good intentions. I am sure the people working for the Anti-Inflation Board will have the best intentions and will do the best they can. I also think that generally the people in this country feel this bill will do nothing in their favour and is not a good piece of legislation. This fact is borne out by the poll taken in Quebec the other day which indicated that 72 per cent of the people are against the bill.
I think that when the regulations are published we will find the bill does not outline the contents of the regulations. No matter how bad the bill appears today, I am sure the regulations will indicate that the anti-inflation legislation of this government is not only a farce but is a dangerous, divisive piece of legislation that will establish classes in Canada which previously has not been the case.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up very much time of the House in case those in the hierarchy of our party feel I am unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. I assure them I shall take only a few

moments simply to refer to two ideas which I believe deserve consideration in any discussion of inflation. One thing I have in mind is the extensive use of credit cards and their effect on inflation. Credit is a good thing. However, when credit cards are wantonly distributed, it seems to me this is an abuse of a privilege if we wish to control inflation.
When people go to the stores they are more inclined to purchase items without realizing the price they will have to pay in the months ahead. They are inclined to buy impulsively in the knowledge that the bills will not come in for a month or so. I have a pocketful of credit cards. It seems almost as if I am packing a gun when I carry them around. I do not think one should have dozens of credit cards. A person's credit rating should be arrived at according to his ability to pay. Without going into detail, I think a study should be carried out on the effect credit cards have on the rate of inflation in our country and whether they should be distributed in the manner they are today.
I think I have said enough on that subject, although I could speak on it for some time. I shall now discuss my second point. This may involve a change in attitude. I refer to the effect the automotive industry has on our lives in this country. I know the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) would not dare touch a subject like this because the automotive industry is a sacred cow. So far as he is concerned, we must keep on producing cars every year and have a model change every year.
I say that in this country and on the North American continent-probably it is not so evident in Europe-we are living in a wasteful society. When we trade in our automobiles there is immediately a 25 per cent write-off in the first year. Everyone in our society likes to live like the Jones's, and this means they have to make up the 25 per cent they have lost in some other way. I suggest that at this point we should take a careful look at how we are living and decide whether we should continue to promote this planned obsolescence. We should consider whether it is necessary and whether it contributes to inflation. I suggest it does.
There are those who would ask what would happen to the people employed in the automotive industry. I have heard this from members of the House. Then immediately they get up and ask for more money for housing, and so on. Everyone is interested in that kind of policy. We should say "no more" to the automotive industry which is contributing to our being a wasteful society. The automotive industry should limit style changes to every two years instead of every year.
I drive a car. I have seen cars with 15,000 miles on them which the owners thought were good cars, but on which they lost a good deal of money when they traded them in. I do not believe a person should lose so much money on an automobile, because he then demands much more money from his employer. We might consider the effect this has on inflation. I suggest we must reorient our thinking. We all know the kind of "big sell" we get from the automotive industry.
I remember that when the late George Nowlan was in the House it was said that the people of North America did not want the small cars imported from Britain. However, small cars were imported from Britain and Germany and
December 3, 1975

then suddenly it was realized that there was a buck to be made and we became involved in the small car market. I suggest that the automotive industry should be made to toe the line. There is no reason why they should change the design of cars every year.
In my small farm operation we operate old tractors. How classy they look is not important. What is important is how effective they are. I think many people are interested in automobiles simply for conveyance. There are others who are interested in them for other reasons, and when they trade in a car which they thought was a good one, they find they take quite a loss. In such cases they ask for more money from their employers. I think we are perhaps part of a stupid society that will not shift from its old patterns. Why are we tied to the automotive industry. Why are we locked into it?
I think we should reverse our way of thinking and not be as class conscious as we are. We should not feel that we must change our car every year. If there are to be style changes, I suggest they should be made every second year or, better still, every five years. We thought we had an unlimited amount of energy then suddenly we became energy conscious. I think we could do something about inflation, but we would hit those who are big, those in the automotive industry. I cannot fight the whole automotive industry by myself, but I am suggesting that someone in the department could look into this matter and draft legislation making it mandatory to wear safety belts in automobiles. There are ways in which the government could act so as to make automobile manufacturers build smaller cars.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the courtesy of allowing me time to take part in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In
my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT AND CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT AUTHORIZATION FOR CMHC TO MAKE INTEREST REDUCTION GRANTS, CASH GRANTS, ETC., TO ENCOURAGE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my minister wishes to express his regret to the House for not being here to speak to this bill personally. He has spoken with the House leaders of all parties, asking them to excuse him because of the demands of other urgent business, and their understanding is very much appreciated. He will read the transcript of the debate and is anxious to hear the comments of all hon. members, particularly opposition spokesmen. The minister will be back on Thursday night after his trip to Vancouver, where he is dealing with important matters related to Habitat '76 which has a high priority with the government. I am sure all hon. members will understand the urgency of his visit.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about the important principles which are embodied in the legislation now before us. Bill C-77 proposes changes in the National Housing Act which are necessary to give effect to the federal housing action program, one of the most significant initiatives in federal housing legislation in many years. It is a response to the whole range of housing problems facing Canadians in all parts of the country and in all walks of life. It is a broad and comprehensive plan, conceived within the framework of a national strategy which attacks inflation and rising living costs. It does not offer a single, magical device which will solve everyone's housing problem overnight.
I wish all our problems could be made to disappear with one wonderful gimmick, but that kind of solution is just not realistic and there is no point in pursuing it. That kind of solution is unreal because housing problems are many and different for different people, and have many and different causes. The achievement of our objectives, to give every Canadian access to good, affordable housing in a safe and satisfying environment, demands action on many different fronts. The federal housing action program provides that action in a planned and deliberate way.
(The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]
There are people in this country who have real and urgent housing problems. Many of them are elderly people, some of them are the poor of our cities, some are mothers struggling to raise their children on their own, some of them are native people who have been alienated from the mainstream of our economic life. These people have the first claim on our help. The federal housing action program, by requiring private lending institutions to invest more money in housing, will free-up more federal funds for investment in the existing and successful housing programs which are designed to reach those people with the greatest needs. The minister met twice in recent weeks with the provincial housing ministers, and each time he confirmed to them that there will be substantially more money in CMHC's 1976 capital budget for those housing programs which we share with them-public housing, nonprofit and co-operative housing.
We should remember, Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing new housing measures, that we already have in place an excellent array of programs designed to serve the needs of all Canadians. I should remind the House that for 1975 we allocated almost $390 million in federal funds for public housing projects, and I am happy to report that all of this money will be put to use before the end of the year. In addition, we committed more than $200 million for nonprofit and co-operative housing. And we have given our undertaking to the provincial ministers that these funds, which are allocated to people with the most serious housing problems, are to be substantially increased next year because they are our number one priority, and always will be as long as there are people in this country who are inadequately housed.
If the old, the poor and the deprived have the most urgent housing problems, other people have problems too and are entitled to our consideration. These are people who are neither rich nor very poor, a group which carries a heavy share of responsibility and which, in many ways has been neglected in recent years. These are people who are earning between $11,000 or $12,000 and, say, $17,000. There was a time when families like these could reasonably cherish the ambition of owning their own homes. For many of them that ambition, that dream, is fading.
Neither the minister nor I ever contended that every Canadian as a matter of right was entitled to own a ranch bungalow on a 65-foot lot. But we do believe that everyone ought to have some options. If a young couple is prepared to save, to give up or postpone some of the things they want-a cottage, travel, a big car-and if owning their own home is their most important aspiration, they ought to have the chance to make it come true. The Assisted Home Ownership Program was set up to help people, particularly families of low or moderate income, to acquire their own homes. It has been the most popular and successful of any housing program in Canada.
In 1975 we have committed mo:	than $460 million to
help some 16,400 families to buy tk. homes Now we are building on that success. We are r easing the benefits available to families with children ir. rder to reach lower down into the income scale. At the same time, we are widening the program to make some .nefits available to all Canadians, whether they have c. i en or not, who want to buy modestly-priced houses. Ft, ,ese people, help
December 3, 1975

is in the form of a loan that reduces carrying costs during the first few difficult years of getting established in home ownership.
The new AHOP plan will not only help many people make the jump to home ownership; it will be a powerful stimulant for the production of moderately-priced housing. AHOP assistance, as hon. members know, is available only for housing priced within limits established by CMHC in each market area. When we first introduced AHOP, many people said they could not find homes within the price limits. They were right. Many builders said they could not build houses within the price limits. But they were wrong. When mortgage money got tight and AHOP was the only readily available source of financing, they found they could, after all, build good, comfortable houses within the AHOP limits. Many of these houses-the minister and I have seen them ourselves-are of a remarkably high standard of quality and design. The new AHOP program will help us more than ever before to shift housing production in this country away from the high-priced end of the scale toward good, affordable housing that most people need and want.
The bill now before the House would amend the act so as to give CMHC the authority to include existing housing within the terms of the AHOP program. This amendment would be used when funds and the supply of housing seem to warrant this change, but it is not proposed to take advantage of such an extension immediately. We have always maintained that people should have the widest possible choice about the kind of housing they occupy and their form of tenure as owners, tenants or members of co-operative organizations. The recent, very serious decline in housing for rental has restricted that choice for many people who would prefer not to buy a house or who find it convenient, for various reasons, to rent accommodation at certain stages of their lives.
1Translation]
The federal housing action program features additional measures to try and achieve economic workability in the rental accommodation market. Businessmen have been reluctant in the past few years to invest in rental housing, because in their opinion the yield of rents to be paid as compared to the cost of providing accommodation will not be sufficient to justify the necessary capital investments. According to trustworthy statistics, they are probably right.
Our rental housing action program is meant to provide lower income people with good rental facilities and owners with the necessary incentive to build houses. That program is now being improved through an increase in the help available yearly for moderate cost z'ental housing in the form of recoverable, interest-free loans. That help as a whole will still be provided pursuant to an agreement with the corporation in respect of rents and other conditions. Besides a better program of rental housing help, capital cost allowances under the Income Tax Act will remain in effect for two more years. These provisions will enable investors whose main business is not in rental housing to deduct from other income the losses incurred in rental housing investments. Those measures are an incentive to
National Housing Act
numerous professionals as well as other people with savings to invest in the rental housing business. Those people have always accounted for the financing of a substantial part of the rental housing stock. Even if that matter does not happen to come under federal jurisdiction, we are highly interested in the matter of rent controls, since it relates to our nationwide efforts to deal with inflation and wage and price increases. Following two meetings with the provincial ministers concerned, I am glad to inform the House that there was unanimous agreement to establish a provincial rent control board where none now exists. When the minister launched this debate, he intended first of all to make sure that systems of rent controls would be established throughout Canada with a view to a full implementation of the anti-inflation program. Secondly, to the extent possible, we wanted those programs to be implemented uniformly throughout Canada. Since a number of systems are already in operation, and all provinces had to cope with their own particular conditions, we think our target was reached.

While many Canadians have housing problems, we are, generally speaking, among the best housed people in the world. Hon. members who have had the opportunity, as my minister has, to see the quality of housing in Europe and other parts of the world, will, I know, confirm that judgment. The fact is that many Canadians are not only well-housed, they are overhoused. Many people bought their houses years ago, on long-term mortgages, at prices and interest rates which are now well within their means. They have built up a very substantial equity in their home and, when they decide to buy a bigger or a newer house they have the capital to bid house prices almost out of sight. This kind of trading has had a serious effect on the market in terms of inflating prices and creating an unrealistic demand. We do not blame anybody who can make some profit out of selling the family home, but we cannot afford any longer to commit a disproportionate share of our national resources to the expectations of well-housed people who are mainly interested in improving their capital investment.
The federal housing action program will slow down this merry-go-round of rising expectations by requiring that the most favorable credit terms-high ratio, low downpayment mortgages-will be available only for modestly-priced housing that falls within National Housing Act loan limits. People who want large and luxurious houses will have to put up at least 25 per cent of the money themselves.
I have been talking about housing in terms of people's needs because housing is essentially a social commodity. If we are going to serve people's needs properly, however, we have to approach it from a national, economic perspective as well as a personal and social point of view.
If we are going to ensure that there is enough good housing to meet people's needs from now until 1980- taking into account household formations and a number of other factors-we will have to construct a million new houses in the next four years. When this program was announced in the House a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, my minister expressed the government's commitment to this

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
goal and we are even more confident today that it will be achieved.
Our immediate target for 1976 is 235,000 starts. Hon. members opposite have had occasion, from time to time, to comment about my minister's optimism and it is a description which he cheerfully accepts. He is an optimist. He was an optimist when he undertook to achieve 210,000 starts in 1975, and he was still an optimist when some of the experts were saying we would not rise above 172,000. It is quite evident now that the pessimists were wrong and we are going to achieve our 1975 target of 210,000 starts-just as we are going to reach 235,000 in 1976 and a million starts by 1980. In fact, hon. members will recall that, seasonally adjusted, housing starts for October, 1975, were 276,000- over 100,000 more than the same month last year. I am pleased to report that the figure for November, 1975, is a high of 258,000 starts, which clearly means that we will achieve our target of 210,000 starts.
It is extremely important to the residential building industry to have this kind of commitment, beyond the annual year-to-year targets. Hon. members who are experienced as businessmen will recognize the advantage of being able to plan production over a reasonable period of time. If one knows what the market is likely to be, one can cut costs significantly and increase efficiency.
Our goal of 235,000 starts in 1976-an increase of some 25,000 over 1975-will mean 32,000 additional jobs in residential construction and in all the businesses and industries affected by housing. It will also mean that private lending institutions will have to significantly increase their investment in housing-at least another $750 million in 1976.
The minister has said, Mr. Speaker, that the government will require lending institutions to make these additional sums available. Some hon. members have expressed skepticism about this undertaking and have suggested the goal could not be achieved without compulsory legislation. Mr. Speaker, the minister has met with some of the most prominent lenders and has heard from many others, and I am pleased to inform the House that their reaction has been most co-operative. We have no doubt that the necessary funds will be forthcoming in the amounts we require. We will be establishing a monitoring committee to review performance by the private lenders and to ensure that funds are adequately distributed among the various regions of the country.
As the Minister has already advised the House, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation will become active this spring, creating a secondary market for mortgages, making them more attractive as an investment and drawing more private investment into residential construction. In addition to an adequate supply of capital, one of the critical requirements in achieving our objectives will be a supply of serviced land where and when it is needed. One of the obstacles to opening land for residential development, Mr. Speaker, has been the reluctance of municipalities to encourage this kind of growth. For many municipalities, new housing, particularly low-cost housing, has imposed a demand for services that is not matched by new tax revenues. A number of federal housing programs and policies are designed to overcome these problems. Loans and grants under our sewage treatment assistance
 .
program have helped finance most of the facilities installed throughout Canada in recent years. This program, as hon. members will recall, was recently revised to make it more generous and more relevant to current problems. In particular, assistance was extended to cover storm trunk sewers when they were required to open up new land for housing. Under the federal housing action program we are going one step further and making loans available, not just for sewage treatment and trunks but for water treatment and mains where they will assist with new residential development.
As a further inducement to planned residential development and the encouragement of low-cost housing, the federal government will make grants of $1,000 to municipalities for each unit of medium-density housing built within local AHOP price limits. The minister has assured the provincial ministers that we will consult with them about criteria and will ensure, as far as possible, that these grants are administered in a way that is consistent with provincial priorities.
During the last federal-provincial housing conference we had a most useful discussion of various measures which provinces are using, or are contemplating, to speed up municipal processes of approving land development. It was generally agreed that, while this was a matter primarily of concern to individual provinces, it has become such a serious problem in many provinces that it assumes national importance. I agree that protracted delays in the approval processes are one of the most significant barriers to the achievement of our national housing goals, and we have offered to be helpful to the provinces in any way we can in sharing information about this problem and developing solutions.
I think these, essentially, are the principles of this legislation and the federal housing action program. It involves, first of all, a commitment by the federal government to a million new homes in the next four years. That means 235,000 starts and 32,000 new jobs in 1976. It will require private lending institutions to increase their share in the lending market, and I have indicated that we already have this assurance. It will mean increased private lending and substantially more mortgage money thereby being available for social housing programs such as public housing, non-profit and co-operative housing. It will make housing generally more affordable.
The AHOP and assisted rental programs are being revised and expanded. The new AHOP and assisted rental programs, along with new requirements restricting high ratio lending, will help shift housing production toward the lower end of the price range. The new assisted rental program and the extension of capital cost allowances will help restore economic viability to the rental market, thereby increasing production and helping to restrain costs. New loans and grants for water treatment and mains and new municipal grants for low-cost, medium-density housing will help speed up the development and servicing of land for housing.
There is one more matter provided for in this bill which is not directly related to the federal housing action program. It proposes certain amendments to the Central Mort-
December 3, 1975

gage and Housing Act regarding the appointment of the chairman of the board. This amendment is connected with recent initiatives which are intended to improve the coordination and integration of activities undertaken by CMHC and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. This amendment would assist this objective by making it possible for a senior officer of the ministry to act as chairman of the board of CMHC, providing the necessary link at the official level between the two agencies within the minister's portfolio.
I would just like to emphasize, before I sit down, that there is some urgency connected with the housing measures provided for in this bill. Many of the clauses provide for increased benefits that cannot be conferred until the bill becomes law. In the meantime, the effect may very well be for people to suspend activity under our existing programs, waiting for the new ones to come into force. I realize that some of these measures are rather complex and that they have important social, economic and financial implications requiring careful and deliberate consideration. Within these constraints, Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will deal with this bill as expeditiously as possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this very important bill, let me point out that some of the measures contained in Bill C-77 are those which we on this side of the House have advocated for some time. Since the minister's announcement on November 3 we have had time to study his proposals in detail, and we find many failures in the bill. Speaking on the matter of private lending institutions directing an additional $750 million into the financing of new, lower and moderately-priced housing, as both the minister responsible and opposition critics have pointed out, this requirement is not accompanied by legislative sanction; it is simply a suggestion. A committee will be established to monitor the performance of private lending institutions.
This program is designed to increase the supply of mortgage funding made available for residential construction. It will likely fall short of matching housing supply with demand, on four broad fronts. It is interesting to note that in the report of the housing task force, completed in 1969 and presented to the prime minister of the day, it was recommended that the federal government seek to encourage and co-ordinate the efforts of private lending institutions to meet the vast majority of Canadian residential mortgages. It is unfortunate that more action was not taken in 1969, because if it had we would not have the same difficulties that we face today.
In the October "Mortgage Newsletter", issued by the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada, it was noted that 26 of the 34 cities reporting indicated they were experiencing a shortage of supply of funds for builders. This indicates that there is a drastic supply problem in the availability of mortgage funding for builders interested in home ownership construction. Considering that the realignment of $750 million will only provide mortgage lending for between 20,000 and 25,000 new homes, the policy can be criticized for its basic inadequacy. This is further compounded by the fact that the government's program is
National Housing Act
encouraging high ratio mortgage lending, thereby further limiting the number of homes this sum can finance.
This program will do very little to encourage lending in multiple-dwelling construction. The same "Mortgage Newsletter" reveals that there is a slow demand among builders for apartment loans in 20 out of 34 Canadian cities. This factor simply reveals the lack of investment confidence in this sector, a lack of confidence undoubtedly caused by a poor annual rate of return during recent years, strengthened by investment concerns over impending rent control.
Because the AHOP program, which has become the crux of the government's housing policy, sets ceilings on both the percentage of income allocated to payments-25 per cent-and on the total cost of the dwelling purchased- approximately $35,000-there is little likelihood that persons qualifying for this program will be able to purchase anything but condominium apartments. Since this $750 million is set aside for middle and low income earners, and since these groups will only qualify for the purchase of multiple dwellings, the criticism becomes additionally germane to the over-all inadequacy of this program.
The encouragement of this redirection of funds may be entirely misdirected. Financial institutions arrive at their asset mix by looking, firstly, at total assets and, secondly, at the demand from builders for different types of loans. Since demands for loans are weak in the apartment condominium sector, there is no guarantee that if new funds are set aside they will be picked up.
On the suggestion that private lending institutions restrict their low down payment, high ratio, lending to newer and moderately-priced homes, let me state that this program will ease entry into the home ownership market by allowing individuals to purchase homes with down payments of as little as 5 per cent. However, while this program may encourage initial home ownership, it has three major shortcomings. First, by setting extremely low down payments, the government may be encouraging premature entry into the housing market at the expense of encouraging personal income savings. This gesture would be highly inflationary. Second, because down payments are so low, it is only natural to assume that the remaining principal on the mortgage will be extremely high. Once this large principal becomes subject to interest rates of 12 per cent and more, the monthly payments become exorbitant.
[DOT] <1640)
Even if loans are granted to individuals in order that they may meet the 25 per cent of income requirement, the over-all debt is still incurred. The proposal simply delays the repayment period and in no way guarantees that after five years the repayment will not cause an equal burden on the consumer. In short, this proposal could be making availability of credit too easy, and as such could lull the home owner into a sense of false security whereby he feels he can afford a home when he really cannot. Third, by directing AHOP and high ratio financing exclusively to new homes, the government is implicitly assuming that housing is simply an economic regulator, thereby neglecting the social component of housing policies.
9694

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
Encouragement of entry into the multiple-dwelling market will have three consequences. First, the commitment to single-family home ownership is being thwarted by legislation rather than choice. The result is that Canada will be going in the direction of a nation of row houses. Second, the filtering down process which has been so integral to price stability and social mobility is being broken down. Traditionally, as houses grew older and their value diminished, they filtered down to families of progressively meagre means. Since the government is placing no legislative premium on occupancy of existing homes, low income earners will be forced into multiple dwellings, risking the possibility of being locked in to an apartment through to the future because of the repayment clauses of AHOP.
Third, emphasis on new home ownership at the expense of existing housing fails totally to take into account that prices on the existing home market set the foundation for prices in the new home market. Because the government is doing nothing to control the prices of existing homes, this program will have little effect on curbing upward price trends in the new home ownership market.
Maximum income restrictions and family size have been removed from the eligibility criteria for AHOP. People with children who are unable to keep their monthly payments under 25 per cent of their income will be eligible for a maximum interest reducing grant of $750. For others, interest-free loans sufficient to cover the difference between market interest rates and interest at 8 per cent will be made to subsidize monthly payments for a five-year period. These subsidies will be recoverable after this period at interest rates parallel to the homeowner's mortgage interest rates.
Furthermore, during this five-year period the subsidies will be reduced each year by one-fifth, or $20 per month- whichever is less-while at the same time ensuring that the borrower never pays more than 25 per cent of his income in PIT payments. These loans will only be made by CMHC when conventional loans are not available. This part of the program has obvious and glaring shortcomings and inequities. First, by floating eligibility irrespective of income or family size, the government is making no allowance for differences in equality of opportunity. In turn, the program does nothing to redress these imbalances. A large family obviously needs a large home, which invariably is more expensive and requires more extensive funding. Under this program, a large family with a fixed income will be treated in exactly the same way as a small family with the same income.
Second, once the five-year interest-free period has expired, families with children will be required to pay back this loan up to a point where their regular PIT payments plus loan payments do not exceed 25 per cet of their income. This means that a family of marginal means who became eligible for home ownership under AHOP will continue to pay 25 per cent of its income for housing even if the income is increasing. This undoubtedly will erode savings and the potential for bettering one's financial position.
For the family without children, the situation is even worse. Each year subsidies will be reduced by up to 20 per cent. If the borrower cannot repay this loan by the end of 
the five-year period, he is saddled with a totally non-subsi-dized PIT plus a high-interest debt. Because this measure simply eases credit, it therefore also facilitates debt and causes the erosion of future savings. In short, after five years borrowers may be faced with payments that are totally unreasonable, given their means. Third, private AHOP thus far has not been successful. Only $66 million in mortgage loans has been advanced this year under the program, yet what the government is saying is that it will substitute this failure for public AHOP and use this latter, marginally successful program, only as a last recourse. Fourth, this loan-oriented AHOP will not help those who at present are experiencing the brunt of the government's ineptitude in handling the housing crisis. Current home owners who are faced with an excessive interest rate and mortgage principal will not benefit at all from this program.
Now we come to the subject of interest-reducing loans. Interest-reducing loans under the rental assistance program will be increased from $900 to $1,200 per unit per year. These grants will be recoverable when either the property is sold or refinanced or at the end of the amortization period of the first mortgage. This step could very well increase apartment construction, while a special provision to extend tax exemptions on capital cost allowances could increase the supply of mortgage funds. However, because of the repayment stipulation certain side-effects will undoubtedly occur.
Repayment of loans upon resale or refinancing will undoubtedly keep rents down, in that it will discourage the practice of refinancing a mortgage on the basis of equity in an existing structure. This practice, in turn, has been used to justify rent increases. However, because builders will be reluctant to refinance, the availability of new funds for new structures will likewise be curbed. This will undoubtedly result in decreased construction and vacancy rates, which in themselves will increase rents.
Because the subsidies are repayable upon the termination of the amortization period of the first mortgage, builders will be faced with a massive debt at the end of that period. For example, a builder who owns a 100-unit structure and qualifies for a maximum subsidy will owe $3 million at the end of a 25-year period. Considering the fact that a builder has to keep rental rates very low in order to qualify, thereby minimizing his profits, it is very unlikely that he will be encouraged to build once he finds that in the future he will be faced with a debt that in some instances will be greater than his original mortgage loan. Therefore, while this program may appear to stimulate demand, after investigation it may prove to be very counterproductive and as such inhibit rental construction.
Next we come to the matter of the establishment of the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation on an operational basis by the spring of 1976. The enabling legislation for this corporation has been in existence for over three years. The Progressive Conservative party has pressed for this organization to be made operational for almost that long. Its purpose will be to buy and sell mortgages, thereby enabling the smaller investor to enter the mortgage market. This corporation could do much to increase the liquidity of the second mortgage as an investment vehicle, but its credibility at this point is somewhat lacking. The corpora-
December 3, 1975

tion's operation has been promised for three years. What guarantee is there that this is not another empty promise? The minister responsible has stated that this organization will have an operational budget of $75 million. This is both ironic and petty, when one considers that its budget was cut, when it was not even operative, by more than this sum. That was in the June 23 budget.
I should like to speak, now, on the provision of the $1,000 per unit grant to municipalities which approve minimum-density AHOP and rental assistance price limits, and the inclusion of loans for water facilities and mains under the federal land assembly program. There is no doubt that one of the main factors contributing to the housing crisis is the prohibitive cost and the unavailability of serviced land. The Progressive Conservative party has advocated the injection of $500 million to meet the crisis. Considering the fact that it costs approximately $30,000 to $35,000 to service an acre of land which would accommodate, on average, five single-family dwellings or eight multiple dwellings, it is quite apparent that the government's $1,000 per unit grant will not even come close to solving the problem of opening up serviced land properly. The problem of serviced land also rests on jurisdictional considerations. Municipalities are reluctant to zone property for low-cost housing because they will lose property tax dollars through the diminished property value.
As can be seen, the problem is very complex. The government's program, however, has done nothing to overcome these complexities by recommending consultation or cooperation with the municipalities and provinces. If anything, there is mounting evidence that municipalities are viewing the government's restrictions and stipulations as federal coercion. The result of this could be that little co-operation will be forthcoming from the municipalities on this aspect of the problem.
In introducing this discussion, it was stated that the basic thrust of the housing policy was relatively sound in so far as it attempts to stimulate supply. The encouragement of additional mortgage funding, while basically without clout, is nonetheless a worthy pursuit. The Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation is a much needed organization that is long overdue. At the same time, it is imperative that more serviced land be made available in order that over-all construction costs can be kept down. The problem is that in this package the government has also inflated demand relative to supply.
In summary, many points in the program are counterproductive, cancelling each other out. Similarly, other programs are simply "more of the same". The government has assumed they can solve the housing problem through quantitative means, that is merely by extending or broadening existing programs, rather than looking for qualitative changes which can be exclusively aimed at real problems with long-term goals in mind.
On the subject of construction costs, at the present time, based on experience during the preceding year, construction costs are shown to increase at 2 per cent per month. The upper limit for AHOP assistance in Winnipeg is presently $33,000. The builder accepting an order today at that upper limit, and starting construction immediately, would
National Housing Act
find himself six months' hence with a completed house that, ready for occupancy, costs $36,960. In other words, he would have lost $3,960 on the sale.
Under the new federal housing program, rental subsidies under ARP are increased to $1,200 per rental unit per year. It is my understanding that such subsidies are interest-free for the period during which they are received. It is my further understanding that these subsidies become repayable to the federal government at such time as the rental building is refinanced at an interest rate and repayment periods still to be determined by the federal government. Receipt of these subsidies enables the owner to ease the financial burden of rent for occupants, charging rents lower than those normally required to maintain the economic viability of the project. By the end of five years, the difference between economic and market rents is estimated to be more than 20 per cent.
By the end of the same five-year period, the mortgage loan on rental projects must be refinanced because of five-year terms on such mortgages. Based on past experience, it would seem inevitable that such refinancing would have to be at considerably increased rates of interest, and this means an immediate increase in debt service costs. Therefore, the owner, at the end of five years, has a higher mortgage debt service cost, a loan of $6,000 per unit-$1,200 per year for five years-that he must repay to the federal government, and a rent structure that, with this added debt load, could be as much as 30 per cent below the economic rent.
These are some other fears expressed by builders in the Winnipeg area. They point out that there is no incentive for private members to co-operate in helping to ease the housing bottleneck. In fact, the government is very punitive in its implied course of action should the private lending institutions not follow the government's dictum. They say there is too much red tape in approving housing construction, and that this causes delays.
This is a point that I have raised numerous times in the House. A couple of years ago some of the developers in the Toronto area pointed out that the cost of housing could be cut in half if all the red tape were removed from the three levels of government. They pointed out that single-family housing could be provided in and around metropolitan Toronto at half the present cost of $40,000 plus, which is the average price, if only developers received co-operation from the government instead of restrictions and outright hostility. I have pointed this out to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) on a number of occasions, but I do not know whether it has been discussed at the trilevel government meetings.
Developers in the Toronto-Montreal area made three main points. They recommended, first, provincial government financing of water and sewer services for privately-held land ready for development, aimed at flooding the market with serviced land so as to drive down the price of a serviced lot, now at a record high of $22,000 on average. Second, relaxation, at least in specified areas, of a long list of restrictions on new subdivisions, such as minimum lot sizes, the requirement of elaborate local servicing, and stipulations as to the type of building materials used. Third, elimination of federal and provincial sales taxes on
29956 -6lVi

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
building materials, some of which have been partially removed.
That is quite a statement for developers to make, that if red tape is removed they will be able to build houses at half the present cost. The largest stock of available housing, reasonably priced, is the older home; but the increase in interest rates pushes them further beyond the means of potential buyers. In Winnipeg it takes up to six weeks to process a loan. By the time it is approved, the interest rate has increased from 10% per cent to 11% per cent. This adds to the already high cost of shelter.
Builders in the Winnipeg area also pointed out that the government has ignored the urban core erosion problem which exists in all cities. Previous experience has proven, and pilot projects have demonstrated, that a workable and economical solution can be found for these problems. The federal program is committed exclusively to medium-density housing, which means town houses and condominiums. This is the only type of home that has enjoyed marginal acceptance on the prairies.
The program also fails to deal with the necessity for continuity in the housing policy, and instead emphasis has been placed on unilateral housing programs by the federal government. Thus, I can say that there is nothing original about these measures. We have had stepped-up programs, expanded programs and resurrected programs, but no recognition by the government that adequate shelter is a basic right of all Canadians.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-77 is unimpressive and fails to meet the housing needs of Canadians. It fails to meet the serious housing needs in four main areas; first, it fails to increase the supply of homes, more especially with regard to low and moderate income groups; second, it fails to solve the problem of the high cost of land; third, it fails to deal with the high cost of mortgages; and fourth, it does not reduce the high cost of homes.
I believe the minister is merely shadow-boxing with these four main problems facing Canadians today. I feel that the main thrust of the minister's legislation as expressed by the parliamentary secretary this afternoon is that the payment of subsidies to people under AHOP, the interest-free loans to developers for a period of time, and the capital cost allowances to rental entrepreneurs who are not developers, will not solve the housing problems of today. In fact, subsidies have proven to increase the cost of housing: they do not increase the supply and they certainly do not bring down the cost of housing.
In fact, I would say that the legislation as presented by the parliamentary secretary this afternoon is nothing but a sweetheart agreement between the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), the financial institutions, the developers and the rental entrepreneurs who are not developers, to persuade them to build more houses. The minister hopes that by adjusting the cash flow problems of purchasers, somehow these people will have the money with which to buy homes at very low cost and that will solve the shortage of housing today.

I said that the minister is really shadow-boxing with the main problems, and in boxing parlance I am sure the financial institutions and the developers could say that he did not lay a glove on them, because he did nothing to direct the financial institutions to allocate a percentage of their investment portfolios. He has done nothing to control interest rates and he has done very little to increase the supply of housing. In fact, if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs were properly called the minister of housing, I would call him the minister of hoaxing and coaxing, because that is all he is doing with regard to the serious problems we face today.
We in the New Democratic Party, people in the Conservative party and those in the Liberal party-I think the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) will agree with me on this-feel that there is a serious housing problem across the country. The minister is excellent at defining the problem of the serious housing crisis, he is overflowing with sympathy, but he is wrong in his solutions with regard to this problem.
It is rather ironic that the parliamentary secretary should lead off the debate today, because on Saturday of last week he made a speech in Montreal before l'associa-tion Provinciale des constructeurs d'habitation du Quebec, and he agreed with all of us in the House that there is a serious housing problem. I shall read excerpts from his speech just to prove this point. He said that there are serious housing problems among the elderly, the poor, the native people, the sick, and others, and these people must receive priority attention from the federal government. I could not agree more. None of us could agree more with regard to this problem. He also said:
Another situation that would not have seemed possible even a few years ago is that many people who are reasonably affluent can no longer afford to buy their own homes. I am talking about the middle-income group, people whose incomes today range from about $12,000 to $18,000 annually, and who used to represent perhaps the most active segment of the home-buying public. Up until a few years ago, these middle-income families-whose income then, in non-inflated terms, is about the same as it is today-could usually afford to buy a house. The price of moderate housing was about twice their annual salary, interest rates were much lower, and the monthly pay-out was not excessive in terms of income.
Today it is. How true that is. The speech continued:
In most urban centres, the inflated cost of housing has far outpaced the concurrent rise in incomes. Families in the middle-income range find it difficult and often impossible to buy a house that costs as much as three times their annual salary and carries a mortgage at a much higher rate than ever before.
This is the parliamentary secretary setting forth the problem. What did he say about people who rent? He said the following:
Rental accommodation, for example, is all but non-existent in some Canadian cities, and the already serious problem is steadily deterioriat-ing. This situation demands attention.
The parliamentary secretary knows that the vacancy rate, according to CMHC figures published for the month of November, is 1.2. Is it any wonder the parliamentary secretary and all of us are concerned about the serious housing problem? The disappointing feature is the solution which has been set forth by this government. Let me give some figures. These figures were quoted by the parliamentary secretary in his famous speech of Saturday last. They had been earlier quoted by the Minister of State for Urban
December 3, 1975

Affairs on, I think, November 12 before the Property Forum in Toronto. I happen to read the speeches of these people, and the more I read them the more I think they realize there are serious problems. But I also realize they cannot solve the problems by the methods they are using. Quoting figures with regard to the supply problem which we have, the parliamentary secretary said:
It is true that most Canadians have good or at least adequate housing, but recent statistics show beyond doubt that far too many Canadians have serious housing problems. For example, almost 825,000 Canadian families pay more than 25 per cent of their income for housing. In fact, more than 280,000 pay over half their income for housing.
That is over 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker:
It is hard to believe, yet it is true that in this civilized country some 460,000 households have no sanitary facilities or, if they have, are required to share them with neighbours. Additionally, about 445,000 households are overcrowded even by minimum standards.
And finally, it is a shocking fact that 120,000 households in this country are both overcrowded and lacking in their own sanitary facilities.
This is the problem we face in Canada today. The problem was ably set out by the parliamentary secretary this afternoon and persuasively set out by the minister before the Property Forum in Toronto on November 12. We have set forth the problem of supply, and it is a serious problem. The problem lies in the supply, in the cost of land, in the high cost of mortgages and in the high cost of houses. With regard to the cost of land, we have a serious shortage of serviced land and the days of the small builder are numbered. Land is controlled by developers and they release it at their own convenience. Their convenience is determined by the profits they can make. They release it when they can obtain the highest possible price. This is not only our finding but it is also the finding, through CMHC, of Peter Spurr who reported in the Globe and Mail a short while ago that the minimum profit developers make from one acre of land is $89,000.
Is it any wonder the developers control the land and release it when it is to their best advantage? Mr. Peter Spurr also pointed out in his report to CMHC that in the Toronto area 40,000 acres of land are controlled by 12 developers. I am sure that is shocking news to the hon. member for Spadina, because I know he is concerned about the high cost of housing. Land in the major cities is controlled by developers across the country-Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver-


Mr. Hogan:: Is Cape Breton in there?


John Gilbert: -and Cape Breton. The developers control it and release it when it is to their best advantage. That is the problem with respect to the cost of land. The parliamentary secretary had no answer today on the high cost of land. He did not say that the federal government would infuse large sums of money into the housing program in order to buy land, so they would have control of it and release it for building purposes, more especially to low and moderate income people. There is no mention of any help to control the high cost of land.
My third point is the high cost of mortgages. In committee a few days ago, I asked Mr. Teron, president of CMHC,
National Housing Act
what the prevailing interest rate would be in the next six months, and he said 11 % per cent to 12 per cent. He gave no assurance of a significant downturn in the next few years, and he is probably right. The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada-HUDAC-stated on November 14, in an article in the Globe and Mail, that the interest rate would probably be 1214 per cent for the next 18 months. They said:
This is largely due to the fact that continuing inflation will induce lenders to include this factor in establishing their rates.
Madam Speaker, the president of CMHC agrees with HUDAC that we will have a minimum interest rate of 12 per cent. This is certainly not a very happy situation for most people who buy homes. I get a gut-twitching feeling, Madam Speaker, about this. Surely some of these financial institutions and private lenders must feel they are not bordering on usury but practising usury. The problem of high mortgage rates was set forth in an article in the Toronto Star within the last month. It was stated that in Toronto the average cost of a home was $57,500, and if a person had $17,500 for a down payment-which is most unusual-it would leave a $40,000 mortgage at 12 per cent interest. They would pay $413 a month principal and interest for 25 years, making a total of $141,150-$83,650 of it in interest charges. Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker: a person buys a home for $57,500 and at the end of 25 years he will have paid $141,150, of which $83,650 will be interest? The article says that to carry that mortgage, the family income, by the accepted rule of thumb, should be $19,804. The average family income in Toronto is only $15,742.
The same article set forth solutions to control interest rates. I would underline, again, that the legislation has nothing in it about controlling interest rates, and in fact the Anti-Inflation Board is doing nothing about it. That is one of the reasons so many of us oppose Bill C-73. The writer said we should take a leaf from New Zealand's book, where interest rates are 5.5 per cent on a 30-year term. There is not a country in western Europe with the high interest rates that we have here in Canada, yet the government does little or nothing about it.
I said a moment ago that the cost of a home in Toronto was $57,500 in the month of October; in November it went up to $59,325, and the cost of a condominium town house in Toronto is now $48,609. The parliamentary secretary and his officials in the gallery should note that fact. The hon. member for Spadina realizes that under the AHOP program the regional limit for Toronto is $43,000, and he and other Liberal members must pressure CMHC and the minister to increase regional limits across the country. In Ottawa the limit is $35,000. That is not sufficient to meet the cost of housing today. The spokesman for the Conservative party pointed to the same problem in Winnipeg.
What is this government doing? We have a CMHC capital budget, and in the past few years the government has said, "We are going to attempt to get into social housing fields, and we are going to make sure that people in low and middle income brackets are taken care of." May I point out that in 1970, 24.3 per cent of the CMHC budget was for public housing; in 1972 there was a tremendous thrust and it went up to 37.3 per cent. Then we got the AHOP program in 1973, and public housing in 1974 dropped from 37.3 per

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
cent to 19.2 per cent. That indicates to me that the AHOP program is not helping people on low incomes who should be sheltered by public housing. It is giving subsidies to people on moderate and high incomes, many of whom are not entitled to it. The priority should be given to low income people.
There should be a tremendous thrust in public housing. But what do we find? We find the minister hoaxing and coaxing, trying to persuade the builders by adjusting the AHOP subsidies and making interest-free mortgages on rental housing available to them, and by trying to give rental entrepreneurs tax advantages. In a speech on November 3, the minister, in his eloquence, was persuasive and sympathetic. He said the government would see that the banks and private institutions are required to direct their mortgage financing to new and moderately-priced housing and would require an extra $750 million from them.
We thought he used the word "require" because he wanted to bring in legislation directing the financial institutions to apply part of their investment portfolios to housing. We asked the minister questions about this and he said, "No, we will attempt to persuade them." This afternoon the parliamentary secretary said that the government will set up a review committee to monitor the flow of these moneys. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) say, "This very suggestion was in the Hellyer task force report in 1969."


An hon. Member:: And many other good recommendations.


John Gilbert: The government wants to persuade financial institutions to apply moneys to housing. I remind you, Madam Speaker, that earlier in 1975 the minister said he would persuade financial institutions to apply an extra $1 billion to housing. How much money was made available? He received an extra $300 million, less than one-third of the amount he hoped to get from our financial institutions. Then he came to this House and said, "I wili require them to do this." When it came down to it, he said, "No, I will persuade them and set up a monitoring committee." Even at that, the $750 million extra will provide no more than 20,000 homes. How will that meet the housing crisis? Will that amount overcome the shortage of supply? Not for a minute, Madam Speaker.
Look at the profits the banks have recorded for 1975. They make me sick to the stomach. They have earned many millions of dollars, but the minister has not the drive, enthusiasm or gumption to make financial institutions toe the line. Is it any wonder some say he has entered into a sweetheart agreement with them concerning their financial commitments?
The government says that it will require lenders to restrict the most favourable credit terms, that is, high ratio, low down payment mortgages, to moderately-priced housing within local NHA loan limits. I suggest that subsidies have not increased supply, but merely price. According to our best evidence, regional limits now imposed on the AHOP program will need to be increased substantially,

if the program is to work at all. I am sure that only a minuscule amount of help will be forthcoming.
The minister persuaded provincial governments to initiate residential rent controls in line with the federal government's anti-inflation program. The parliamentary secretary told us this afternoon that all provinces have agreed to some form of rent control. If the minister was concerned about residential housing, he should have persuaded the provinces to put restrictions on commercial construction as well. I say this for a good reason. If I know developers, once the provinces impose rent controls on residential construction, they will build commercial buildings as there are far greater profits to be made in that area. We shall see more shopping centres, more commercial construction and developers making high profits. If the minister seriously wanted to tackle this problem he should have persuaded provincial governments to control residential rents and commercial construction. But he did not do so and that is unfortunate.
The talk you hear of the target of one million homes in four years is nothing but a Liberal gimmick. Last time the minister was speaking of one million homes in five years; now we are to see one million homes in four years. How is this target to be met? The government has made some great suggestions concerning mortgages. Apparently the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation is to be in place by April 1, 1976. I remind hon. members that the former minister of national revenue, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), piloted this bill through the House in 1973. My party voted against it, thank goodness. Our studies of the program and conversations with the former president and officials of CMHC confirm one thing: it will not bring down interest rates or increase supply. The corporation will help to package CMHC mortages in order to permit their more effective distribution to financial institutions; that is all the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation will do.
The other half of the bill had to do with setting up a mortgage insurance company. I recall it very well. I do not know if many mortgage investment corporations have been established, but I do know that according to a Globe and Mail report the Bank of Nova Scotia lost a great deal of money in the United States. The minister, who then was minister of national revenue, ought to know that the Bank of Nova Scotia lost at least $150 million in the United States under REIT-Real Estate Investment Trust. As I say, the Bank of Nova Scotia lost $150 million. Imagine that. The Bank of Nova Scotia showed no social responsibility. It sent its money to the United States and lost $150 million on REIT because there was a drop in interest rates south of the border. On the other hand, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs says, "Please, fellows, put a certain amount of money into Canadian housing."


An hon. Member:: "If you don't, we will force you."


John Gilbert: What a performance! Let me now deal with the legislation which the parliamentary secretary brought forward today. He said that we are to make great changes in the AHOP program. In the past, in order to qualify a couple needed to have at least one child. This will no longer be the case. The government will see to it that the 12 per cent mortgage rate will be lowered to 8 per cent for
December 3, 1975

those who qualify so that they may have a fair chance to buy a house. Further, in the case of a family with two or more children which cannot meet the 25 per cent ratio governing payments, the government will increase its allowance from $600 to $750. This will really be of great help. To those who do not qualify within these limits, the government will say, "We will give you an interest-free loan for five years, after which you will begin repayment at the prevailing rate of interest." The government hopes that this will help the AHOP program to succeed.
What is our position, Madam Speaker? We say that subsidies in themselves will not solve the housing problem as they are given to the purchaser and passed on to the financial institutions. Really, that is all that happens. The government is saying, "We will make sure that your effective interest rate is 8 per cent. We will give you a subsidy of 4 per cent which you will pass on to the financial institutions." Would it not have been far better if the minister had said to this country's financial institutions, "Interest rates shall be 8 per cent"? That is all the minister had to say. I suppose our institutions would have said, "But we cannot lend money at 8 per cent interest." Madam Speaker, is it not Canadian money? Surely, financial institutions are under the social obligation of providing Canadians with mortgages at decent interest rates. Considering their high earnings, such mortgages would make only a slight dent in their profits.
Again, Madam Speaker, the AHOP program, with the subsidies entrenched in it, helps people with moderate and high incomes. To qualify for a mortgage in Toronto under AHOP you have to earn at least $19,000. I am sure there are many in the riding of the hon. member for Spadina who do not earn that amount. A higher income wilt be necessary if the price increases above $43,000. I have heard it will be at least $48,000 in Toronto. This legislation will not do a great deal with regard to increasing supply and it will not help people with low incomes.
We need public housing. In this respect we had a substantial drop to 19.2 per cent in the 1974 budget. I think the government reached the height of this inadequate program when they suggested special capital cost allowances to persons who are not developers but who invest in rental projects, permitting them to charge investment losses against their incomes and thereby reduce taxes. I am sure the hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) want to hear just what this capital cost allowance is all about. I did a little work on it. Here is an article which indicates the gouging that goes on. It says Winnipeg-based Richardson Securities of Canada sold an issue in September for private investment in a low-income, multiple-unit housing development. For an investment of 15,000, in the first year someone in the 60 per cent tax bracket could get a reduction in income tax of $15,000 because of the shelter. This is the capital cost allowance provision. If you are in the 60 per cent bracket and you invest in this and get a capital cost allowance, you have a saving of $15,000 on an investment of $15,000. If that is not a rip-off in favour of the rich, I don't know what it is.
What is this going to cost the Canadian people? An official of CMHC says the program will ultimately cost
National Housing Act
between $50 million and $60 million a year. I do not have the figures-we will get them in committee-but I would wager that $50 million or $60 million far exceeds any of the subsidies under the AHOP program. The minister threw a few tidbits to the municipalities. He said, "We will give a $1,000 grant to municipalities which approve medium-density housing within the reach of AHOP, and assisted rental price limits." This will be of little or no help to the big cities, though it may be of some assistance to the small cities.
This idea was presented before the provincial representatives on housing and they showed little or no enthusiasm for it. We were told, "We are going to give loans and grants to municipalities for water treatment facilities and to municipalities where they are needed to open up land for housing." So what does the parliamentary secretary to the minister do? This could help the development of raw land. He said, "We are going to put a limitation on it to April 30, 1980." Why the limitation? I hoped the parliamentary secretary would have told us how much money they were going to give to it. There was no mention of the amount of money which was to be put into this program. But they put the limitation on.
Hon. members have a right and a duty to ask what we in the New Democratic Party would do. The first thing we would do would be to strike at the fundamental causes of the high cost of housing. We would strike at high interest rates. We would strike at land costs and we would make sure we had an adequate supply of housing, especially public housing, co-operative housing and non-profit housing. We would see to it that the financial institutions were legislated into applying a percentage of their investment portfolios to housing on the simple reasoning that they have a social responsibility to all Canadians to see they are decently housed at reasonable cost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: We would do it not only to the financial institutions but to the pension funds. I have always noticed that the minister has talked about pension funds. The pension funds have money, and if that money can be applied to housing, they should not come under the umbrella. With regard to land costs, we are in the grip of the developers. I have pointed out how necessary it is for the government to get right into the land development business and acquire those lands, control them and release them when they are needed. This would bring down the high cost of land. Then again, we in the New Democratic Party would set up a building corporation. At the moment, we are still at the mercy of the builders. A building corporation could see to it that the main needs of people in the low income group were taken care of.
I heard the minister say he had visited Europe, and so forth, and that we in Canada are very fortunate to be so well housed. Madam Speaker, I have been in England, I have been in France, Germany and Sweden. The main thrust in housing in those countries has been in the direction of public housing. In London, the county councils build public housing for people, at reasonable rates. You get it in France, Germany and Sweden. What do we do here? We give a low priority to public housing and we try to sugarcoat the people who are buying AHOP properties

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
by offering them subsidies. All they are doing is passing on subsidies to financial institutions. We do nothing with regard to controlling interest rates. Really, it makes me sick that we have to debate legislation like this bill presented by the government.
The parliamentary secretary wound up by saying that housing is a social commodity. We could not agree more. So are schools, so are hospitals, and so, probably, are churches. If it is a social commodity, housing at reasonable cost should be a basic right of all Canadians. Yet there is nothing in this legislation which would see to it that housing is a social commodity and a basic right at a reasonable cost for all Canadians. I do not like to vote against things, but this is certainly one piece of legislation I shall vote against.


An hon. Member:: Surprise, surprise.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the government has finally let us look at what it apparently feels is the answer to the long-standing problem of exorbitant housing costs, astronomical rents and the serious lack of housing starts. I have been waiting patiently for a chance to give my enthusiastic support to the government's housing bill, but now that I have seen it I can only say that my long wait was in vain. This is a motherhood bill, pure and simple. In politics, just about everyone hastens to support motherhood issues, with the possible exception of those who beat the drum for abortion on demand. Believe me, this bill is motherhood in capital letters. The large print in this measure says to us, "Pass this bill and everybody will have a beautiful home, complete with picture-window, and a big, fat mortgage at 13 per cent interest." Instant housing, Madam Speaker!
But when we get to the small print we find that this legislation is chock full of pitfalls, angles and ambiguities. It is a cop-out. It is just another example of what this government has proven it does so well. Give this government a problem to solve, and just as in the case of the anti-inflation boondoggle, they appoint a few Liberal faithful to some high-paying jobs with impressive titles, and turn them loose. Among the first things they do then is to try to dazzle us with outrageous budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars, and try to convince us that they will spend us out of the problem if we will just give them enough time and enough money.
Under this bill the government is going to get private lending institutions to divert $750 million into the housing market, specifically into lower and moderately-priced homes. Just how do they propose to do this, Madam Speaker? Well, so far they have not told us how they propose to get financial institutions to alter their operations plans, or how they propose to get these institutions to invest in low-yield ventures. We are just told that this is what the government plans to do and it is left at that.
Does the government think that we are so unsophisticated that we will accept this idle statement as government policy? Does the government think that this country's lending institutions are so vulnerable to this type of veiled threat that they are going to rush headlong into the low and moderately-priced housing market? Of course not,

Madam Speaker. To begin with, this is a free enterprise society, or at least it still bears some resemblance to free enterprise. People in our society invest in ventures that are reasonably secure and provide the highest possible yield. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, this is not government money we are talking about, it is private money and it would be a serious mistake for the government to impose restrictions on where this money can be invested.
We are all familiar with the investment pattern of Canadians in the past. In their search for secure investment opportunities, Canadians have invested heavily in ventures and properties in the United States. At the present time some $25 billion has been invested in the United States by Canadian investors, some of it not too wisely as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said. What is the government going to do if private lending institutions will not divert large blocks of capital to the low-cost housing market, Madam Speaker? Are we going to have legislation spelling out what these institutions can invest in, under pain of having their funds confiscated?
Madam Speaker, what is $750 million, anyway? As a famous Liberal cabinet minister said a while ago, "What's a million?"-and that was at a time when a million was a hell of a lot more money than it is today. That is about enough to build 20,000 homes, hardly a figure for the government to be shooting at as far as housing starts are concerned. We need hundreds of thousands of starts, not a paltry 20,000. Perhaps the government should have said that private lenders would be asked to divert $7 billion or $8 billion into housing funds. Then the genius at the head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could just lean back in his chair and let the housing problem solve itself.
This bill ignores the underlying causes of inflation in housing costs by not attempting to deal with the question of serviced land. It has been known for many years that certain builders across the country, especially in urban centres, have gained control of all of the available serviced land, and if another smaller builder wants to build houses he has to buy land from the developer, or small groups of builders, who control the land. We have a classic case of that practice in the Ottawa area. A good friend of the Liberal party, Robert Campeau, is said to own 9,000 acres of land in the Ottawa-Hull region, and if any other builder wants to buy any of that land he will have to pay Mr. Campeau's price. It is also reported that Mr. Campeau will reap a whopping $14 million a year in rents from the federal government when the latest development complex in Hull is completed. Right now he collects about $9 million per year in federal government rents. It sure helps to be a friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his crowd.
On November 20, my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), gave us an insight into the background of another good friend of the Liberal party and its power brokers, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is the man who decides housing policy for Canada, a man who has made a career of building high-priced luxury home developments. We are now led to believe that he is terribly concerned about the plight of those who can only afford relatively inexpensive housing. This man does, in fact,
December 3, 1975

dictate housing policy. I appreciate Mr. Teron knows what he is talking about and I am not downgrading his ability as a builder of many hundreds, probably thousands, of houses.
Mr. Campeau is quite an operator. His vice-president in charge of residential housing was until recently mayor of Ottawa. Another former mayor of Ottawa was made a director of this corporation, and now he is back on the Ottawa city council. Of course, Campeau has been a major contributor to Liberal party election war chests, and it is not just a coincidence that he is able to borrow from the government to build high-rise office buildings on some of which he draws rent from the government even before the buildings are ready for occupancy. We certainly cannot overlook the close ties that once existed between companies owned by the president of CMHC and Campeau. We are told that the president's companies are now in a blind trust, and so we are expected to have blind trust in his objectivity as Canada's housing czar.
I cannot help wondering how many centres across the country are blessed with having their own Campeaus doling out serviced land to the builders, setting prices that have to be reflected in higher housing costs. I also wonder what part this kind of monopoly ownership has played in the past few years in escalating the cost of housing to the point where a large percentage of wage earners in Canada have been priced out of the housing market.
While the government passed over the big builders and those who hold the bulk of the serviced land, they did tell us who the real culprits are, and it is a typical Liberal ploy. The white paper on housing that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) released on November 3 tells us that it is the people who bought homes several years ago and who now want to move up into something bigger and better who are driving up housing costs. We are told that these people have profited by inflation and that they drive housing prices out of the reach of their less fortunate fellow Canadians, those who are in real need.
It might be true that some people have profited by inflation in housing costs, but it is also true that these home owners did not create inflation in the first place. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is not doing anyone a service by passing the inflationary buck to a small group of people who discovered that housing costs had become inflated and that they could realize a handsome profit in the sale of their homes.
The plain fact is that the lots on which these homes were built had become inflated in price, and consequently the combined home and lot had increased in value far in excess of the true value of the home. We have seen the cost of serviced building lots increase in the past few years from about $1,500 in some areas to $20,000, and in some cases to $30,000 and more. I am sure my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) will bear out the fact that good building lots, when available in the city of Toronto today, are in the $35,000 bracket. Just a few years ago this represented the total cost of a pretty nice home, situated on a nice lot. When we consider the ceiling on homes that qualify for AHOP loans as an example, we find that this ceiling represents the cost of only the lot that a prospective home owner proposes to build on. The only way that AHOP can be effective in getting families into low and moderately-
National Housing Act
priced homes is for the program to be flexible enough to allow the regional bureaucrats to judge each AHOP application on its own merits.
With the variations in both availability and price of homes from one part of the country to another, and with the almost day to day changes in the cost of houses and lots, there is no way that a fixed set of rules can be applied to a program designed to help people break the logjam of inflation and get into decent homes.
As long as Campeau and others in his category are in the driver's seat of the housing market, and as long as they are able to affect housing policy by controlling the market, all the housing policies we approve in this House and all the millions we pour into housing programs will serve only those people who already are being served. We will be serving those who can afford the going price for homes and the interest rates presently being charged on mortgage balances. An example of this was earlier given by the hon. member for Broadview who cited the fact of a $57,000 home, with a $40,000 mortgage for a term of some 30 years, costing $140,000.
It has already been shown that the only low and medium-priced homes available in any quantity today are condominium apartments, and we know by experience that when condominiums become the rage, the price will skyrocket. I believe this was also referred to with respect to the situation in the Toronto area where the price is already in the range of $46,000. This is a vicious cycle and unless we find a way to break that cycle the government's latest dream of one million housing starts in the next four years will be just that-a dream.
Some of us had the privilege of talking with and questioning the minister when his estimates were before the miscellaneous estimates committee. That was on November 27, at which time I had the opportunity of posing a few questions. I will concede that the minister did have a temporary program providing $500 housing grants as a carrot to get the people to buy homes at these high prices. These grants were limited to new homes and the expiry date was November 1, I believe. The minister did extend that program, because of certain circumstances, to the end of this year. As a loss leader possibly this has been successful.
I asked the minister about the possibility of extending this program as it did not create a tremendous burden on government revenues and the government was certainly getting more than its investment back. However, the minister decided against that. The minister is to be commended for the $1,000 grant program per housing unit in high-density areas. This certainly would relate to individual homes on lots that are not too large. Certainly this part of the program will be of tremendous benefit and I give the minister full credit for it.
The program involves $1,000 for each unit in the municipality. It has been downgraded by some speakers, but I feel it is worth while and will be a tremendous shot in the arm for many municipalities which have been dragging their feet or, in plain English, have just not had sufficient funds to provide necessary services to certain lands and have had to say no to any builder or developer wanting to take part
9702

December 3, 1975
National Housing Act
in such a construction program. It will also be a special incentive to many small builders, and I think we should assist small builders, starting out, to build one or two homes. This program will enable them to provide the housing which is so necessary in many parts of rural Canada.
The limited development housing plan which will provide grants of up to $900 per apartment or unit will again provide low-rental housing. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, builders big, medium and small are not interested in building homes for rent because they cannot get sufficient rent from them. This is just not a viable plan for those builders. The only housing of any consequence in small towns in my area is the housing provided through the Ontario government. I concede that the federal government is providing the lion's share of the money.
Great emphasis should be placed on senior citizens' apartments and low-rental housing. In my own area, the council which I had the honour to head for some 26 years was the first in the Parry Sound district to go after these grants for low-rental housing and senior citizens' units. We
did make a small accomplishment just prior to my election to the House of Commons. While I was still involved with that municipal council, we obtained a further commitment from the Ontario government, and I believe there will be a senior citizens' apartment unit, with 24 apartments, opening there next month. This is a great boon to an area such as mine, my hometown of Burks Falls.
More important-and I want to point this out to the government-many of the senior citizens who are moving into these new, available units are moving from presently occupied homes which they cannot afford to maintain and heat, or even to pay the taxes on. I understand these units will become available for rent in December, so that by next spring there will be an additional number of older houses available. Of course, this is older type housing but I think this provision will certainly be worth while.
Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p. m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 4, 1975