1975-01-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time of the business of the House to raise a question of privilege in accordance with the Standing Orders.
We were amazed, my colleagues and I, to read an article in the January 28 edition of the newspaper Le Jour, in the January 27 edition of La Presse and in the January 28 edition of Le Droit, according to which the chairman of a Crown corporation-in this case, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-thundered threats at a member of this House, should the latter not act in such or such a way. I contend, very humbly, that the privileges of this House and of its committees were seriously infringed upon by this senior officer. As a matter of fact, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Chairman Laurent Picard stated, and I quote:
Federal member of Parliament Real Caouette will have to give proof of his bribery charges against certain newsmen, otherwise he will be hearing from the CBC management.
The chairman of that public corporation, Mr. Laurent Picard, made this statement himself during the weekend to a reporter of the Montreal newspaper La Presse. Mr. Picard added the following:
The CBC's information policy is one of the best and of the most open in the world and one where political interferences are practically non-existent.
Besides, and I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to this, he stated firmly that they would not be accepted.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what Mr. Picard is doing himself as regards the powers and privileges of Parliament and its committees. I call it pure and simple interference on his part. He anticipates the work of the committee. Even if the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) was to appear before the committee, as the House would like him to, according to the majority vote registered on December 19 in this House, the hon. member for Temiscamingue is convicted beforehand, he is seriously prejudiced against in the public opinion on account of the statements by the CBC chairman.
But the situation is still more serious, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the chairman of this Crown corporation, who is not unbiased in this quarrel since he is the chairman of this Crown corporation, some of whose newsmen may be concerned, uttered many serious threats, and I quote him again:
"Mr. Caouette, in the opinion of chairman Picard, is now cornered, as he must appear before long before a committee of the House of
Commons to explain the charges he made in Parliament. He will have to give names and details ...
And one can see to what degree blackmailing may go.
... otherwise the CBC management is willing to reply publicly".
Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the Standing Orders concerning a question of privilege was devised so as to allow Parliament and its members to discharge their duties without inconvenience, without obstruction of any kind. I contend, with my colleagues, that the hon. member for Temiscamingue will not be at ease to appear before the parliamentary committee as long as such a threat from a Crown corporation exists, a corporation that is itself involved in a conflict which Parliament itself wished to settle by referring it to one of its committees. The objectiveness of the committee's inquiry, with its present mandate, has been reached. Whatever may happen, Mr. Speaker, will the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada have the same facilities as Mr. Laurent Picard to give explanations through this public corporation whose operation is paid with our taxes?
This is shameless blackmail, Mr. Speaker, against a member of this House. The privilege protecting this House is designed to protect the authority and dignity of Parliament, and protect members against excessive or outside intimidation and pressures. The privilege of this House is to vest Parliament with the power to punish severely those who hold it in contempt, or seek to interfere with its members in the performance of their duties.
Before the committee appointed by the House even sits, the chairman of a Crown corporation condemns the alleged accused. He judges him publicly and causes him a serious prejudice before the whole people of this country. By this threats he wants to force a member to do something that he alone can do under the rules of this House.
As things stand now, Mr. Speaker, no matter what he says before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the hon. member for Temiscamingue stands condemned by a government official who heads newsmen who could themselves be implicated in this conflict and this inquiry. That, and I say so openly, reaches the highest level of blackmail and conflict of interest.
While saying that the hon. member for Temiscamingue will have to say such and such a thing, or the management of the CBC will take the necessary steps to force him to talk, that corporation arrogates itself a right which it does not have and which belongs only to Parliament. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Picard is guilty of intimidation, excessive pressures outside the House, and flagrant conflict of interest. That is abuse of power!
Will the hon. member for Temiscamingue have the same possibility as CBC to use the air to give his version of the

January 29, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Fortin
matter? Can the Chair give such an assurance to the hon. member for Temiscamingue? Judging by the honesty the CBC has shown for the Social Credit Party in the past there can be very serious doubts about it.
The privileges of this House are seriously prejudiced by a senior official who is an agent of this House under the legislation regulating that corporation. Indeed, that corporation is nothing more than a creation of this Parliament, and it is that corporation created by this Parliament which now wants to dictate what hon. members will do and threatens with reprisals the hon. member or members involved.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Picard even went much further when he actually said, and I quote:
And even if Mr. Caouette elected to refuse to appear before the parliamentary committee the CBC would try to make him understand that accusations cannot be made like that without rhyme or reason without supporting evidence.
However, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Chairman of the CBC is doing. He accuses and condemns the Leader of the Social Credit Party before the hon. member is even heard by a committee of the House, and following a majority vote by the House.
If this House accepts the CBC statements without retorting, there is no point for the hon. member for Temiscamingue to appear before the committee since he already stands condemned, as I said, to bear the brunt of the CBC with which he is threatened. Somehow that reminds me of justice today which allows bandits to roam around without any threat of capital punishment, and honest people to be the victims of meddling by those who hold key positions.
I say on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party that the privileges of this House are seriously prejudiced by the fact that the Chairman of a Crown corporation speaks publicly outside the House of things of which the House has not yet disposed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. If the hon. member has a motion to put in his question of privilege, I think it is nearly time to propose it.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have almost finished my remarks, Mr. Speaker. Thus making the public believe in the guilt of a man who has not been judged by his peers yet and who has not even been summoned yet.
This is a most serious offence as it has been committed by a senior official highly paid with taxpayers' money. The president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a federal official, spoke too much. He has judged, indicted and convicted a member of Parliament. He even arrogates himself the right to use the broadcasting media to threaten a member of this House. If this House permits such threats, this will create a precedent and any obscure civil servant will be able to accuse and threaten a member of Parliament who will have no right to answer through the same broadcasting media and the same means, as the media are controlled by the same person who makes such allegations without any evidence. The President of the CBC bypasses the committee of the House, blackmails an hon. member threatening him to shed light on this matter

through the broadcasting media which are taxpayer-financed. This shows the honesty of the CBC!
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, for the hon. member for Temiscamingue to appear before the committee-and I weigh my words-without any danger of reprisals, and for him to comply with the motion agreed to by this House on December 19th, it will be necessary, and it is a sine qua non requirement, that the President of the CBC be called before the committee'on privileges and elections, that he take back his threats and apologize to the hon. member of Temiscamingue and, furthermore, he will have to guarantee that the CBC will remain neutral in this conflict where it is itself involved.
If the committee on privileges and elections wish to hear witnesses, they will have to be protected against threats.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be called before the parliamentary committee on privileges and elections as a witness to take back his words, to apologize to the hon. member for Temiscamingue and to guarantee that neither himself nor the corporation will interfere in the present conflict, neither directly nor indirectly, and to explain what were the allegations of the CBC.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave notice to the Chair of his question of privilege. He is certainly aware that it is almost impossible to consider as a question of privilege, remarks made by someone outside this House against a member of Parliament or hon. members in general. Anyway, although this is a very difficult matter, fortunately, the Chair does not have to decide now whether there is a question of privilege because I already made a decision on that matter which is presently examined by the Standing Committee on privileges and elections. It is quite possible that following a decision of this House, the question has been referred already to the standing committee. Every member of this House may suggest to this committee that Mr. Picard should be called as a witness before the committee to explain his remarks and this is why I regret to turn down now the question of privilege.



DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF FRENCH EDITION OF HANSARD

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse rises on a question of privilege.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday on a question of privilege to the effect that the French edition of Hansard was issued far too late on the following day to French speaking members.
Now, today, January 29, 1975, at noon sharp, the French copy of the Tuesday, January 28 1975 Hansard had not yet been delivered to my office.
I do not wish to incriminate or blame anyone for their carelessness. I am also aware that the House of Commons civil servants have a sometimes difficult task to carry out and that they cannot deliver copies of the Hansard and other parliamentary documents as long as the printing services have not yet made them available for distribution. Even in the printing service, I know everyone is doing his
January 29, 1975

best and they sometimes operate under conditions and at hours that might be described as inhuman.
However, in the past, when the French copy of the Hansard came in late, it was usually argued that they delay was due to the fact that several French speaking members had taken part in the debate and it took much more time than usual to translate their speeches, and I am quite willing to accept this as a valid reason; bearing that in mind as well as the fact that on Monday, January 27 there was only limited participation by French speaking members in the debates, since I was the only one in my party who did, that is apparently no valid justification for the delay in delivering the French edition of Hansard.
Considering, Mr. Speaker, that on Wednesday, January 29 1975 at noon sharp the French edition of Hansard had not yet been delivered to my office, I am justified in wondering very seriously what is wrong with the printing and delivery. If the translation services are understaffed, I think it might be possible to hire some additional translators.
Mr. Speaker, I am now referring to a decision held yesterday by the Chair to the effect that during the question period members and parties represented in this House draw the attention of the Chair to be recognized so that all questions to be asked by members will be justified.
I am now referring to section 17, page 14, of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Here is how it reads:
Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to Parliament... that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of Parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm.
He does not serve for a party, he serves for the whole realm. That is what is found in Beauchesne's I quote again:
For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents, but the commonwealth.
And that is what I intend to do in this House, according to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
Consequently, because of the facts I have just pointed out, that is the privileges of all members, French-speaking or English-speaking, we are entitled to the same services, the same privileges, we have the same duties and I firmly intend to serve my country, Mr. Speaker, without any discrimination on the basis of race, religion or language.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House authorize the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to consider the late distribution of the French edition of the Debates, and make appropriate recommendations in order that the Speaker of the House and his entire staff be in a position to comply with the rights of French-speaking members as well as English-speaking members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is raising that matter for the second time. Again, I say that it is an important issue and I would like to defer my ruling.
Industry



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the only computerized system for paying unemployment benefits in the whole of the province of Quebec is located in Montreal, and whereas the UIC employees report that the computer is almost always out of order, and unable to process benefit payments on time, and considering the constant growth of unemployment in Canada, more especially in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That a second paying computer be put into operation in Montreal and that additional computer technicians be hired to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the computer system in order that the thousands of unemployment insurance recipients be no longer penalized on account of the non-operation of the one existing computer.


Mr. Speaker:: I have considered the motion. The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member but in my opinion it is by no means urgent even though it involves a matter which is important and may even be serious. It is matter of continuing importance but I believe there is neither urgency nor pressing necessity about it.


INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter which is most certainly of an urgent and pressing necessity since it relates to an industry employing many workers, namely the textile industry.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House authorize the standing committee or finance, trade and economic affairs to examine without any delay the total impact on the Canadian industry of our imports of textile products and also to investigate the possible relationship between those imports and the lay offs in the textile industry in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I have again listened to the motion, but, although this question is of an important nature, it was raised for the first time a few weeks ago in the House, and the situation is the same as before. I am sorry but, because of that, I am of the opinion that the motion misses the point and that the matter is not of an urgent and pressing necessity.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: With all due respect to the Chair, and God knows how I like to go along with the Standing Orders, I would like to point and that at the beginning of this session, in the performance of my duties

Freight Rate Freeze
as a member of this House, I requested unanimous consent, under Standing Order 43, and I asked that any member, opposing unanimous consent for a motion put under the Standing Orders of the House, be assured that the question would be solved so that our procedures and rules be respected. So, any member objecting to such a motion made under Standing Order 43, should necessarily, pursuant to our rules, express his opposition, would it be only by a word, generally by a very clear "no". Our Standing Orders stipulate that when a member seeks the floor, he must first take his hat off although it is a little old-fashioned to require us to do so since we have none, and ask the Chair for permission to speak. At that time, the Chair had heard the very appropriate remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse and had stated that it would study them very carefully in the light of the Standing Orders of this House.
We are now nearly in February. I am convinced that the Chair has considered the representations made by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I am convinced that, in all honesty, it is ready to make a decision on the observance of this Standing Order in particular. In closing, I would like to ask the Chair if in the days to come the members of this House will be made aware of your decision so that in the future we may act accordingly and follow your decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: To clarify the situation, perhaps for the last time, I shall repeat exactly the words of Standing Order 43, which, in French, begins with these words:
Dans un cas d'urgence...
Because of these words, I believe it is always up to the Chair to decide, first, whether or not a motion concerns an urgent matter. This is my opinion and I consider it my duty to act accordingly at all times.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If it concerns the same issue, I have the impression that it constitutes a discussion on a decision made by the Chair, which is absolutely forbidden by our Standing Orders.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the existing legal and political confusion in the very serious matter of national transportation policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre:
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to approach the railways immediately of Transport to approach the railways immediately to obtain their voluntary agreement to extend the freight rate freeze at least until the government announces its promised new transportation policy; and failing to obtain such an agreement the House instruct the minister to prepare and introduce at the earliest possible date legislation which would give the government the authority to impose such a freeze.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to debate a case of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Canadian forces airport at Val-d'Or was recently closed by the Department of National Defence. Hundreds of families in the Val-d'Or area depend on armed forces activities for their livelyhood. The shutting down of this air force base is causing hardship to a number of businesses. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That th's House request the Minister of National Defense to consider reopening the Canadian Forces base at Val-d'Or, and that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be asked to investigate the possibility of reactivating the base, which is vital to the economy of Quebec's northwest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House heard the motion by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be made.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to raise a point of special significance requesting immediate attention.
Since inflation rages in our economy and constantly reduces the dollar's real purchasing power, and since increases reach critical proportions requiring urgent measures to prevent total destruction of our economy and society, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
January 29, 1975

That this House strongly urge the Minister of Finance to study with utmost speed Bill C-328, an Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with inflation of prices, and also to initiate as soon as possible implementation of measures put forward in that legislation proposed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. Measures proposed in that bill are adequate to stop the havoc of inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Once more the hon. member put forward what in my opinion in a motion on a matter of importance, but a matter that is before the House every day, namely the economy and the price increase. It is therefore my opinion it is totally devoid of any element of urgency.


NATIONAL DISASTERS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent and important matter.
In view of the serious landslides which occurred and are still occurring near the crater of the Canadian John's Manville's mine at Asbestos, sweeping along whole houses and buildings into the mine and leaving more than 80 families homeless, and since the situation represents a serious threat to the security of citizens as well as an excessive financial burden for the municipality of Asbestos which must relocate in a very short time a whole section of the town, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House of Commons be allowed to discuss now the possibility that the federal government, in cooperation with the provincial government and the town of Asbestos, might provide some assistance to the citizens affected by the disaster, help relocate them and take part, if necessary, in the permanent establishment of a really safe buffer area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
 * *


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO PROCEDURE FOR ORAL QUESTION PERIOD-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S O. 43
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 and following a precedent which was set yesterday in this House, as reported on page 2668 of Hansard, and I quote:
Privilege-Mr. Fortin


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 or to make a comment on a ruling of the Chair?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 and following a ruling of the Chair.
In view of the precedent created yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who was a victim of that situation:
That at the beginning of the oral question period every day, the Chair formally inform each party of the number of questions it will be allowed to ask in relation to the number of members present in the House at that time, since this custom was established by the Chair yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has again moved a motion which, in my opinion, has no character of urgency whatsoever.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think all members of the House had better take cognizance of the fact that Social Credit members are trying to make a farce and mockery of parliament, the rights of parliament and the rights and responsibilities of members to do their job. Creditiste members are misusing the rules of this House to the point where their actions are doing damage to parliament and to the way we work in this institution. If they cannot be fair about the rules of the House I think everybody, including you, Mr. Speaker, had better act and see that we have rules to protect us all, so that we can all do our job here and not have to put up with the farce we are witnessing.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with what has just been said to the effect that Social Crediters are making a farce of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the motions moved by my colleagues under Standing Order 43, particularly that of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) which referred to families buried under a landslide because of mines where workers are being exploited, I think it is a matter of high priority, and if the Conservatives failed to understand that, no wonder they do not get more votes in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives do not know what is happening in the province of Quebec, if they do not care about it and are satisfied with disparaging other Quebecers as they have done for some members of this party, I think it is the duty of Social Crediters to protest in the House.
Mr. Speaker, all the Conservatives want, being members of an English-speaking party, is to slander the Social Crediters, the French Canadians, but we intend to stand our ground. As to whether the Standing Orders of the House are a farce, I understand that Standing Order 43

January 29, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Fortin
might be so. The Standing Orders are protected by the Tories who want to preserve the old British character of this institution, like the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), while we are Canadians and we want an updated institution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The hon. member for Bellechasse wishes to move a motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the war that has been started to turn into an internal war within Parliament. I would not want that at all and I would be the last man to fight in such a war.
However, with regard to the question of privilege that has just been raised, I have felt singled out as the member for Bellechasse because of the remarks I made yesterday, and even the corrections I made and the motion I moved. About the question of privilege I raised today, I could not accept that as a complete Canadian in my country when the French network of the CBC has been showing for three weeks the french version of "The Great Challenge" through which everyone in Canada can witness the debates that took place in this House on the construction of a railway in Western Canada.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, with all the good faith of a 100 per cent Canadian, to understand the purpose of those debates, the interventions of each member, be he a Liberal, Progressive Conservative, or an Independent. I understood that all those hon. members were considering Canada's future, greatness and development. That is what I understood. On January 28, January 29 and tomorrow, if necessary, the hon. member for Bellechasse will perform his duty. We have privileges in this House, and I feel humiliated at the fact that certain hon. members misunderstand our interventions today which are in order.
We make them, as in the times of Macdonald and all the others, for our rights in this Parliament and in this country to be recognized.
Mr. Speaker, we are going through difficult times. We need an undomitable courage as French-speaking Canadians in this country and in this Parliament to take a stand in face of that wave of separatism we are now experiencing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this: whether we are understood, whether the fact that we are French-speaking or English-speaking is understood, we want the rights and privileges of each and everyone to be respected in this House. If we sometimes use steps that are beyond the general understanding of some hon. members, that is not our fault. Personally, I will continue to fight to live in Canada in total freedom and in the respect of this institution.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As recorded in Hansard for yesterday, page 2667, you took notice of my absence when you counted heads on this side of the House. Today, I feel I must advise you, Mr. Speaker, that my absence yesterday was due to the fact that my wife had to be taken to the Cowansville hospital, Room 218, to undergo a serious operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is clearly not a matter for a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has already risen on this same question of privilege and the matter is closed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must regretfully advise the hon. member that I have listened to him twice already after he had risen on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is very important. According to our Standing Orders, I have the right to rise on a question of privilege. I have the right to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has caught my eye. He is trying for the third time to rise on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I request it.


Mr. Speaker:: He has caught my eye, and if it is at all possible later on this afternoon, I shall hear again the hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege. Meanwhile, we must proceed with the business of the House.
The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 49, 147, 249, 322, 350, 420, 438, 439, 692, 845, 864, 884, 898, 906, 995, 996, 997, 1013, 1080, 1114, 1173, 1174, 1179, 1188 and 1191.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 190, 416, 505, 566, 567, 714, 880, 957, 987, 1052, 1128, 1146 and 1170 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Of the total number of government employees enrolled in language courses, how many have obtained leaves of absence from their employment, with pay, during the period of language training?
2.	Of this total number, how many have leaves of absence (a) for part of each day or week of their employment (b) for a week or longer (c) for a month or longer?
3.	Of the number who have obtained leaves of absence for a month or more, how many secured their language training in Ottawa and how many outside Ottawa?

January 29, 1975

4.	Of the number who obtained their language training, while on leaves of absence outside Ottawa, what are the names, positions, salary classifications and site where the language training was provided?
5.	What has been the total cost of this type of language training and are expenses paid to those securing the training and, if so, what has been the cost of such specific type language training since the Official Languages Act received passage?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary o£ State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No government employees enrolled in the Public Service Commission's language schools are on leave of absence from their employment, with pay. They are considered to be in full time attendance at work during the period of their language training.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
N.B.: See Tables I, II and III of the Public Service Commission 1973 Annual Report, Section on Training and Development (pages 18 and 19)


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Ministry of State for Science and Technology received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: (a) 20; (b) 5; (c) 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving any consideration to removing the federal sales tax from building materials used in the construction of municipal buildings by local governments?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The
November 18 Budget contained proposals to reduce federal sales tax to 5 per cent on a comprehensive list of construction materials. This tax relief will apply to building materials used in the construction of municipal buildings.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What are the (a) present salary ranges (b) official duties assigned to each of the following Section Heads in the Resource Industries and Construction Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (i) General Director (ii) Research and Planning Division (iii) Director-Metals and Minerals (iv) Iron and Steel (v) Industrial Minerals (vi) Non-Ferrous (vii) Construction (viii) Forest Products (ix) Primary Wood Products (x) Manufactured Wood Products (xi) Pulp and Paper (xii) Programs?
2.	(a) What was the actual written output produced by each of the above sections from August 1, 1973 to August 1, 1974 (b) how many of
Order Paper Questions
these publications (per section) were used by (i) that division (ii) other departmental divisions (iii) the public?
3.	(a) What was the overall budget for the Resource Industries and Construction for the fiscal year 1973 (b) what percentage of this budget was used to pay salaries for this Branch?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) The
salary grades and ranges for the management group of the Resource Industries and Construction Branch are as follows: (1) General Director-SX2-$29,000 to $37,000; (2) Directors-Metals and Minerals and Forest Products Groups-SX1-$25,000 to $32,000; (3) Chiefs of the following divisions-C04-$24,129 to $30,032; Research and Planning; Iron and Steel; Non-Ferrous Metals; Industrial Minerals; Primary Wood Products; Manufactured Wood Products; Pulp and Paper; Construction; Programs, (b) The Resource Industries and Construction Branch is one of seven Industry Sector Branchs reporting to the assistant deputy minister-Industry Development. The duties of the general director, directors and chiefs in general are to direct and administer a branch whose mandate is basically industrial and trade development. Its general objective, within its area of responsibility, is to develop and administer policies and programs designed to foster an efficient manufacturing and secondary processing industry which can meet competition at home and abroad.
2.	(a) and (b): No count is maintained. The written output of the branch consists largely of correspondence with business firms, other federal departments, provincial governments and private citizens, also intradepartmental memoranda and reports.
3.	(a) The total budget for the Resource Industries and Construction Branch for the fiscal year 1973-74 was $4,146,256. Included in this figure was $1,825,210 in grants and contributions, (b) Of this amount salaries and wages accounted for $1,674,318 or 40.4 per cent.


Mr. Reynolds: Has the government any plans through the method of special grants to assist school boards in local municipalities and cities to cover costs conversion to the metric system?


Gaston Clermont: The policy of the government in regard to metric conversion was outlined in the White Paper on Metric Conversion laid before the House in January 1970 and approved by the leaders of all parties. Throughout this white paper the analysis is based on the assumption that the costs of conversion will be borne by those incurring them, just as the benefits flowing from conversion will accrue to the individual organizations, either directly or through the general health of the economy. In the case of education the responsibility for costs is in the jurisdiction of the provinces. To the extent that there may be in some cases an unreasonable burden placed on the budgets of individual school divisions this is primarily a responsibility of the province to meet. However, the benefits that the program of metric conversion will bring to the general health of the economy will be experienced by the provinces and to the same extent as by the Federal Government.

Order Paper Questions DECREASE IN STOCK MARKET


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government aware that, despite suggestions that company profits have increased, the majority of Canadian company shareholders have seen the stock market value of their holdings decrease by an average of 40 per cent in the past few months?
2.	Is the government considering indexing the capital gains tax, so that shareholders investing in the economy of their country are not obliged to pay taxes on gains resulting from inflation rather than on real appreciation of value?


John Napier Turner: Taxation of capital gains is an issue that is under continuing review. The government has implemented a wide range of measures to combat the inflation rate which is one of the principal causes of the weakness in the stock market values. For Canadians, indexing is a relatively new concept, and it is too early to assess its overall impact from either a tax or economic point of view. We will be in a better position to determine the applicability of other forms of indexing once we have gained more experience with our initial steps with this concept. In applying the current taxation rate on capital gains, the government takes into account the following facts: (1) The capital gains tax is a component of necessary government revenues. A decrease in the capital gains tax would require a corresponding increase in some other area of our tax system. (2) At the time of tax reform, it was decided that only one-half of capital gains would be taxable, partially in recognition that a portion of capital appreciation is a result of inflation and not real growth. (3) To a limited extent, capital gains are currently indexed as the tax brackets for individuals are increased annually to adjust for inflation and one-half of capital gains are included in the computation of personal income. (4) Depreciable as well as non-depreciable capital assets would have to be indexed and this would cause major problems for the taxation of depreciable assets. At the present time, the Department of Finance has undertaken a study of the capital cost allowance system which includes consideration of the impact of inflation on depreciable capital property.


Mr. Jones: Have any considerations and studies been made providing for a home owner to deduct from his net taxable income the high amount of annual interest rates paid on a mortgage and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, does the government intend to cause such considerations and studies to be made and implement such a program to assist as an incentive to home ownership which is so affected by high interest rates, high prices and other inflationary influences?


John Napier Turner: The question of providing a mortgage interest deduction has received study and consideration on several occasions. On each such occasion this particular deduction was rejected, in large measure because of the availability of more equitable or efficient methods of encouraging or facilitating home ownership. Deductions of the sort proposed will undoubtedly receive consideration again in future. The question of implementation would, of course, be a budgetary matter and would be treated in the normal manner for such matters.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the government received any communications, verbal, written or of any kind whatsoever, from the Ontario Government on the subject of the expiry in March, 1976 of the Canadian section of the Thousand Island Bridge Authority and, if so (a) on what dates, specifically, from whom and what was the nature of same (b) has the Province indicated possible agreement to extension of the Authority's life on the Canadian side of the border until 1981 in order to conform with the expiry date in that year on the American side and will the government also agree to this?
2.	Is the government aware of the expressed willingness of the Thousand Island Bridge Authority to support any steps necessary to bring about Canadian representation on the Authority?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. (a) The province has summarized these communications as follows: (i) Ontario considers international facilities a federal responsibility except as specifically delegated and accepted by a provincial government, (ii) Ontario has not objected to extending the Thousand Island reversion date to 1981, pending the development of a formal Ontario policy regarding international facilities, (iii) On the basis of item (i), Ontario will accept management of the Canadian spans of the Thousand Island crossing only if the federal government finances any resulting (annual) deficits, including necessary maintenance and capital as well as operating expenditures. (iv) Pending the development of a formal Ontario policy regarding international facilities, Items (ii) and (iii) are not to be interpreted as precedent positions, (b) Answered by 1 (a).
2. Yes.


Mr. Malone: 1.	Is the Department of Manpower and Immigration establishing an optimum population for the Canadian community and, if so, what is the optimum size for the Canadian population?
2.	What factors contributed to determining to what size Canada's population ultimately ought to grow?
3.	Is the government planning to stabilize the growth of the population and, if so, what changes will be made in the Immigration Act?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. No, the department is not establishing an optimum population for the Canadian community as such, because there is considerable doubt that any unique optimum can be determined. The department has been examining the impact of alternate rates of population growth and the possibility of developing appropriate demographic policies. An interdepartmental group has been established to study the question.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The government has no current plan to stabilize the growth of the population.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many parcels that were to have passed through the Vancouver Post Office in 1973 were designated by that office to be lost in the mail?
January 29, 1975

2.	How many of these lost items were reported to be from mail order establishments such as record clubs or book clubs?
3.	Have there been any cases in which employees of the Vancouver Post Office have been found to be re-addressing such items without cause with change of address labels and, if so (a) how many (b) is the incidence greater in the Christmas season?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. 2,084. However, since records are not kept of individual items of this type of mail, losses might be attributable to other handling offices as well. Moreover, in the case of parcel mailings going to commercial addresses, since signatures are not taken at the time of delivery, in some cases shipments may actually have been received.
2.	This type of statistical information is not normally maintained.
3.	None recorded, (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Minister of Finance indicate on January 15, 1973 that the federal and provincial governments are working towards the establishment of a central information centre with the intention of providing, at one central point, information on the borrowing requirements of federal and provincial governments and, if so, what progress has been made?


John Napier Turner: On January 15, 1973 the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, indicated that in his meetings with provincial finance ministers the previous June, an agreement had been made to create a centralized information system which would gather information on the borrowing intentions of provincial governments and the federal government. The subject of a borrowing information system was discussed at the January 18, 1973 meeting of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers. At that time, it was reported that progress on the information gathering system had begun and that discussions with provinces had taken place in establishing the technical basis for the system. Further technical work was undertaken during 1973 and provinces submitted their borrowing intentions on the newly-established technical basis in time for the January, 1974 meeting of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers. During 1974, more technical federal-provincial discussions were under-taken to further refine the system. This culminated in a collection of information in November 1974 and a preparation of a summary borrowing report for 1974-75 which was presented at the December 9 meeting of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	Does the Air Transport Committee, when granting licences to Canadian airlines, require them to integrate their schedules, where possible, with other airlines, so that passengers using more than one airline are not subject to long and unconscionable delays when transferring and, if not, has any consideration been given to instituting such a policy?
2.	For what reason is it necessary for Air Canada's Flight 135 to leave Montreal at 11.40, thus requiring passengers from the Atlantic Provinces arriving from EPA's Flight 101 and from Air Canada's Flight 639
Order Paper Questions
travelling to Ottawa to remain in Montreal until 15.15 hours from 11.30 hours and 11.50 hours respectively?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Air
Transport Committee policy is reflected in the Air Carrier Regulations which by Section 18 (1) (f) requires licensed class 1, 2, 8 and 9-2 air carriers to provide reasonable through service to connect with other carriers, and by Section 86 requires such carriers to furnish copies of their schedules to connecting carriers and to provide evidence that this has been done by a notation to this effect on any filing advice sent to the committee with any schedule or pattern filing or amendment.
2. Air Canada's Flight 135 is primarily intended to provide service from Ottawa to Toronto and Regina and is scheduled one hour later than the airline would actually prefer, due to difficulties in obtaining an available aircraft at an earlier hour. To provide a connection from EPA's flight, it would be necessary to delay AC 135 for a further 50 minutes, resulting in both an unacceptable deterioration in this flight's schedule and the loss of a flight frequency later in the day. A morning service, with a 50-minute connection in Montreal, and a direct late afternoon service is provided every day between Moncton and Ottawa. These services are considered more than adequate to handle an estimated flow of 20 to 30 passengers daily. Air Canada co-operates with all regional carriers to effect the best possible integration of schedules whenever and wherever possible, provided that there is not a prohibitive deterioration of Air Canada's services, and inefficient use of equipment and resources, or unacceptable increased costs.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In reference to the answer to Question No. 529, did the responsible department receive reports on OFY project 4H-1553?
2.	(a) Was the department aware of the media publicity given to this project (b) was any special action taken to ensure that project funding was properly utilized?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes. The Project Financial Report and the Final Project Report were received.
2. (a) No; (b) Yes. On September 5, 1974, the Audit Services Bureau of the Department of Supply and Services prepared a report on the financial administration of the project indicating that project monies were properly utilized.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the advertising budget of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	(a) What amount of money is spent by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on advertising in foreign countries (b) in what countries is this money spent (c) how much in each?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Advertising

January 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions
budget: Paid advertising, $1,121,100; Other publications, exhibits, etc. $737,000; Total $1,858,100.
2. (a) $43,650; (b) and (c) France, $35,000; Austria, $500; United States of America, $150; Holland, $8,000.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any positions on the staff of the Post Office at Gananoque, Ontario been designated as bilingual and, if so, what are these specific positions and what are all the reasons they were designated?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: No.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any positions on the staff of the Post Office at Smiths Falls, Ontario been designated as bilingual and, if so, what are these specific positions and what are all the reasons they were designated?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: No.


Mr. Cossitt: Have any positions on the staff of the Post Office at Brockville, Ontario been designated as bilingual and, if so, what are these specific positions and what are all the reasons they were designated?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: No.


Mr. Reynolds: What is the breakdown of the recipients of $4,821,000 in Canada Council grants that went to projects of national scope?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: The $4,821,000 reported in reply to question 639 as having been awarded for projects of national scope in 1973-74 included: $2,177,000 in the humanities and social sciences for grants to learned societies and publication of learned journals (pp. 128-131 and 139-141 of 17th Annual Report); and $2,644,070 in the arts distributed as follows: Touring Office Grants, $465,000; Art Bank Purchases, $791,000; Organizations described as of national scope for purposes of statistical reporting, $1,220,070; Miscellaneous, $268,000. The amount awarded to organizations considered of national scope breaks down as follows: Animation/Recherche/Confronta-tion (for a Canadian video exhibition in Paris), $35,500; Association of Canadian Orchestras, $18,300; Canadian Artists' Representation, $15,000; Canadian Federation of Music Teachers' Association, $770; Canadian Film Institute, $90,000; Canadian Guild of Crafts, $10,000; Canadian Music Centre, $100,000; Canadian Music Council, $46,000; Canadian Writers' Foundation, $3,800; Conference of Canadian Writers, $3,700; Council of Canadian Filmmak-

ers, $5,000; DDF/Theatre Canada, $28,000; Encyclopedia of Music in Canada, $25,000; Murray Farr, Management Consultant for small dance companies, $15,000; International Animated Film Association, $3,000; National Ballet School, $240,000; National Concert Bureau, $17,000; National Theatre School, $508,000; National Youth Orchestra, $48,000; Toronto Filmmakers' Co-op, $8,000; Total $1,220,070.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Of the 5,300 World War I veterans residing outside Canada, how many are receiving War Veterans Allowances (a) at the single rate (b) at the married rate?
2.	Of the 5,300 World War I veterans residing outside Canada, how many are receiving the Old Age Pension at (a) the basic rate (b) the Old Age Pension plus the Guaranteed Income Supplement?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. (a) 67; (b) 88.
2. The Old Age Security records do not show whether or not an OAS pensioner is a veteran of the armed forces. Therefore, the information requested cannot be provided.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the strength of the RCMP in each of the two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec?
2.	What is the estimated strength of the RCMP in each of the other eight provinces which would be necessary for law enforcement that is the responsibility of the government?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Ontario, 1,466 (Does not include headquarters); Quebec, 1,086.
2. British Columbia, 697; Alberta, 411; Saskatchewan, 185; Manitoba, 231; New Brunswick, 142; Nova Scotia, 205; Prince Edward Island, 51; Newfoundland, 160.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What were the names and addresses of barristers and solicitors in the Province of Newfoundland who were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to prepare mortgage documentation to secure loans advanced by CMHC for new construction in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?
2.	Are these lawyers selected by CMHC or by the borrower?
3.	Are the legal fees charged by these lawyers paid by CMHC or by the borrower?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. For loans approved for new construction in 1972 in the province of Newfoundland, the lawyers retained by CMHC to prepare mortgage documentation were listed in answer to Question 91, in the Second Session of the 29th Parliament (Hansard March 13, 1974, Page 469). For loans approved in 1973 and in the first ten months of 1974, in the province of Newfoundland, the
January 29, 1975

following lawyers were retained by CMHC to prepare mortgage documentation in connection with CMHC direct loans.
Carbonear	Roland A. Brewer
Corner Brook	Gordon G. Easton, Q.C. Clyde K. Wells
Gander	Lloyd F. Easton
Grand f alls	Clarence J. Dwyer
Harbour Grace	A. Douglas B. Moores
Marystown	Frederick R. Bishop
St. John's	W. G. Adams, Q.C. Fintan J. Aylward, Q.C. A. Kader Bootwala Timothy J. Chalker George W. Clarke, Q.C. P. Derek Lewis, Q.C. John W. Mahoney, Q.C. Gerald F. O'Brien F. Alfred D. Pike David G. Riche William R. Smallwood, Q.C. Wayne F. Spracklin Leslie R. Thomas
1974	
Carbonear	Roland A. Brewer
Corner Brook	Gordon G. Easton, Q.C. Clyde K. Wells
Gander	Lloyd F. Easton
Grand Falls	Clarence J. Dwyer
Harbour Grace	A. Douglas B. Moores
Labrador City	Miller and Hearn
M arystown	Frederick R. Bishop
St. John's	W. G. Adams, Q.C. Fintan J. Aylward, Q.C. A. Kaer Bootwala Timothy J. Chalker George W. Clarke, Q.C. P. Derek Lewis, Q.C. John W. Mahoney, Q.C. Gerald F. O'Brien F. Alfred D. Pike David G. Riche William R. Smallwood, Q.C. Wayne F. Spracklin Peter Strong Leslie R. Thoms
2.	These lawyers are selected by CMHC.
3.	The legal fees charged by these lawyers are paid by the borrower.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Agriculture aware of the outbreak of more than the usual amount of rabies in the County of Leeds area and, if so, is consideration being given to holding a series of rabies clinics throughout the area for domestic pets as has been done on occasions in the past under such circumstances?
2.	Will the Department announce the holding of such rabies clinics in Leeds and, if so, on what date will the announcement be made?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. During the past three months, three cases of rabies have been found in Leeds county. This is the same number of cases
Order Paper Questions
as last year in the same three-month period. In both years, the cases were in wildlife.
2. As there has been no rabies in dogs and cats and no increase in the number of cases over last year, anti-rabies vaccination clinics are not planned at this time. The situation will continue to be reviewed continually on a monthly basis.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is it the intention of the government to give consideration to including deaf persons as disabled under the provisions of the Income Tax Act?


John Napier Turner: A number of requests have been received by the Department of Finance to consider treating deaf persons as disabled for Income Tax Act purposes. This matter will receive consideration when proposals for amendments to the act are being studied in preparation for the next budget.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each province, what was the amount of money made available for construction of homes for Indian people in the past three years?
2.	What is the Indian population of each province?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
$000's	$000's	1000'sProvince	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Prince Edward Island	50.7	34.7	25.0Nova Scotia	775.7	524.4	760.3New Brunswick	563.1	615.7	719.9Quebec	7,584.7	6,384.1	4,039.1Ontario	3,606.6	3,514.9	5,467.5Manitoba	3,340.0	3,815.5	3,460.1Saskatchewan	3,510.9	3,355.5	4,027.2Alberta	2,665.4	2,457.3	2,675.4British Columbia	3,773.2	3,482.5	4,087.9Yukon	350.8	198.3	556.8
2.
Province	Indian Population
Prince Edward Island	463
Nova Scotia	4,986
New Brunswick	4,723
Quebec	29,376
Ontario	59,405
Manitoba	39,095
Saskatchewan	40,118
Alberta	31,777
British Columbia	50,973
Yukon	2,655
Northwest Territories	6,933
2714

January 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Brisco: How many building material supply firms and retail and wholesale lumber firms does the government propose to monitor now that the building materials tax has been reduced to 5 per cent?


Barnett Jerome Danson: CMHC monitors the prices and availability of residential building materials for all 23 metropolitan areas of Canada, on a quarterly basis. During the first quarter of 1975 this survey will be conducted monthly, and the respondents will be asked specifically about the effect of sales tax reduction on the prices of building materials.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What percentage of total income was paid in taxes as a percentage of income for individuals making (a) under $2,000 (b) $2,000 to $4,000 (c) $4,000 to $6,000 (d) $6,000 to $8,000 (e) $8,000 to $10,000 (f) $10,000 to $15,000 (g) $15,000 to $25,000 (h) $25,000 and over?
2.	Of this percentage, what percentage was for federal income tax- personal and corporate, and all other federal, provincial and local taxes?
Return tabled.



VITAMIN AND MINERAL COMPOSITION OF NO. 1 NORTHERN WHEAT

Mr. Reid: 1.	What is the vitamin and mineral composition of 1 lb. of No. 1 Northern Wheat?
2.	What is the vitamin and mineral composition of 1 lb. of No. 1 Northern Wheat when it is (a) ground into whole wheat flour (b) ground into all purpose bleached white flour (c) ground into all purpose enriched bleached white flour (d) "stone ground" into flour?
Return tabled.



DAMAGE TO RAILROAD PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF DERAILMENTS

Mr. MacKay: For each year since 1968, what was the total cost for damage to railroad property, rolling stock, roadbeds, etc., resulting from derailments, collisions and other mishaps?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Symes: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
[Mrs. Campagnolo.l
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-TRAVELLING EXPENDITURES

Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the persons(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.



STUDY INTO IMPACT OF MERCURY IN THE ENGLISH RIVER SYSTEM

Mr. Reid: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare commission a study into the impact of mercury in the English River System as it affects the people living at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog, Ontario?
2.	On what date was that report tabled in the House of Commons?
3.	As a result of this report, what were the specific actions taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to assist the people at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog?
4.	What action did the Departments take to assist the people of Grassy Narrows and Whitedog in cooperation with the Government of Ontario?
5.	In its report on mercury pollution, did the Department of National Health and Welfare Task Force take into consideration the information available from Japan as a result of their tragic experience with mercury polluted fish?
6.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare a program on the impact of mercury on humans or animals and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so (i) what is the description of the program (ii) what is its cost?
Return tabled.
January 29, 1975

Motions for Papers
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE TRAINING-EXPENDITURES BY	DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
PROVINCES	DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS

Question No. 957-Mr. Herbert:
1.	How much has been allocated by individual province in each of the years for which the program has been in existence for official language training, not including training programs for federal employees?
2.	What agreements have been signed on the utilization of these funds?
Return tabled.



MONEY GRANTED TO AMATEUR SPORTS

Mr. Huntington: 1.	How much money is granted annually to amateur sports?
2.	What is the breakdown, by sport, of the total amount granted?
3.	(a) How many people are involved in (b) what are the costs of the administration of amateur sports under Department of National Health and Welfare programs?
Return tabled.



PRINTING OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH DEBATES

Mr. Horner: 1.	On what date did the government decide to have the printing of the English Debates of both Houses of Parliament done by a French language unit?
2.	On what date does the government intend to have the printing of the French Debates of both Houses of Parliament done by an English language unit?
3.	On what date will the President of the Treasury Board, who is also a Commissioner of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, Table an equivalent report to that which he Tabled in the House on November 21 and will there be included in this Report the corresponding information and data on those employees of the government agencies engaged in translation, interpretation and printing of House and Committee debates, proceedings and publications?
4.	What were the respective numbers and percentages of anglophone and francophone employees in Part 3 as of June, 1973 and November, 1974?
5.	What steps have been taken since the enactment of the Official Languages Act to achieve full participation in employment by branches and agencies affected in Part 3 by members of both the anglophone and francophone communities?
6.	Has the Official Languages Commissioner made any studies, recommendations, reports or any other contributions with respect to any of these matters and, if so, to what nature and extent?
Return tabled.



PAYMENT OF SUBSIDIES FOR OPERATING FERRY SERVICES

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	For each fiscal year 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, what sums were paid in subsidies, and to whom, for operating ferry services in each of the ten provinces?
2.	What sums are contemplated for the same purpose, and on the same area breakdown, for 1974-75 and to whom are they to be paid, item by item?
3.	For the same periods from 1971 to 1975, and on the same area breakdown, what sums were paid in subsidies, and to whom, as capital costs for the construction or maintenance of ferries, terminal upkeep and construction of ferry slipways?
4.	In the case of grants for capital purposes, what proportion of the total capital cost was the federal subsidy in each case and, in each, from whom did the residue come?
Return tabled.

Question No. 1,146-Mr. Matte:
Between May 1, 1971 and December 31, 1973, did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development enter into any contract with Tremblay, Heroux et Associes or with Sanitek and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the precise nature of such contracts (c) how much was each contract worth?
Return tabled.



TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-NUMBER OF REVENUE PASSENGERS

Mr. Stevens: For the years 1973 and 1974, by month, what were the total number of revenue passengers carried into or out of Toronto International Airport No. 1 by (a) Air Canada (b) CP air (c) all scheduled carriers?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 20 and 22.



COPY OF REPRESENTATIONS OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD RELATING TO WEYBURN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representations between (a) the Honourable Otto Lang, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. Roderick Bryden, or Bryden Ltd. (b) any Commissioner or official of the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. Bryden or Bryden Ltd., regarding any condition or matter that would affect the feasibility, construction or operation of an inland terminal at Weyburn.
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are no such documents and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, since there are no such documents, I will withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.



COPIES OF STUDIES RELATING TO CANADIAN SHIPPING AND SHIPYARDS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, notes, position papers, memoranda, etc., relating to the requirements of Canadian shipping with respect to the proposed formula for import/ export conference rated seaborne trade, in terms of the number of ships required, the capacity of Canadian shipyards, the number of Canadian merchant seamen required, the level of ancilliary shipyards, the number of Canadian merchant seamen required, the level of ancilliary shipyard related industries of design capability, etc., in the event Canada ratifies the proposed Code of Conduct for liner conferences.
28626-37)4
[Stage Direction]
January 29, 1975
Oral Questions
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of Canadian seaborne trade is not carried by liner conferences. If and when the convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences becomes effective, and is acceded to by Canada and by Canada's major trading partners, it is not clear what influence the proposed non-mandatory 40-40-20 cargo sharing formula would have. The formula would relate not only to a member state's flag vessels but even to chartered vessels participating in a liner conference. Because of these circumstances, studies have not been prepared on the hypothetical ramifications of the proposed cargo sharing formula for Canadian ships, shipyards, shipyard related activities, or merchant seaman.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who was here a moment ago. The minister was involved in a geographical rather than a transportation problem. The minister stated in the House last Thursday that a federal-provincial committee on transportation would make a study and that if anyone were seriously affected by the 25 per cent increase in freight rates, measures would be taken to protect him. Has the federal-provincial committee commenced that study? If so, when did it commence and when will the study be completed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when I proposed that to the ministers of transport of the Atlantic provinces, they agreed. They said they should have their officials meet and study each case because in some cases it may have an impact. The future of some firms might be jeopardized by this decision. They said they wanted to study each case rather than have a general rule because it is well known that some firms profited by the freeze, increasing their prices to the same extent. It was real gold for them. We, of course, do not intend to give them more at this time. I do not know whether they have met. I will inquire. Possibly tomorrow I will be in a position to answer the hon. member's question.


FREIGHT RATES-REASON FOR FAILURE TO STUDY EFFECT OF LIFTING THE FREEZE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question. Is it correct that during the 18
[Mr. Forrestall.J
months or so when the freeze was in effect the Department of Transport did not ascertain whether the disappearance of the freeze would seriously affect industries in the Atlantic provinces and perhaps other parts of the country? Can the minister give any reason why that study was not conducted before the freeze was allowed to dissolve?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition will understand why we do not have this information. I am sure he realizes that the railways and the CTC have most of the information, not the Department of Transport. We do not have any formal or legal authority to obtain the type of information we need to answer the hon. member's question.


FREIGHT RATES-EFFECT OF INCREASE ON ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN THE MARITIMES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question. Is it not perfectly feasible and natural to get this information from the individuals and industries to be affected? Perhaps I should direct this question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: has he made any representation to the Ministry of Transport as to the effect of the 25 per cent increase in freight rates upon economic development in the Atlantic provinces? Has the minister or his department made any representations to the Ministry of Transport in view of the obvious fact that such an increase in freight rates as 25 per cent will offset many, if not most, of the efforts which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is making to encourage economic expansion in the maritimes?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning the minister and I spent the best part of an hour considering precisely the matter which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. I recognize, of course, that transportation costs are an important factor. I believe the Minister of Transport has talked about assistance to industry on a selective basis, and I have asked that some work be initiated in that direction to determine which industries might be most suited for this kind of attention.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister tell us why he has waited for 18 months for the ending of the freeze before launching any such study and making the appropriate representations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With the greatest respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I think he will recognize that in fact we did not wait and that some 18 months ago, in consultation with the Council of Maritime Premiers we did, in fact, through the work of the Department of Transport and of DREE, increase to 50 per cent the subsidy under the Maritime Freight Rates Act for specific industries as identified by the provinces. So this has been in effect for the last 18 months and I hope we can expand the number of industries to which that kind of arrangement applies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 29, 1975


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RIGHT HON. HAROLD WILSON AND HON. JAMES CALLAGHAN
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, I have the great honour and privilege to call attention to the presence in our gallery of two very distinguished visitors. The first will need no introduction to hon. members here-the very distinguished Right Hon. Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Wilson is accompanied by the Hon. James Callaghan, Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and for Foreign Affairs. Both are on a visit to Canada and thence to the United States. I know I shall only be saying the minimum on behalf of all hon. members of this House when I wish them well, not only in their travels in Canada and in their endeavours in the United States, but in their own parliament and in their own country for which we in Canada have such great affection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport, when meeting with his counterparts in the four Atlantic provinces recently, indicated it was his desire to use transportation as a tool in economic development, would the hon. gentleman tell us how transportation policy can be used to such an end when the Atlantic area is hit first of all with a 25 per cent increase in freight rates and, second, by the impending removal of LCL rates in mid-February, causing this mode of transportation to become three times as expensive as it is now for those who use it, mainly small businessmen. Is the minister doing anything to forestall at least the elimination of LCL rates in the Atlantic provinces; is he trying to minimize the extremely damaging effects of the 25 per cent increase in freight rates?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that I cannot give him a total answer under the rules which govern the question period. Let me say, though, with regard to the LCL, which is of very great concern to me, I recognize that grave problems are created for small businessmen, particularly in Atlantic Canada. This is one of the subjects which the Minister of Transport and I discussed this morning. I suspect that had the question been directed to him he would have said that he intends to make representations to the railways with regard to the LCL rates. In those representations he will have my full support.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


LCL RATES-INQUIRY AS TO MINISTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO RAILWAYS
Robert Carman Coates: Could I, then, ask the Minister of Transport whether he will be more specific in telling us just what his recommendations to the railways with regard to LCL rates are to be?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to ask a question on the removal of the price ceiling as if only the Maritimes were affected, Canada as a whole is affected and Ontario and Montreal even more than the Maritimes. Therefore, it is not a problem peculiar to the Maritimes but to the whole of Canada. I shall recommend that as much help as possible be given to the industries in the Maritimes, because we made such a commitment. It is in that sense that I shall approach the railways.


FREIGHT RATES-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FREEZE UNTIL GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES NEW TRANSPORTATION POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary to the Minister of Transport. Notwithstanding the fact that government transportation policy affects the whole of the country, he knows as well as anyone else that western Canada and eastern Canada are particularly concerned. In the light of the CTC decision this morning would the hon. gentleman be prepared to approach the railways in an attempt to get a voluntary agreement to extend the freeze at least until the government announces its new transportation policy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it is at least the tenth time I am asked this question in the House. I have indicated to the House what kind of distortion that partial freeze created, because when we speak about price freeze, freight rates freeze, we must not forget that only 22 per cent of railway freight rates are affected. Other rates are not. Maritime transportation, trucking and air transportation are not affected. So, to present this policy as a general price freeze in Canada is to make misrepresentations. Mr. Speaker, it must not be forgotten that if, on the one hand, railway companies have promised to maintain certain rates to their 1972 level, on the other hand, those who use railways have never promised not to increase their prices. That means that some have enjoyed lower rates without letting the public benefit from them.
Therefore, it is not really a solution. As I said, we wanted to give an example which has not been followed. We merely remove the small partial freeze and try to find a policy which would help Canadians in general, instead of being used as a mere pretence to ask the kind of questions I have been asked this afternoon.

January 29, 1975
Oral Questions


FREIGHT RATES-REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR FILING NEW RATES   NATIONAL DEFENCE SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF VAL D'OR AIRPORT TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
John Edward Broadbent: The minister says that this decision would only affect part of the rates. It was his government that introduced the freeze in the first place. Presumably, if it made any sense when it was introduced, as it did at least for the 22 per cent that he refers to, it still makes sense. The minister is talking nonsense. I would repeat my question, but I am sure I would get the same answer, so I will ask the minister whether he will assure the House, in light of the decision announced this morning, that the government will appear before the CTC hearing scheduled for Friday of this week and support the appeal of the provinces-provinces in eastern and western Canada are affected-for an order extending the filing period of the proposed new freight rates, the effect of which would be to extend the freeze for some distance into the future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the government and the party which forms it have been very clear on that matter. It even campaigned in an election where it got a majority at which time it said it was opposed to a general price freeze. We indicated very clearly that the partial freeze was only a gesture aiming at enticing Canadians to follow that example. Since they did not do so, and since on the other hand we committed ourselves to put an end to it on December 31, 1974, there is no reason, not even from the economic point of view, to extend the freeze. We shall simply not do it out of demagogy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question which I will address to the Prime Minister. In view of the obvious incompetence of the minister, who has made explicit reference to the government's previous action as being a gesture instead of policy, would the Prime Minister seriously consider asking the minister for his resignation?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Are we to assume from the exchange that has been taking place in this House and from the commitments made in the very exotic policy that was advanced during the election campaign, that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and all of his cabinet colleagues were not being serious with the Canadian people but were engaged upon a game of political rhetoric?


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to Minister of National Defence.
Since the Minister of National Defence announced the closing of the Val d'Or military base could the minister tell the House whether talks were undertaken to put the administration of that airport back into the hands of the Department of Transport?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am able to confirm that the Val d'Or airport will be taken over by the Department of Transport.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. government leader.
While arrangements are being made for the forthcoming Prime Minister's trip to Europe, could he tell the House to what stage have progressed the two task forces on energy and transportation appointed at the time of the Franco-Canadian rediscovery and let us know, for instance, whether the Canadian representatives to these committees have as yet brought in some counterproposal to the French so that a new Franco-Canadian economic co-operation program may be established after consideration and negotiation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to write to the French prime minister in order to reiterate the decision of the Canadian government and our resolution to make progress in that field. I do not think any reports have been received such as those suggested by the hon. member. I will inquire about the latest developments but, unless something occurred in the last few days, I doubt that an agreement has been reached. If I am mistaken, I shall give the House a further answer tomorrow.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the Prime Minister give the House today specific information on the purpose and program of his coming trip to Europe and could he tell us specifically who in his cabinet, or on another level, will accompany him to Holland, West Germany, Italy and England whose Prime Minister we respectfully greet on his visit today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the various meetings has not yet been finalized. As for what members of my entourage will join me, I do not think any
January 29, 1975

decision has been reached. I doubt that any minister will do so; I shall probably be accompanied by the usual selection of officials from the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, External Affairs, Finance and others.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I trust the minister is aware of the situation which recently came to light in Hamilton whereby a bank manager gave an immigrant a loan of $15,000 and a letter to that effect on condition that it was to be used only, in the words of Judge Robert Morrison, "to fool immigration; everybody tries to fool the immigration people". Can the minister advise how widespread this practice is and what steps are being taken to discontinue and prevent this practice of fraud?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have to look into this particular allegation concerning an incident alleged to have taken place in Hamilton. As for the number of people who try to fool immigration, Mr. Speaker, your guess is as good as mine. It sometimes happens, but we try to make it as unsuccessful as we can.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that within the last few days a second province has served notice that it is withdrawing from the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and in view of the difficulties that the agency is having in enforcing quotas and reducing surpluses, is it the intention of the government now to disband the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have had meetings with the Farm Products Marketing Council and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and I have outlined the feelings of the parliamentary committee and reviewed them with those bodies. I have told them that they must do some of these things or I will have to take drastic action.


EGGS-ABILITY OF EGG MARKETING AGENCY TO DEAL WITH SURPLUSES AND ENFORCE QUOTAS
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that the agency has now successfully disposed of its current surpluses and that it has surplus production now under
Oral Questions
control? Is the minister satisfied that the agency is now in a position to enforce quota production across the country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the agency must have the full co-operation of provincial marketing boards because they do not have the central authority to do these things. Until they have this authority they will not be able to achieve the kind of operation we, all desire they should achieve. If I am going to be, let me say, accused of accepting the responsibility and blame for this agency, it must have the central authority it seems to me, which it does not have at the present time. We are desirous that it should have it. The chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Council is now visiting the provincial marketing boards across Canada, and we have served notice on them that we want this done as soon as possible.


SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO BROILER INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister proposing, in light of the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board, to place a moratorium on plans to form any other national commodity marketing agencies until he has resolved the difficulty within the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency; and does the minister also propose, in light of the recommendation of the board, to conduct an inquiry into the broiler industry in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to conduct an inquiry into the broiler industry because there is no federal agency in that industry. It does not operate under federal legislation but is within provincial jurisdiction. I received a report yesterday on what the Food Prices Review Board said, and this does not necessarily mean that what they said was accurate or inaccurate. I have not yet had time to review it, but I would remind hon. members that broilers are a lot different from eggs.


STUDY OF EFFECTS OF ESTABLISHMENT OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that a study undertaken by the minister in 1972 of the technical and economic consequences to Canada of a uranium enrichment plant is now completed, as indicated by a senior official of the department in June of 1974, and in view of the moral, economic and environmental implications that the processing and export of enriched uranium would have for all Canadians, would the minister now undertake to make that study public?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make in-

January 29, 1975
Oral Questions
quiries to see whether that is in a form that could generally be made available to parliament and, if so, I would be glad to provide it to the House.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on December 9 the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated that the Dr. Hermann report would not be referred to the committee until veterans' organizations had an opportunity to study it. Due to the fact that 30 years have passed since these veterans were taken prisoner, their health is breaking down requiring surgery in some cases, and inflation is adding to their problems, would the minister now state when the Hermann report is likely to be referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I would state that at the time the report was tabled in the House, November 18, 1974, I had a communication from veterans' organizations asking for time to prepare briefs to present to the Veterans Affairs Committee. This information was conveyed to the government House leader and also to the leaders of other parties. This is still the situation and I understand there is a further communication from the veterans' organizations which I will be glad to convey to the House leaders.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman advise whether the report has been received from the commissioner appointed to investigate the matter of pensions received by retired CNR employees and, if not, could the minister suggest to the House when this report will be received?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member in that I do not know the answer to that question. I will make inquiries and bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.


THE ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. David Orlihow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of repeated statements by the Minister of Finance that in the fight against inflation, workers, including gov-
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
ernment employees, should not be required to help meet this threat of inflation by accepting wage and salary increases which are less than the increase in the cost of living, will the minister explain why representatives of the mint have not negotiated with employees who have now been on strike since November 15, and also explain why the final offer made to the employees for the next two years was an offer of 10 per cent, an amount in fact half the expected increase in the cost of living?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, fortunately I am not responsible for the problem of the Royal Canadian Mint employees, since it is a Crown corporation. The question would be asked with more relevance to the Minister of Supply and Services.


David Orlikow: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order to redirect my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Why have the representatives of the mint, in bargaining with the employees, not met with them or not made an offer since November 15, in spite of the fact that employees are out on strike? Would he also indicate why the final offer for the next two years was less than the expected increase in the cost of living, namely 10 per cent for the coming year and 8 Vi per cent for the following year?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it depends on what we mean by increase in cost of living. I think there is here a basic difference with regard to the union. But anyway, the parties are so far apart in their offers that mediation is very difficult. I think that if ihe union could come back to the bargaining table-and we are prepared to resume the negotiations at any time-with more reasonable offers, it would then be possible to make progress but, in any case, it is surely not in this House that we will make progress.


STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES-REFERENCE TO ALLEGED LANGUAGE USED BY REPRESENTATIVE OF DEPARTMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the minister look into the claim that his representatives have made no new offer, except the one to which I referred and which the employees turned down. Would he also inquire into the reasons his department is being represented by a man who used language in front of the mediator, while talking to the employees, which I could not use either in or outside of this House?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I might say that the union has not given up any one of its initial demands. As for the second part of the question, I might say that I have checked into it and that it seems to me that the negotiators for the Royal Mint have in no circumstance used an out of place or rude language.
January 29, 1975


STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF MANAGEMENT TO SUBMIT CONFIDENTIAL POSITION TO ARBITRATOR
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question by the hon. member who just preceded me I should like to ask the minister if it is a fact that the mint employees met with senior midmanagement last week and that when an arbitrator suggested that each side submit a confidential position, to which the mint employees agreed, the government through its senior mid-management, and I would call it mismanagement, said no? I would ask the minister to look into this matter more carefully than he has up to now, having regard to the tremendous shortage that is developing in coins and also the fall-behind in the production of Olympic coins. When one looks at what is taking place he can only ask, and I would like the minister's answer, what is unreasonable about the mint employees' request for 22 per cent increase? The request is not for 50 per cent or even 33 per cent, but just 22 per cent.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. member that I study the situation very closely and very seriously, because it is a serious matter when negotiations are in progress. But I note the fact that a member of the Opposition suggests that we must necessarily comply with all the requests submitted to us, even if they are unreasonable and if they give rise to inflationary pressures. If the hon. member is prepared to say that every offer, every request from a union must be agreed to regardless of the cost to the government, I think that he should then be logical and be ready to pay the price and take the consequences of his actions.
As to the possible scarcity of money on the market, I checked with the Bank of Canada, and the situation is far from alarming. I think it is only in the hon. member's imagination that the alarm is sounding.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister talks about imagination; is this not another example of his total mismanagement as revealed by the purchase of Romanian oil?

[Translation] SOCIAL SECURITY


ALLEGED REDUCTION OF PENSIONS PAID BY ONTARIO
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Following the 10.4 per cent increase effective January 1, 1975 of the pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, several of my constituents who are entitled to a provincial pension have been informed by the provincial authorities that they will suffer a decrease equal to the increase of the CPP.
Oral Questions
Provincial pensions are thus proportionally reduced. I wonder whether the minister is of the opinion that this measure is unfair and whether he intends to make representations to the province to ensure that people on fixed income will not suffer more hardships?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, payments made under the Canada Pension Plan are established by the legislation. Those payments have been increased substantially following the amendments adopted by this Parliament last year.
As concerns the payments and adjustments made by provinces, I must say to the hon. member that, unfortunately, it is a matter which is completely within the jurisdiction of the provinces concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Considering the very large budget authorized for CIDA and whereas this large amount of money is administered only by a government agency reporting to this House only once a year at the time of the budget debate, and since in many countries parliaments have created an international portfolio to administer the budget of agencies such as ours, could the Prime Minister advise whether he intends to create a new department the head of which would be specifically responsible to the Canadian Parliament for the operations of that agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that CIDA reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When CIDA was created, the House and the government thought it was important that our external aid be handled as one aspect of our foreign policy.
The government has not changed its mind nor has it decided to accept the proposal made by the hon. member.


INQUIRY AS TO PROGRAMS TO AID UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the Prime Minister's statement as reported in the international economic survey of the New York Times last Sunday that changes will have to be made to correct serious imbalances between industrialized and developing countries, what policy steps will he initiate to enable Canada to help solve what he has identified as the key problem when he said: "we live in an economic and biological system whose self-regulating capacity can no longer be counted on to off-set human selfishness and human error"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a very grave problem and I think that the quotations that the hon. member has made from some of my statements do
2722

January 29, 1975
Oral Questions
correspond to the desire of this party and to the principles in which we believe. As to the mechanics for implementing these principles above and beyond external aid, there have been of course many forms in which the Canadian government has participated and will continue to participate. I do not believe I have to enumerate them at this particular moment, but the very recent meetings of the International Monetary Fund are one example and UNCTAD is another. I would say that this is a problem which I have been discussing this Friday with Prime Minister Wilson with a view to trying to forward the discussion on it at the upcoming Commonwealth conference. It is a subject which I discussed two weeks ago with Prime Minister Manley of Jamaica who will be chairing that conference.
So I can assure the hon. member that the words mean what they say and the mechanics for implementing them are varied and difficult of application.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Monday the Minister advised the House that despite the fact that no members of the government met with the electrical workers' delegation he would try to meet with them to discuss the serious layoffs of workers due to foreign made television sets and components undercutting Canadian industry. Could the minister now tell the House what action the government intends to take.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated at that time that we were trying to arrange that meeting. I am glad to be able to say that we were able to do so. It was a useful and constructive meeting. We heard representations. Those same representations were made to my department officials earlier in the day and I indicated that after I have had the benefit of my department's advice I will be meeting with them again. I hope that we can set up a meeting within the next week or so.


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if the minister could advise us whether at the meeting that took place or is going to take place, discussions that his department officials will have among themselves will also include discussions with the Minister of Labour and his departmental officials. Could the minister also assure the House that the government is very much aware that with every week that goes by the number of layoffs is increasing?


Alastair William Gillespie: I can assure the hon. member that there will be interdepartmental consultation.


WHEAT-SUGGESTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOW GRADE AND CANADA UTILITY GRADE
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. My question is prompted by considerable concern that I have detected in my part of Canada with respect to some grain grading procedures and practices this fall and winter that seem to result from the rather poor quality of harvest, the tough and damp grain this fall in western Canada. The difficulty seems to be that a distinction apparently is not being drawn between this lighter weight, badly frozen wheat


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ralph Goodale: -and what is substantially better wheat. Is the government giving consideration to the possibility of drawing a distinction between this low grade, light weight No. 3 Canada Utility, and the normal kind of grain that has in the past received that kind of grading?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is a sufficient and relatively small amount of No. 3 Utility Wheat that is very low in quality and light in weight. The Canadian Wheat Board and the grain commission did have many meetings to consider whether a special lower grade, such as No. 4 Utility should be established for that grain. They decided that it would not be in the best interests of the farmers to do so, partly because the low type would likely in any case be mixed with the higher quality in the elevator system and the only result would be that the farmers marketing No. 4 Utility would receive a lower return with the marketing result being the same. So, in the interest of producers it was decided not to establish a separate grain grade at this time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that during and since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference the government has made commitments and statements concerning the anomalies, inequities, absurdities, even discrimination in the freight rate structure in Canada, and particularly in western Canada, and certainly the understanding of the Prairie provinces that one of the purposes of the 18 months freeze on freight rates was to allow time for the freight rates structure to be reconsidered and a new one put in place, and in view of the fact that the 25 per cent raise increases those inequities by 25 per cent, would the minister take special cognizance of individual commodities and order reductions in rates on such items as live cattle and dressed meat from western to eastern Canada?
January 29, 1975


Jean Marchand: It is
difficult to answer questions that contain a series of questions. There are several questions in this one and many incorrect statements of fact because many of what we call inequities and anomalies in the freight rates in the west were not covered by the freeze.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Many were.


Jean Marchand: But many were not such as steel, sulphur and potash and all the raw materials. So do not say that the fact that the freeze was lifted means that discrimination is being increased. It is not.
The hon. member made another statement which is wrong when he said that the request for a freeze was related to the WEOC. It was made clear before the WEOC and it was repeated at the conference. It was made clear in the House for the sole purpose that I mentioned a few moments ago.


INQUIRY AS TO ALLEGED CANCELLATION OF ORDER BY U.S.S.R.
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since there is a story being told that some country, not the United States, has had to divert some
100,000	metric tons of wheat from the U.S.S.R. because the Soviet Union has cancelled that particular order, and since Canada is one of four countries that could supply that amount of grain, is the country in this story Canada and, if so, why has this action been taken, if indeed it has?


Otto Emil Lang: I know of no such cancellation of an order of Canadian grain, but I will check further into it and will report to the hon. member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the government House leader arising out of discussions held last night relating to CIDA. In view of those discussions with respect to the proposal to refer the operation and policies of CIDA to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for study on the basis that that referral would be made in this House without debate on either side of the House, and in view of the fact that all parties have agreed with respect to this matter, would the minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to make such a reference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has considered this question. I have discussed it with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and we have not changed our
Oral Questions
position that we believe it would be preferable to have this discussion on the estimates.


Walter David Baker: I have a supplementary for the same minister. In view of the fact that the estimates are not likely to be discussed until March, and in view of the fact that the committee is not busy at the present time, and particularly in view of the fact that questions have been raised by the public with respect to the operations of CIDA which are very important to the credibility of this organization, would the minister reconsider and consult again with his colleague to see whether the government's decision ought to be different in all of these circumstances?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did bring these facts to the attention of my colleague who felt that it would not be proper to have an inquiry of this kind based only on reports in the newspapers. There have been no allegations in this House which he believes would justify bringing the question before the committee before its normal time.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware that the post office at Portage La Loch, Saskatchewan, a remote post office 100 miles from any other serving a population of over 1,000 has been closed for some time because his department will not pay a living wage for a postmaster or rent a suitable building for the purpose?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of it, but I certainly am now and will take appropriate action.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-POSSIBLE DEFICIT RESULTING FROM SALE OF COINS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the federal government is in part responsible for the escalating deficit with regard to the Olympic games in that it has failed to curb the rise of inflation, delayed the introduction of legislation regarding coins, stamps and lottery programs, and in view of the fact that yesterday in Quebec Mr. Austin Page, head of the Olympics coins program, estimated a further deficit ranging anywhere from $75 million, even if sales pick up considerably to $150 million if sales remain at the present rate, thus presuming a failure on the part of the government to raise the proposed $250 million, would the minister inform the House therefore what measures the government intends to take to make up the possible $150 million deficit related to the coin program?
2724

January 29, 1975
Oral Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. gentleman is a great booster of the Olympics, and if he looks back at the legislation, he will find that this parliament granted three concessions through the act in order to help defray the cost of the Olympics. One concession was stamps, one was coins, and one was the lottery. In the debate at the time it was estimated that the three programs jointly would raise the sum of, I think, $293 million. I think that that sum of money will be raised collectively. The act nowhere indicates that the sales of coins would reach $250 million. It simply stated that in the event the coins sold better than anticipated, no more than $250 million would be turned over to the Olympics. It was and still is simply an objective.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF COINS AS A RESULT OF STRIKE OF MINT EMPLOYEES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary was for the President of the Treasury Board, but perhaps I should put it to the Minister of Supply and Services. My question is further to questions asked earlier. I see that the Minister of Supply and Services is not present. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could answer. In view of the non-availability of Olympic coins due to the prolonged strike at the Mint, and notwithstanding the hardships being encountered by coin machine operators as well as the general public as a result of the continual reduction in the availability of coins in general, could the minister in addition to the earlier replies by the Minister of Supply and Services advise this House as to what specific and immediate steps his department is taking to ensure normal circulation of the coins and to ensure that the Mint resumes operation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question was answered earlier by my hon. colleague. We are presently studying the situation and, if needed, we shall take action, but we are not responsible for the present situation. Those employees have the right to go on strike and we must respect that right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House revert to motions so that I may attempt to report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member refers to reverting to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees. I would not contemplate reverting to motions this afternoon for any reason.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Editor's Note: For text of report referred to above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 27, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Danson that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 27, when I called it ten o'clock I was speaking on this very important bill, C-46, and the portion that I was extremely interested in and discussing at that time was a log housing program for our remote areas of northern Manitoba and other remote areas of Canada.
I would like to clear up one misconception which some people may have about log housing. The type of log housing I have been contemplating, and discussing with my colleagues and people in the north, is not a small 12 foot by 14 foot log shack which sits on the ground. I am talking about a log building with properly squared logs sitting on a solid foundation. The material to build these log homes can be found adjacent to almost all isolated communities, at least in northern Manitoba.
My reason for promoting log housing, first, is that in many areas in remote Manitoba there is a very high unemployment rate, and in order to build log houses we do not have to go into an extensive training program because the majority of people in these remote communities are now adept and quite capable of building themselves a good, solid log house. Until just recently CMHC did not recognize log housing.
Until recently CMHC would not recognize log housing, although loans were not available for the construction of log homes. This policy has now changed, and CMHC loans for the building of log houses are available, provided the homes meet certain standards.
We should also promote the building of log houses in isolated parts of Canada because of the general shortage of homes. At present, in the community of Cross Lake, there is a shortage of homes. They lack about 30 homes in that community of approximately 2,300. The people of the community cannot do as others do, move to other towns close
January 29, 1975

by, or into an apartment block. Most homes in Cross Lake are single family dwellings, and the 30 families without roofs over their heads must double up, live with relatives, or with anyone who will take them.
We should also promote log housing in view of the high cost of transporting building materials to some isolated northern communities. To some of these places building materials must be transported between 280 and 350 miles by truck and tractor train. By the time some of these materials arrive at their destination they are nothing but piles of scrap. Four by eight pieces of buffalo board may end up as bits and pieces, yet the people of the north are supposed to build homes with such material. That is my main reason for promoting the building of log houses. They are more suitable for the remote areas of Canada.
I draw attention to log homes being shipped from B.C. Several such homes are located in some of our finest cities. I think, therefore, that it would be wise to encourage the building of log homes in the north. The building industry could also be encouraged to supply log homes to many other cities of Canada. We have plenty of timber in our country, and there is a great deal of unemployment in remote areas. The building of such houses could provide employment.
Let me refer to a problem encountered especially on Indian reserves. In the past housing on Indian reserves has been supplied practically free of charge. I believe the department has charged a nominal fee of $25 per home. In such a situation, however, the sense of ownership of the occupant is lacking, as the person in the home feels the home does not belong to him. After all, he has invested only $25 in it. Therefore he does not feels he owns it; whereas, if he had built the house for himself he would enjoy a sense of ownership. The sorts of buildings I am speaking of are small, generally, and sitting on the ground. Perhaps the government might consider granting CMHC loans to such people on reserves, perhaps at reduced rates. Many people in such communities earn a wage and would be prepared to contribute to the cost of a home.
I believe that people want to participate in the building of their own log homes, but they must have the means with which to live while their homes are being built. If we are to promote the building of log houses on reserves we must deal with Indian leaders and with the Department of Indian Affairs. The government must try to provide money for log houses in communities such as Cross Lake. The people there, although originally not in favour of log housing, have now said that they would like to build log homes because the sorts of homes presently being built do not stand up under conditions of current use. In the long run we would save money by building log homes, for the simple reason that it costs a great deal to keep the other sorts of homes now being built in northern communities in good repair. Repair bills are a substantial factor in the cost of present housing in the north.
Let me correct a misconception. People think that many of the house repairs on Indian reserves are necessary because of the way people living in those houses misuse them. Well, Mr. Speaker, 95 per cent of the people who live in such homes look after them. The difficulty, as I suggested last Monday, is that the houses in those communities are not designed for the types of heating and plumbing
National Housing Act
systems which are necessary but which are non-existent in most of these houses.
I shall lend my full support to Bill C-46 because housing is the backbone of our country. At present all communities in northern Manitoba face an acute housing shortage. The sooner we pass this bill and make money available for new homes, the better I will be pleased.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on this bill the minister said this about the government's proposed housing programs, as recorded at page 2622 of Hansard:
As social housing programs, they are intended to help substantial numbers of Canadian families either to buy their own homes or to rent suitable accommodation at a cost they can afford.
Later in his speech he said:
... let me emphasize that the first concern of this government is with the human dimension of housing, with our commitment to provide every Canadian with access to good housing in a safe and satisfying community environment, at a cost he can afford.
If this bill were to accomplish that, the members of my party would support it wholeheartedly. But this bill will do nothing of the sort. It has been criticized by organizations interested in a non-pecuniary way in housing. And, because the bill falls so short of meeting the objectives which the minister outlined when speaking on it, we intend to vote against it.
The Canadian Council on Social Development, an organization which brings together all government and private agencies interested in health and welfare matters, issued a press release on December 13 dealing with the minister's proposals, as embodied in the bill. In a pamphlet entitled, "New Federal Housing Thrusts Cause Poor to Suffer," the council says in part;
Urban Affairs Minister Barney Danson's recent announcement of federal subsidies to private lenders, under the assisted home ownership and rental entrepreneur programs, as well as Finance Minister John Turner's November 18 budget, reveal a new and lamentable shift in federal housing policy, according to Serge Carreau, of the Housing Committee of the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Mr. Carreau called on Canadians today to oppose this shift in federal housing policy which he termed a dangerous precedent and one which will primarily benefit relatively affluent families rather than those most in need ...
The specific proposal outlined by Mr. Danson December 11, contrary to his assertion, will primarily benefit, rather, affluent middle income families.
I could go on quoting but I think I have quoted enough to show what the Canadian Council on Social Development thinks of the bill introduced by the minister.
The bill highlights the fundamental problem of housing in this country. We have encouraged, through housing legislation and the housing programs of this and previous governments, the development of class conflicting housing. This involves conflict between those who have houses and those who have not. Some have been permitted, have been encouraged by attractive provisions in the National Housing Act, to buy houses, the mortgages on which are guaranteed. In short, the money put out by mortgage companies and banks has been backed by government guarantees. So, certain people have been able to buy houses by virtue of assistance provided by the taxpayer.

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
The provisions of the National Housing Act do not permit people with low or middle incomes to purchase or rent houses. These people are not permitted to rent housing accommodation near those who are able to buy their own houses.
We have a situation where the federal and provincial governments are willing to provide money under various provisions of the National Housing Act to build public housing units. However, municipalities and communities are doing everything they can to block these housing units which are so desperately needed. Those who are better off do not want what they consider to be substandard housing built near them, nor do they wish to associate with those they consider to be economically and socially inferior. That condition has existed since the end of World War II. It exists at the present time, and will continue to exist if we pass this bill.
I suggest that the present National Housing Act be scrapped. What we require is a national housing policy which will provide needed housing for everyone, regardless of income. In particular it should be available to those who cannot afford to buy or rent housing. This should not be done by the building of public housing, or limited dividend housing units. People without adequate housing do not want to live in them, and those with adequate housing do not want these anywhere near them. In a speech which he made in Toronto on January 25, the minister said, and I quote:
Everyone favours low-cost public housing, for example, but nobody wants it built next door.
The minister is quite right. In fact people not only do not want it next door, but do not want it within two or three miles of them. We do not want more public housing units or limited dividend housing units. What we need is housing which people can buy or rent, regardless of their income. If they cannot afford it, they should be given rental supplements.
There is a very good system in the Scandinavian countries. Regardless of income, people live in the same type of housing accommodation, in close proximity. This is high quality housing. It is as good as that purchased by those who can afford to buy their own homes. These housing units are not built to last 20 years, after which time they will become slums or semi-slums, but to last 100 years. That is the kind of housing we need. It is the kind of housing that is built in other countries.
The minister may think I am exaggerating in my criticism of what has been done up until this time. So that the minister may know I am not saying this for purely partisan political reasons, I wish to quote from a study of low-income housing, made on behalf of this government under a former minister, by Professor Charney of Montreal. I wish to refer to some of his observations about projects which had been built supposedly to meet the needs of people in low income groups. This study was not made 50, 25 or ten years ago. In spite of a great deal of hesitation and reluctance on the part of the former minister, it was published in July, 1971.
This is what Professor Charney had to say about the Mulgrave Park housing project in Halifax:

The project was isolated from its surroundings: yet little allowance was made to develop community amenities, such as a day-care centre or recreation facilities. The manager of the project has made a request for facilities, as yet to be provided.
Mulgrave Park is perceived by both its tenants and the general populace as the worst example of public housing in Halifax today- clearly distinguishable even in the "north end" where almost all of the public housing has been built to date. It is a ghetto characterized by low-income welfare typical conditions with a high proportion of mother-led families, estimated at nearly 50 per cent of the families in the project, and a lack of basic amenities.
I quote from what Professor Charney had to say about the Le Domaine project:
Poor design and poor materials were accepted in the interests of rapid completion. For example, where heating is inefficient, tenants will turn warm kitchens into bedrooms. Externally, the repetition of a small number of designs, the cramping of too many apartments into a given areas, are obvious causes of dissatisfaction among tenants.
Only the builders seem to gain valuable experience from such projects, learning with tacit CMHC approval how to cut costs, and get away with it, thus realizing higher returns on their investments. With CMHC to bail them out, they need not be truly competitive, i.e., provide the kind of housing they are expected to.
I now quote one paragraph of what Professor Charney had to say about the Fabreville project:
The site of this project is singularly inappropriate for the needs and capabilities of low-income groups. Situated on residual land facing major traffic arteries, far from employment, shopping and public transportation, car ownership is mandatory for this site. Although there are plans to provide some community facilities on the site at a later date no such facilities exist now. All those in the family that do not have mobility are virtually trapped.
In connection with the Norshire Gardens in Edmonton, Professor Charney said:
While the developer turned down over 600 of 800 applicants for apartments, and claimed that a majority were "unable to qualify because their maximum income exceeded $5,660" ... he apparently saw no reason to break down these statistics further and give a precise figure of those in the $5,000 to $5,660 income range who were turned down on account of being "very, very heavily in debt" ... One can question whether the developer was really interested in renting to low-income families at all.
I could take the rest of the day to read into the record Professor Charney's assessment of projects built not too long ago supposedly to meet the needs of those with low incomes.
I have before me a study conducted by the Canadian Council on Social Development in 1971 entitled, "Where the $200 Million Went". It is a commentary on the 1970 CMHC innovative program sponsored by a former minister in charge of housing. I quote from page 18 of the report:
While the committee considers that housing innovation promises to make an important contribution to widening housing opportunities for low income Canadians, the $200 million program cannot be regarded as making any notable advance in this direction ...
In addition, the committee believes it should be clearly recognized that there are hundreds of thousands of families and old people whose incomes are too low to enable them to take advantage of most of the accommodation built under this program .. .
Lest any believe that low income housing should be cheap housing, the committee strongly affirms that the path to housing those now denied good accommodation by the market does not lie in reducing environmental standards. If anything, low income Canadians need better housing than those who have access to other amenities of life.
January 29, 1975

I wish the minister would pay some attention, if not to me, then to what I consider to be one of the most objective and highly respected organizations in this country. Last, they say:
All Canadians should be guaranteed the right to decent housing, whether they can afford it or not. To achieve this the federal government must mount a systematic effort to revolutionize housing production and distribution.
Has there been any revolutionary effort since 1970? Of course not. All we have seen is more of the same-a repetition of the measures which have proved so inadequate in the past. Today the minister proposes we should merely carry on in the same way.
In 1973, Michael Dennis, who headed the main study carried out by the government in connection with housing, appeared before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. He made a presentation which, if listened to and digested by all members, would, I feel sure, make us all ashamed, regardless of party, of what we have permitted to happen in the field of housing in this country.
Let me read a couple of paragraphs from the comments made by Professor Dennis, who is now the head of the housing program for the City of Toronto and a key aide to Mayor Crombie of Toronto. He said:
Existing federal programs have been severely criticized for their artificial segregation of households by income group. This is particularly so in the case of public housing. The proposed legislation does not take account of this problem and unintentionally exacerbates it.
He was talking about certain proposed legislation. Have we paid any attention to this question since 1973? The answer is, of course, no. Professor Dennis went on to say:
Equally important, the bill should be amended to permit the rental of units in low rental housing projects and public housing projects to middle income families. At present, a low rental housing project is defined as a project to be leased to families of low income or such other persons as the corporation, under agreement with the owner, may designate .... The NHA must be amended to allow public housing and non-profit landlords to serve households beyond the low income level while retaining their preferred interest rates, on condition that middle income tenants not obtain the advantage of those preferred rates.
Have we done that? Of course not. Some hon. members may think I have been making suggestions which are impracticable. The minister might believe that they cannot be carried out. He would be right if he said that programs of this kind have not been accomplished or even attempted in this country. However, I put it to him that there are alternatives to the patchwork crazy quilt of policies adopted by this and former governments, policies which have failed so markedly to meet the needs of Canadians in the middle and lower income brackets.
Even if we continue to treat people in the upper income levels as generously as we are doing, and those in the middle and lower income levels in as niggardly a way as we are doing, must we go on denying inadequate housing to those who cannot afford to buy or rent decent accommodation because their incomes are too low? Other countries have found methods of providing their citizens with housing as a matter of right regardless of their ability to pay, without putting up housing units of low quality.
The Scandinavian countries have no such programs as ours. They do not build public housing ghettos. They do
National Housing Act
not put up sub-standard limited dividend housing projects which in 20 years become slums. They build housing, both for private ownership and for rent, which is available to all their citizens, including those who are not able to pay. People who cannot pay the economic rent are assisted through a system of rent subsidies, and in this way people at all income levels are able to live, not only in the same block but in the same housing units.
I have before me a booklet entitled "Social Benefits" in Sweden. It is published by the Swedish Institute, which includes the Swedish Employers Confederation, the Confederation of Swedish Trade Unions, and the Swedish Central Organization of Salaried Employees. I refer the minister to the section on housing which is entitled "Rent Allowances to Families with Children", and I wish to put on record a few paragraphs from this booklet because they show so clearly what is done in Sweden. The program followed in Sweden is one which is very much like the programs instituted in Denmark, Finland, Norway and the Federal Republic of Germany. I quote as follows:
State rent allowances are payable to families with at least one child which is wholly or partly maintained by the family at home. Taxable income... determines the amount of the allowance. The taxable incomes of both parents are aggregated unless they live apart. A family as defined for this purpose is a married couple with at least one child, or a single person with at least one child. Unmarried couples living together are classed as married if they were previously married to each other or if they have or have had children by each other.
The rent allowance is 75 kr per month per child if the breadwinners' taxable income assessed for national income tax does not exceed 21,000 kr. If the taxable income is higher, the rent allowance is reduced by 12 per cent of taxable income between 21,000 and 26,000 kr, by 18 per cent of taxable income between 26,000 and 36,000 kr, and by 24 per cent of taxable income over 36,000 kr. If the family joint property is worth more than 50,000 kr, one-fifth of the excess above that figure is added to the taxable income.
I interrupt my quoting to tell the minister that a kroner is worth about 25 cents. So we are talking about people who have a taxable income of $5,000 and upward. In addition to rent subsidies there are municipal rent allowances. Let me put on record what they are.
Municipal rent allowances are paid by most local authorities and are intended for families with children paying high rents or heavy mortgage costs. To qualify for this allowance the family must have title to and occupy a dwelling. The cost of occupancy must be at least 425 kr a month.
That is just over $100 a month.
The allowable cost of occupancy is reduced if the family has a lodger or occupies an unnecessarily large dwelling. The income limits for Municipal Rent Allowances are higher than for the State Allowance. Depending on the number of children and the amount of the rent, the allowance is usually between 20 and 420 kr per month.
That is from $5 to over $100 per month.
Municipal rent allowances are payable in respect of children under 17.
And so on. On the same page in this pamphlet there is a table which is too detailed for me to read, but let me give an example, for the benefit of the minister, of the state and municipal rent allowance paid in Sweden.
For a family of five-husband, wife and three children- which has an income of between 21,000 kroner and 36,600 kroner a year-roughly $5,000 to $9,500 a year-the monthly rent is between 425 kroner to 800 kroner a month, or

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
between $100 a month and about $200 a month. The rent supplement, state and municipal, can vary from a minimum of 10 kroner per month, about $2.50, to 545 kroner a month, roughly $125. Because of this type of program, people in Sweden do not have public housing units, limited dividend housing, or assisted home ownership programs. Yet everyone in Sweden has adequate accommodation.
I have a lot of respect for the minister and I believe he wants to do a job and meet the needs of the Canadian people for adequate housing. I also believe he knows that the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians have not been met, certainly not in any kind of adequate manner.
I urge the minister to free himself from the too close embraces that housing ministers usually get from the senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the building industry, bank and mortgage companies and others, who until now have given housing ministers advice that has been poor and inadequate, and that has led to programs which have obviously failed to meet the housing needs of the Canadian people.
I urge the minister to travel away from Ottawa and meet people who live in poor housing. If necessary, he should visit countries that have demonstrated that they have answers to the housing needs of their own people. Let him vsit the Scandinavian countries and the Federal Republic of Germany, which I and some other members of parliament visited last December. He will not see any slums in their cities. Nor will he see any gerry-building or low quality public housing which looks, and is, substandard.
If the minister would do this I am sure he would be able to develop programs that meet the housing needs of the people of this country, programs that would not be the disgrace that up to now has been the case. Then he will begin to give people in Canada, and especially people of low income, the same kind of decent housing other Canadians have been able to get, housing of which all Canadians can be proud. If the minister will do this he will do a job for the people of this country which housing ministers until now certainly have been unable to do.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to learn that some opposition members who have spoken on Bill C-46 seem to have misunderstood the spirit and the significance of the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. Mr. Speaker, I should like to place this bill in its context as part of the housing policy of the federal government.
Most criticisms passed on Bill C-46 are undoubtedly due to a misunderstanding. These amendments are said to be the only way the government has found to solve the housing problem in Canada. In fact, they are the extension of a vast range of existing programs which have greatly benefited Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is your only answer.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the remarks made by some members of the opposition that they have missed the point. They have forgotten the wide spectrum of measures we have already brought before the Canadian people. No one has mentioned the very exhaustive measures contained in the present government's policy of social housing. I could go through the list. There is the Assisted Home Ownership Program from which
30,000	families benefited last year. Under the bill now before the House this program will be extended to those who obtain loans from private sources and who conform to other conditions.


David Orlikow: How many people in your constituency will be able to benefit?


Pierre De Bané: Let me tell the hon. member that yesterday I was in Saskatchewan. A family on welfare with an annual income of less than $6,000 a year can buy a single dwelling unit costing $25,000 with the help of AHOP and a $1,000 grant from the province of Saskatchewan. So even a family on welfare, with the help of AHOP and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, can own a single housing unit costing $25,000! This is the lowest level, and the range of income extends to $16,000 or $17,000 elsewhere in the country.
I have spoken so far only of AHOP, and I should now like to detail the other measures. There is rental housing assistance under which we grant a loan of 100 per cent to non-profit organizations, church service groups, at 10 per cent forgiveable. I know it hurts the hon. member to learn of all these programs because obviously he is not aware of them. In addition, there is privately funded rental housing, as set out in the bill, co-operative housing assistance-


David Orlikow: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Pierre De Bané: When I have finished my speech the hon. member can make another speech. We have public housing assistance, home improvement loans, land assembly assistance, the new communities bank, serviced land, land banking-and I could go on and on. If hon. members want to criticize some of the measures in this bill, let them put them in perspective and not forget all of the programs we have put together during the last few years.
I do not for a moment wish to minimize the housing problems which we will be facing in the years ahead. At the same time I would remind the House that in the six years since 1969 well over one million homes have been built in Canada, surpassing by a comfortable margin the requirements set out by the Economic Council of Canada prior to that time. This was achieved in large measure as a result of federal policies and programs put into effect by CMHC.
We realize that good housing is fundamental to a sound and healthy society, and we have designed programs that are realistic enough to meet the current needs of Canadians and lead to continued long-term stability.
The substantial drop in housing starts last year from the record level of 1973 was due, as hon. members know, to a number of factors that are by no means unique to the
January 29, 1975

Canadian scene. The worldwide problem of inflation, unusually high interest rates and shortage of mortgage funds, which was one of the major reasons, and other factors combined to produce a shortage of reasonably priced housing and, in particular, a serious shortage of housing that low and moderate income families could afford. That situation was aggravated by the inflation psychosis and rising and somewhat unrealistic expectations about the standard of living which could be sustained by our rate of economic growth.
In putting the proposed amendments into context it is useful to remember that, although housing starts were down last year, actual completions reached the record high of 257,243 units, well above the requirements of the population growth and family formations, and by far the largest number of units ever completed in a single year. I am not speaking here just of starts, but of houses built and ready to be occupied and lived in, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the House that the actual difficulty did not lie with the housing supply, but actually with the cost of housing. That is why the government's action principles and programs aim at a certain number of objectives. Most of all, we want to help families that cannot cope with the high cost of their accommodation. We urge builders to redirect their production to the gamut of low and moderately-priced housing, whether for sale or rental. Through our help and incentives, we urge municipalities to service a greater number of building lots, and we use our resources to channel new capital into the housing market.
We trust that, thanks to those action principles, our main housing needs shall be met this year.

I should like to remind hon. members of the relevant CMHC programs and their effects, and point out the importance of the proposed new legislation in providing homes for Canadians.
The Assistance to Home Ownership Program, introduced in July, 1973, was designed to help low and moderate income families with at least one child to own homes without spending more than a reasonable proportion of their incomes on mortgage payments and municipal taxes. Through low interest loans and interest reducing grants some 20,000 families last year bought homes from Central Mortgage and Housing. The bulk of the purchasers were families with incomes of $10,000 or less.
In some parts of the country it served families with incomes as low as $4,000. That means that people with an annual income of $4,000, many on social welfare, were able, through that program, to buy houses! They received two forms of assistance-one a direct subsidy to help them pay the loan, and the other to reduce the interest rates.
Although at first it was possible to buy existing housing through AHOP, it soon became apparent that new housing must be built to add to the existing stock, while increasing employment opportunities in the building industry, and during the late stages of the program last year AHOP assistance was confined to new housing only. It is obviously still essential that new housing be built, and for that reason the AHOP program, including the proposed pri-
National Housing Act
vately funded AHOP, will continue to restrict purchasing to new homes.
Let me emphasize here that the amendments are designed to expand the AHOP program beyond its present limits by attracting private capital. In other words, under these provisions of the bill, the interest reducing feature, grants would be paid to people who get private loans from approved lenders to buy homes as long as they qualify under the general terms and conditions of the AHOP program and are first time purchasers of new homes. The grants may be as much as $600 a year.
The regular AHOP will continue in effect, as the minister explained when introducing the legislation, and will continue to benefit low income families as before.
There is a misconception, particularly by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), that only high income families qualify for AHOP assistance. He makes the extraordinary suggestion that AHOP in Toronto and Vancouver will serve only families making $19,000 or more. The fact is that in these cities government AHOP and private AHOP together will serve a range of families with incomes as low as $11,000 and up to $17,500. People with incomes of $19,000 are obviously not included.
Despite the very emphatic statements made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), some hon. members opposite persist in implying that the assisted rental provisions of the bill are for the benefit of builders and owners. There is an urgent need for construction of rental accommodation at prices people of modest means can afford. The purpose of the amendment is precisely that, to create rental housing at moderate rates, and builders will be bound in agreements with CMHC to see that federal contributions are passed on to the tenants.
By obtaining loans at the preferred rate of 8 per cent from CMHC a landlord will be able to have his rents reduced accordingly. Of course he cannot obtain that preferred loan interest rate of 8 per cent unless he enters into an agreement, assuring that his rents are going to be fair and reasonable.
As the minister mentioned, these two measures will provide about $1 billion in mortgages for Canadians, particularly those in urban areas, to obtain accommodation at affordable prices. It is estimated that the two programs and CMHC direct lending will provide 28,000 units of accommodation for our wage earners which otherwise would not have been built in 1975.
It is evident that the current housing situation demands quick starts on construction, and the thrust of the amendments is to encourage builders, as well as municipalities, to think in terms of immediate, not delayed action.
During the debate on this bill reference has been made to the very real plight of low income families, as if all the social benefits of the National Housing Act had suddenly been repealed and were no longer in effect. Let me again set the record straight. The foundation of this government's housing policy has always been the provision of good housing at affordable costs for all Canadians, with particular concern for those Canadians who are in need of help. This is particularly true today in our present economic conditions.

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
I might point out that since 1969 we have produced well over a quarter of a million housing units for low income people at a total investment of more than $2.5 billion dollars. This amounts to more than three times the total number built in the preceding 22 years since the National Housing Act came into effect. So, since 1969 we have spent over $2.5 billion for low and moderate income people in the last 6 years.

But figures tell only part of the story. The government's principles state that the people must have the widest possible range of choices as to their kind of accommodation and the type of use. We have long since moved away from the Shanty Town concept, where tenants were massed in public housing or government assisted buildings in downtown areas.
Our housing programs have allowed numerous low-income families to get their own housing. Others could rent comfortably at moderate, subsidized prices. The land-lease feature afforded non-profit housing projects by the proposed legislation is part of a permanent policy of efficiently helping the low-income group and retired people. [English]	0
The government, through CMHC, has proceeded on a number of other fronts to assist Canadians-particularly those of moderate means-to have good housing in a satisfactory environment.
The Neighbourhood Improvement Program, for example, is conserving and improving neighbourhoods in danger of decay and destruction. Within these areas the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is helping home owners to repair and restore their dwellings to an acceptable standard of health and safety.
We are confident we will achieve 210,000 housing starts this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are dreaming.


David Orlikow: Not enough.


Pierre De Bané: We are not being pessimistic but we do not hope to reach the record level of last year which was over 260,000 units. This year, due to the provisions in this bill and the incentive for private funds to be channelled to the housing industry, we hope to achieve over 210,000 units.
We do not pretend that there are easy answers to the problem of giving all Canadians access to good housing at affordable prices, and that challenge becomes doubly difficult in the present circumstances. But by implementing realistic and effective legislative, fiscal and other measures we are making, and will continue to make, significant headway. In the meantime it should not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians continue to benefit from some of the most comprehensive and humane housing laws in the world.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the hon. member would permit two short questions. Could he tell the members of this

House how many of the more than 200,000 housing units which were built last year in Canada were public housing units? Second, he spoke about the generous way in which the government deals with co-operatives and non-profit organizations. Could he tell us how many of the more than
200,000	units built last year were built in fact by co-operatives or other non-profit organizations, and how many were for low income people?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures with me but I will certainly forward them to the hon. member within the next few hours before the end of debate. I can tell him that within the constraint of our budgetary means we are doing as much as we can. Of course we would like to double the budget of CMHC, which is in the range of $1.5 billion. As with any social measures of the government, it can be said that we are not doing enough. What I am attempting to tell the hon. member is that the main thrust of the government is to have a wide range of measures so that Canadians can choose exactly what they want, whether they want to be tenants, home owners, or members of co-operatives. If co-operatives are not responding as much as they should-


David Orlikow: It is the CMHC which is not responding, not the co-operatives.


Pierre De Bané: I want to remind the hon. member that besides all the measures we are providing for all the co-operatives, that is 100 per cent loans, plus 10 per cent capital forgivable, we added a $10,000 grant to organized co-operatives, to pay for legal costs, etc.
The hon. member is saying that we are not putting enough money into the budget, but he must admit that this is the easiest criticism that can be made. On the basis of that sort of rationale the government is always the loser. Even if we put $3 billion into the fund, the hon. member can say that we should put in some more. In my opinion, and with great respect, such criticism is completely futile.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Bill C-46. I do not intend to repeat some of the criticisms of my colleagues which they made in a meaningful and objective way with regard to some inequities in the bill, but I hope to be able to refer to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).
Certainly, as the minister mentioned, going back to history to put the matter into perspective, there have been countless programs-and I know of them because many have been applied in my district-introduced by successive governments. Many millions of dollars have been poured into housing in Canada, and certainly many thousands of Canadians have derived some good as a result. I think everybody agrees that the minister, since taking on the portfolio is making a determined effort to do his job, and I think he will listen to sound advice from members of the opposition who have a particular interest in housing in the interests of the parts of the country they represent.
When one looks at the various programs available under CMHC, together with the provincial programs, one cannot but agree that there should be no Canadian without shel-
January 29, 1975

ter. I refer to programs to provide shelter for persons with an income of $3,000, programs sponsored by the provinces.
We hear the often repeated cliche, again referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that no Canadian should be denied a home, regardless of his income or where he lives. But for some reason, in spite of the great number of programs, there are many Canadians who have difficulty acquiring accommodation because of the bureaucratic entanglements, and because of the need for consultation with the various provinces as well as the existence of various municipal bylaws. I hope that in this regard the minister will make a sincere attempt, in discussions with CMHC, to untangle that bureaucratic mess and the red tape which one has to go through in applying for a loan, which is most frustrating.
If I may refer to the Assisted Home Ownership Program I am pleased, as others are, to note that more funding will be directed to this area. I was disappointed, however, that the minister made no mention of re-introducing the availability of funds for the purchase of existing homes, and also of removing the restriction against young, newly married couples who cannot qualify for a loan under the Assisted Home Ownership Program unless they have a child. This is absolutely amazing to me. It is obviously contradictory of other government policies-for example I will mention family planning. To my mind such a restriction is discriminatory.
We all know that there are many young couples who, when planning their future, want first to acquire a home before starting to raise a family. This opportunity should not be denied them, particularly when they cannot afford to borrow through other sources or under other programs.
I was also disappointed that there are no provisions in the bill to provide more funding for, nor is anything contained in the bill with regard to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the Residential Rehabilitation Program which the parliamentary secretary mentioned. This has been in existence for over a year, and it is obvious that, as usual, it only applies to large urban centres. 1 am sure the minister will be quick to recall that in my province two of the larger centres have already received loans and grants under NIP, in the region of $1 million. This amount will barely scratch the surface when taking the need into account.
The rehabilitation factor under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, which should be directed on a massive basis, would overcome the needs of many thousands of Canadians in the lower and middle income level. Under the rehabilitation section of the program those earning $6,000 or less can borrow up to $5,000 to improve their homes, and have to pay only half of it back, with a reduced scale of relief to those earning up to $11,000.
This is a good program, but in Newfoundland, after 15 months, I think the amount of $600,000 had been paid in grants, and that did not go very far.
Later on, I will quote some statistics.
When this program was announced last year I was overjoyed because of the many advantages that I saw in it, which allow the home owner to bring his home up to a
National Housing Act
better standard and give it longer life, besides enabling the owner to put in proper wiring, heating and, more particularly, insulation. If we were to look at this program just from the point of view of saving fuel, which is such a crisis in Canada, just imagine how many hundreds of thousands of homes are not properly insulated, and the added fuel cost to the low income earner, those on fixed incomes and pensioners. Their fuel costs are so much higher in the cold winters due to improper insulation.
How many homes are being destroyed by fire each year because of faulty wiring, or because homes in rural communities have to rely on oil stoves rather than having furnaces, which could be installed under this program? Statistics are available to show that countless thousands of homes across Canada fall into this category. Yet the government has taken so long to reach an agreement with the provinces on the areas to be designated, and here we are with another winter upon us with little action being directed towards implementing those programs.
If the government in its thrust for conservation wants to conserve fuel, more effort to implement this rehabilitation program on a massive scale should be undertaken immediately. The same applies to the doddling and blundering going on in relation to rural housing programs where supposedly, on paper, rehabilitation grants can be extended to the rural areas of our country which cannot qualify under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program.
The long drawn out consultative process denies many poor Canadians the advantages of these programs. There is a need for occupational standards to be set up, and areas of special help to be designated by the provinces; and still people wait for the benefits which could be made available thus saving many hundreds of millions of dollars for the country. I have been trying since these programs were established at all levels to get more emphasis placed on them, particularly in my province of Newfoundland, but all that I get is the type of letter which I received just this past September from the president of CMHC. He always ends his letters by saying that:
I share your concern that we see tangible benefits from these programs for low and moderate income Canadians at the earliest opportunity and you may be assured that CMHC is doing its utmost in this regard.
I cannot tell this to my people because they would think it is my answer to their problem.
I was looking at some census statistics recently from my province because of my particular concern for housing in that province. Those statistics emphasize the particular difficulties for prospective home owners. I will relate some of the statistics on incomes as tabulated in 1971.
We have a population of 532,000; 118,000 of those people are earning less than $3,000 a year; 57,000 are earning between $3,000 and $6,000; another 33,000 are earning between $6,000 and $10,000. So there are not too many who qualify under any of the programs, and the programs should be extended further to the people who need them. I must admit that these are not all prospective home buyers. Since 1971 I am sure that there has been an improvement, because there is a new Progressive Conservative government in Newfoundland. These statistics certainly serve to indicate that more effort must be extended towards all

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
areas of that province, and I would like to mention some of these for the minister's attention.
I wonder why more effort is not directed toward home improvement loans, and why the government is not taking the initiative in this respect. If section 28, which applies in this case, had been extended the government could have achieved the same purpose and avoided a long drawn out process without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.
Under section 28 loans are made available for financing of improvements to existing housing, multiple family units, even buildings consisting of business premises and family dwellings, with $4,000 loans available to cover the cost of labour, materials, repairs, home additions and almost every purpose. It is a wonderful program. I hope that the minister will use these millions of dollars to extend this program so that those Canadians mentioned earlier can have the advantage of bringing their homes up to a decent standard for a longer life, and help reduce the number of these people who must try to build new homes because they cannot repair their own, or because they are not worth repairing.
This home improvement loan program is another excellent program, and all the minister has to do is to amend the section to insert the forgiveness factor. Then the people could apply directly to CMHC rather than having to go through the long process in waiting for provincial governments to designate areas. As most hon. members have indicated, I am sure we all agree in principle with Bill C-46, particularly where efforts will be made to employ more capital for funding assisted home ownership and to allow CMHC to acquire leased land for non-profit housing.
A great need in most provinces, and particularly mine, is the provision of sewage treatment systems, and I am glad to see that the minister is expanding aid to that area, which indeed should be a top priority item for every community in Canada. I think every community, regardless of its size, must have a proper, basic water and sewage system, not only for housing development but also from a health aspect.
More attention must be paid in my province to the acquiring of land. I understand from statistics that the average cost of a building lot in Newfoundland is around $7,000. These figures must be old, because I understand it is now closer to $10,000. So, how are these people, in the income brackets I referred to, even to acquire a piece of land on which to build a home?
I hear that $10 million is to be spent in Corner Brook on a regional college. Next year 500 students will come in, some with families, and 150 teachers with families. There has been no effort, other than that made by the municipality, to provide homes for them. I am told that lots will sell for not less than $10,000. What are these people to do? The solution to the problem might be limited dividend housing.
I hope the minister realizes the need and, when he meets with the minister responsible for municipal affairs and housing in the province, probably this week, I hope he will bring this problem to his attention.
Referring to the public housing sector the parliamentary secretary spoke about the person getting $3,000 a year and

being able to qualify for assistance under the Assisted Home Ownership Program. That is fine. But how can we provide public housing in Newfoundland when the lowest tender for row housing given to the province ran at $45,000 per unit? There is a firm in Newfoundland which can provide a three-bedroom pre-fabricated house for $18,000, and a four-bedroom pre-fabricated house for $23,000. I hope this builder can get together with the minister. I hope something will come of that meeting.
Instead of building houses which will cost at least $45,000 per unit-which is ridiculous-why does the government not consider providing, say, the basement and land, the costs of which would go a long way toward the cost of a home, and allow people 15, 25 or 35 years to pay? We could provide pre-fabricated houses on an emergency basis, and so relieve much of the pressure.
Let me deal with veterans' housing. The parliamentary secretary referred to some of our housing programs. I am aware of all the co-op housing programs, non-profit housing programs, and residential and rehabilitation programs, as well as the NIP programs, RAP, and most of the others. He talked about the thrust of public housing. Let me say that we shall see more of a thrust in that direction. In two cities of my riding there are upwards of 1,000 people on the waiting list for housing. They have been given top priority. The housing situation has been reported as ridiculous. The Corner Brook Housing Corporation and other housing corporations realize that they cannot do anything dramatic when one apartment becomes available in the public housing sector.
Let me tell the parliamentary secretary about what happens in rural communities. In one case, according to the survey done by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion, which was given $38,000 to do a housing survey, a double amputee, a man lacking both his legs, has to be carried out every day to the outhouse. Of course he must go there if he is to function properly. This type of thing is embarrassing to mention. All the same if things are improving, they are improving too slowly.
If I may dwell on veterans' housing, we are all aware that the Veterans Land Act will be phased out in two months. The minister promised that the government will come up with a new and improved veterans' housing program. I hope he is right, Mr. Speaker, because the need is there, even though the department does not agree and figures that the Veterans Land Act has outlived its usefulness. I am awaiting answers from the director of the veterans land administration, to find out how many applications have been made since we forced the government to extend the act at least for one year.
Still not many hundreds of veterans remain to be dealt with, and they have sent letters to support their requests for help. These people require homes and should be given the advantage of the Veterans Land Act for as long as they live. Since the government does not agree to extend the act, I am getting a bit suspicious about the promises of the minister. I know discussions may be going on, but I hope he is not just waiting out the few months before the act is phased out. I hope he will not then say he can do nothing. We shall see. I hope that the minister, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who will be directly concerned about veterans' housing, will come up with a program to
January 29, 1975

help veterans. Let us do this under Bill C-46, so that veterans who may be denied an opportunity to own housing because of the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act will not feel so badly.
I have mentioned many of the problems of the people of Newfoundland. Probably I have been parochial. What I said applies to people all over Canada, and to many in rural Canada. As I said, I am sure the minister will do all he can to improve housing conditions in this country. He can rest assured that he will have the support of the opposition, and the advice of the opposition. I hope he will co-operate with us, so that we can come up with a proper housing program for Canadians.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, we have before us a bill which, on the surface, appears to be a step, however small, in the right direction to help the average working Canadian obtain a home at reasonable cost. We have heard statements in this debate about this objective. It is not new. What we heard from the minister was not a new statement on policy or principle. Unfortunately we have failed to move far in the direction in which we hope to make considerable progress in future.
We in my party have been greatly disturbed by the cavalier attitude of the government in the last two or three years. We do not care for the attitude it has shown to the housing crisis of Canada. On November 18, 1974, as recorded at page 1426 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in his budget statement about measures to stimulate residential construction:
The projected weakness in this sector of our economy troubles me a good deal. It threatens to reduce employment, raise production costs and increase prices and rents.
I am sure all Canadians were tremendously relieved to hear that the minister was finally troubled about the housing situation in the country. We in the opposition have been warning the minister for well over one year about prospects for the housing situation in Canada. He was warned repeatedly in the days of the minority twenty-ninth parliament, both by my leader and by the former leader of the NDP. He was warned by a great many members of the House that Canada was facing an unprecedented rise in interest rates, land costs and house prices. So, after all this time, after interest rates have risen to their highest level in history, some 14 per cent, after land costs have spiralled to completely ridiculous levels and house prices have sky-rocketed to unprecedented levels, the minister has finally said he is troubled.
I am sure that this is great consolation to the Canadian taxpayers who must pay 14 per cent in interest, pay $30,000 for a building lot, and $55,000 for a house which one and a half years ago would have cost about $23,000.
I am sure they are tremendously relieved and re-assured to know that the Minister of Finance was troubled a good deal. Let me ask: where was he when we needed him? Where was the Minister of Finance when the people of Canada needed him to deal with this particular problem? The government of Canada has a tremendous responsibility in encouraging the provision of houses for the people of this nation.
National Housing Act
Today we heard an outline of some of the programs. The parliamentary secretary took some pride in the fact there was such a multiplicity of plans. However, with the plans provided we should have made far greater progress in the provision of adequate homes for Canadians than has been made up to the present time.
We are faced with the situation where housing starts in Canada have fallen off drastically. The government must introduce new measures to stimulate growth in this very important sector of the economy. This present measure should have been introduced last August or September when the market was obviously in a decline. However, that is not the practice of this government.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) often says, the government is like a doctor trying to treat a patient who is bleeding to death by applying a bandaid. When will the government learn that answers to critical problems in our economy are not found in bandaid approaches, but in comprehensive, rational policies that are designed to meet specific problems and needs? These should not be applied after the fact as the present government has so often done.
In the first week of October last year the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) about the sharp decline in housing starts between August, 1973, and August, 1974. What was the minister's response? I quote from page 28 of Hansard:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is not a housing crisis in this country.
That was a rather remarkable retort. I do not know what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs calls a crisis, but I do know that about one and a half months later the situation had deteriorated even more so, so much more that his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), stood in this chamber and said he was troubled about it.
I wish to touch briefly on some of the elements that appear to make up the government's approach to the serious problem of housing. I do not wish to repeat all that has been said about the Registered Home Ownership Plan since May 1974, the time its provisions were introduced. However, I do wish to ask how many young Canadians with average incomes can save $100 a year, let alone $1,000 a year for ten years? I submit that anyone with such an income as to be able to save $1,000 a year can go all the way, and immediately make a down-payment on a house. He would have a high enough income to do so.
In ten years, which is the maximum number of years for participation in this plan, how far does the minister think $10,000 will go toward buying a house? The way housing prices have been increasing since the Minister of Finance took over that portfolio, $10,000 will not go very far. Also, should we ask our young people to wait ten years before buying their own home? I submit we should not ask them to do that. Let me just say I am quite skeptical about the program.
Last November the Minister of Finance introduced a measure to eliminate part of the tax on building materials. He said at that time, and I quote:
It has been a subject matter of debate in this House.

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
True enough, it has been, but thanks only to the members of the opposition parties, the party to which I belong in particular. Over the past number of years we have constantly raised this matter for debate. The government would have been happy just to forget about it, but this is one area where persistence has at least had half a result. I suppose the old adage is still true that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. However, I cannot understand why this penny pinching attitude has been adopted and pursued. Is the minister too proud to make an about-face and adopt the total proposal we have made? I hope not.
The Minister of Finance was not too proud when he wholeheartedly adopted my leader's proposal for indexing personal incomes two years ago. As my leader said at that time, the Minister of Finance swallowed himself. Perhaps he should swallow himself again and not just reduce the sales tax on building materials by 50 per cent. Many members, including myself, made this point in the debate on the excise tax bill. I will not pursue it further.
Another element in the government's approach to housing has been to request principal lenders to loan money for homes of all prices rather than just lower and middle-priced housing. Does the minister understand what is going on today?
A home at $40,000 may be low priced compared to a home at $98,000, but for the average Canadian who has to pay $30,000 for a building lot with a mortgage at 12 to 14 per cent, with monthly payments on principal, interest and taxes of $350 to $400, a home is as out of reach at $40,000 as it is at $98,000. That all begs the question really, because in the major population centres in this country there just are not homes people can buy for even $40,000.
Perhaps one can buy condominiums or other housing for $40,000 in the urban centres, but I fail to see how the minister's proposal to have money loaned for higher-priced accommodation will help the condominium market. That market has apparently been eligible for loans all along. The minister considers $40,000 to be low-priced accommodation. In any case this proposal is completely fatuous.
The much touted piece of political puffery, as my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North calls the $500 grant to people buying new moderately-priced housing units for the first time, is hardly worth talking about. It is a small step in the right direction, but fails sadly to meet the needs of the present time. The restrictions are so many and so varied that this is pretty well ruled out as an adequate answer to the housing problem. For example, it must be the first home, a new home, and of limited value.
A few days ago I received a packet of cartoons from someone in my constituency. I do not know who sent them. One in particular caught my attention. It showed a man talking about how governments are trying to help the little people. He said "I know they are always talking about doing something to help the little people, but my problem is I am never little enough to qualify." That is true in many instances. These programs do not, and will not meet the needs of the average Canadian with regard to housing.
I really do not understand why the government did not go all the way. I submit the government will have to take

considerably more action than it is prepared to take through this bill to accomplish the aims it has outlined as its objectives. As I said at the outset, the $600 a year subsidy is a good proposal as far as it goes. But we would prefer to see the amount of the subsidy equal, or nearly equal, to the amount the low or middle income person pays in interest on residential mortgages during the year. We can only hope that the small step being taken in the proposal before us will be followed in the not-too-distant future by a longer step.
If the minister really wishes to get our housing industry moving in order to construct the dwellings we need, and if he really wants to help Canadians purchase their own homes, he would listen to the proposals put forward by my party, suggestions we have been making over the last number of years. I would refresh the hon. gentleman's memory by recounting some of them for him. First, as I have indicated, we favour the elimination of all of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials for use in residential construction-not just 6 per cent of the tax, but all of it. Provision should be made at the same time for a rollback in price amounting to 11 per cent in order to ensure that the consumer should benefit.
Second, our party favours an allowance of a percentage of interest payments on residential mortgages being deductible from personal income tax. This could be done, if necessary, on a graduated scale to ensure that lower income families would benefit as much as middle-income families. The amount paid in municipal taxes, or some portion thereof, should also be made tax deductible.
Third, we would encourage the financial institutions of this country to make mortgage money available at more reasonable interest rates. Ten per cent is too high. All that is necessary is a rate one half of one per cent higher than the Bank of Canada rate; CMHC, which would be responsible to our minister in charge of housing, would be encouraged to lend at more reasonable rates of interest.
Fourth, we would take the necessary steps to ensure the collection of serviced land for housing. We would not hide behind the constitution, as the government has done in some instances. I realise that many of these proposals would require consultation with provincial governments, but it seems to me we could arrive at a more reasonable interpretation of our constitution-that it could be used, not to keep Canadians in difficult situations but as a liberating instrument to benefit all our citizens.
The measure before us today is certainly a step in the right direction, but the government must be more imaginative in its approach; it must move more rapidly and more decisively if the housing needs of the country are to be met, and if citizens in all income categories are to enjoy accommodation adequate to their needs.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, I believe the minister is, or should be, as concerned as we all are-


An hon. Member:: He is right here, over on this side.


Leonard C. Jones: It is better to have him on my right than on my left. I assume he is as concerned as we all are about the
January 29, 1975

housing situation. Housing costs have reached the limit. Land costs are out of this world. The total cost of housing, whether owned or rented, is out of line altogether. In addition the slump in the housing industry has created a good deal of unemployment, not only in my own constituency but in a large number of other constituencies across the land, with resulting ill-effects on all aspects of the economy. The situation is serious. With all respect to the minister, I believe he has crept away, or walked away, or run away from this situation. This is a crisis, and apparently it is one which the government is unwilling to face.
I have been concerned with housing for many years at the municipal level, and I am not convinced that all possible steps have been taken to provide decent housing for all our citizens. The real difficulty underlying the situation stems from the government's failure to wrestle inflation to the ground, in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) phrase, to reduce high interest rates and to cut down wasteful government expenditure. If interest charges were reduced, monthly payments would be lower. If construction costs were reduced the burden on home owners would be less. If government waste in connection with unnecessary and luxurious programs were eliminated, more money could be provided to those who cannot afford to satisfy their reasonable housing needs.
Public housing schemes are of great importance, not only for senior citizens and families in need but for adults in need of this type of accommodation. The CMHC must take the bull by the horns and cut out the red tape, dispense with unnecessary studies, consultations and consultants' fees. It must question the need to make up to 10 copies of every item. It must cut down the bureaucracy which scares the ordinary young couple away. Like many Crown agencies CMHC has become the victim of an overrated, over-populated bureaucracy, a great deal of its budget being spent on administration instead of on housing.
In my own constituency there is an acute need for housing and I urge the CMHC to continue its efforts, but in a new direction so as to make it easier to obtain financial assistance for the purchase of homes. It is true the minister is proposing some changes in the act, but I suggest these are not changes which will make it easy for young persons or senior citizens to find suitable housing.
There is another matter which puzzles me in this connection, and I am afraid I shall be chastized by members of my own profession for raising it now. A purchaser who buys through CMHC is not permitted to choose his own lawyer or solicitor but is bound to retain the solicitor to whom he has been referred by the Corporation.


Mr. Peters:: They might choose somebody who was not a Liberal. God forbid!


Leonard C. Jones: I don't know. Obviously they are chosen from a list made up by the government. Yet of all the things a person purchases, his home is probably the most important, and surely in this connection he should be able to get independent advice from someone employed by him, not advice from someone chosen by a government or a Crown agency from a list prepared by the government, or by an association on behalf of the government.
National Housing Act
If this practice continues, then at least the solicitor who does the work should be asked to do it on a charitable basis. When an individual is purchasing a property he should be able to retain his own solicitor.
I should also like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to amend the bill to provide financing for mobile homes. At the present time financing for mobile homes is done by financial institutions which charge anywhere from 18 to 23 per cent, and there is no way a young person, or indeed anybody, can afford that rate.
I should like the minister to answer my questions when he closes the debate. I would also like to know why CMHC continues to pass the buck, sometimes to the provinces, sometimes to the municipalities, sometimes to church clubs and organizations, as well as service clubs, in regard to assisting public housing, and in particular senior citizens' housing. I suggest it is time that the minister and CMHC got down to the grass roots level, rather than stand on his pedestal here in Ottawa, with his big building on one of the Ottawa streets. Doing this will not solve the housing problem in places like Vancouver, Toronto, Moncton, Halifax and St. John's.
The government must be prepared to shoulder the load of financial assistance not only for senior citizens' housing complexes but also for geriatric care; the two cannot be separated. To accomplish this a program must be followed that will embrace the entire spectrum of housing and care for senior citizens. Although much has been done, much more remains to be done. Let the minister not sit upon his so-called laurels; the government must do better to assist those who need housing.
I suggest the minister and his department deal directly with communities and with public housing projects. We always hear the excuse that under the BNA Act the provinces must be consulted. I suggest that the act has been circumvented before, and can be circumvented again. We are facing a housing crisis such that we can no longer tolerate any delay. Now is the time to cut out waste, and for CMHC and the department to do their homework. We must eliminate politics and patronage, and expedite housing construction, free from red tape, political interference and delay in provincial consultation.
As a further incentive to home ownership, real estate taxes and interest rates on mortgages should be deductible for income tax purposes. This is the case elsewhere in other countries and jurisdictions, and I do not see that our jurisdiction or country is any different from any other. This would be an incentive toward home ownership and would help people meet their housing needs. I suggest there are some suggestions I have made that should be followed up and will be of assistance, in addition to some of the provisions contained in the minister's bill.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Madam
Speaker, I am reluctant to enter this debate because of the charm just exercised toward several members on this side of the House by the minister, who felt that it was most important that this bill receive immediate consideration by the House and sent forthwith to committee. In fact it was urged upon us on this side of the House that a great

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
many people in this country are waiting patiently for the legislation to pass people like contractors, bankers, mortgage brokers. They are waiting patiently and with baited breath so they can trot down to the nearest bank and make a little more money.
No, Madam Speaker, I think it is very necessary that we take a careful look at what the minister is doing. At this very moment a group of people are taking a look at what the minister is doing at a meeting in the Chateau Laurier. This group represents all provinces in Canada, with the exception of New Brunswick, which is not represented at this conference.
The minister is fond of saying that consultation is so important to the political process-that it is important in keeping the country together. He has been consulting with Mr. Teron and with the mortgage companies and contractors. But I do not think he has been consulting with the poor people of this country who are looking for a meaningful housing program. I do not think he has been entering into meaningful consultations with representatives of the various provinces of this country.
By the way, Madam Speaker, it is of interest to note there is only one member of the press corps present in the press gallery at the moment. They are all over at the Chateau Laurier, because they know where the action on housing is. It is not at the federal level at all; it is at the provincial meeting at the Chateau Laurier.
A very interesting press release has been issued, and I should like to refer to some parts of it. The third item which apparently they agreed upon unanimously was that funds for social housing should meet the priority commitments of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget, that these allocations should not be used to finance new or amended programs introduced by Ottawa during the budget year, but that the allocation of these priority funds should be at the discretion of individual provinces.
In other word the complaint is that when we announce new programs we abandon old programs. A mysterious sleight of hand has been taking place in the minister's department about this. Every time there is a little crisis we get another press release or headline, but we do not get any more houses.


Walter David Baker: We get more bandaids.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is right. Something else that the provinces unanimously agreed to this afternoon, according to the press release, was that current indications are that housing starts in 1975 will be only 200,000. The provinces concluded that this is too low, and they recommended a minimum target of 250,000 starts nationally, with a corresponding increase in federal dollar commitment. In other words the provinces are willing to go the extra mile. We want the federal government to show some leadership, go the extra mile and match the initiative of the provincial governments.
I was most interested to hear the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), who took issue with some of the figures used by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) in his address to the House yesterday. I do not think he should take issue with the

hon. member for Broadview; he should be taking issue with the Canadian Council on Social Development. That is where the figures originated, and I have complete confidence in their accuracy.
I should like to go over them again because they relate to the AHOP program and what we are talking about in this debate-the provision of housing for poor people. From these figures we learn that the average earnings level for people in the city of Vancouver to qualify under the AHOP program is $19,000 a year. You have to earn $19,000 a year before you can apply under the AHOP program. What kind of program is that? I do not qualify for an AHOP grant under the present salary level in the House of Commons; I earn only $18,000. Incidentally, my House leader makes the point that we represent a mere 1 per cent of the top income levels in the country. I do not know whether I can accept that figure, but I hope this demonstrates to the minister that this low income program is absolutely meaningless. Its provisions do not even qualify members of this House to make application under the AHOP program.
Some of the income levels in respect of these AHOP provisions are $18,000 in Ottawa, $16,000 in Halifax, $15,000 in Saint John and $14,000 in Montreal.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Those are maximum figures.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Those are maximum? I suggest they are not. In any event the second point I want to make in respect of the AHOP program is that in Vancouver if you can find a house for $44,900 you can go and buy it. We have been through these figures over and over again, but let me say that I do not know of any house in the area of my ridir g where I live that is not worth more than that right now. There is almost no housing available in Vancouver under the provisions of this program.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I wonder if the hon. member would accept a question.


An hon. Member:: Let's call it six o'clock.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Would you like to know what the average is in Vancouver?


Mr. Gilbert:: Ask him about the average in Toronto.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I should like to say a word about this miracle act that came in previously, the Residential Mortgage Financing Act, which was supposed miraculously to release all this mortgage money for building houses. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said that of this group he was only able to find one that is bothering to use the provisions of that act. That is the kind of tinkering that indicates the bankruptcy of the housing policies produced by the government.
The House has been talking about the group of economic advisers in the Prime Minister's office. Apparently these economic advisers advise the minister on economic things rather than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


An hon. Member:: The group of seven.


^I
January 29, 1975


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: One member of that group is from the University of Toronto and is involved in quantitative analysis. His estimate of housing starts for this year, prior to the November budget, was 198,000. After the budget his estimate was revised to 203,450. That does not represent a very dramatic change in the estimate of housing starts for this country. On January 16, the estimate of housing starts for this year was 202,000. Of course housing starts are down 17 per cent all across the country.
At least the provinces, together and unanimously, understand this problem. They have suggested we should be building no less than 250,000 units this year, and I might say that is a pretty modest approach. The hon. member for Matane said earlier that our provincial governments are not responding. I suggest they are responding by looking for leadership and more money, but they are not getting sufficient help.
One of the key items in the increased cost of housing is the cost of land. Recently a study by the greater Vancouver regional district showed that 53 per cent of the increase in the price of houses in the lower mainland was directly the result of an increase in land prices rather than the result of increases in labour and material costs. The increase in the cost of labour and materials was responsible for about 26 per cent of the increase.
As I understand it, the amount the province of British Columbia has received from the federal government to assist in land banking and getting at this terrible problem of free enterprise speculation in land has been about $1 million. The present need is $10 million. This would indicate a sort of one-tenth response to the real problems in respect of housing in British Columbia.
We are now building a new city close to my community, for about 80,000 people. This is at least some meaningful response to the problem, but this is not a result of the leadership shown at the federal level.
Let us look at the history of what has been done in respect of housing in Canada. We used to subsidize the purchase of houses for middle income class people by guaranteeing the interest rate on loans. We still do this. Where I live almost everyone lives in one of those houses built with a loan guaranteed at an interest rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent. The people who live in those houses are very comfortably ensconced.
The poor and the young in that community now want similar housing. Unfortunately they are meeting resistance from those middle income class people who took advantage of a subsidized program to build their excellent accommodation. They are now resisting the need for public housing. One of the reasons for this is our record of providing socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. I cannot see anything in the changes proposed in the bill before us that departs from that principle of looking after the middle class first and forgetting about the low income people who so desperately need housing.
One of the main reasons for family breakups in this country is that you must have two income earners in the family in order to buy a house. With the present costs and mortgage interest rates there is no way a family with one parent at home can manage to buy a house. Both parents must work in order to meet the required payments.
National Housing Act
Our expectation with regard to housing has risen out of all proportion. Everyone aspires to the ownership of the middle class three-bedroom, three-car home. There is no longer any way we can satisfy that kind of demand in this country. We must cut down on the size of houses and the cost of housing. This will mean some pretty severe adjustments in our appetites. There are many other areas in respect of which we will have to alter our appetites as well. I suggest we must stop subsidizing the luxury housing market, and stop pouring money into that market as we have been doing.
What we have been doing is contributing to local confrontations in municipalities across the country. These confrontations are between those who are comfortably housed with mortgage rates subsidized by the government, and the poor and the young who are trying to get housing close to these attractive areas.
It is time we decided in this country, as they have in Europe, that a significant proportion of our housing program must be directed toward public housing. At the present time only 1 'A per cent of all housing in Canada is public housing. We must learn, as they have in both free enterprise and democratic socialist countries in Europe, that we can conscript capital for the purpose of public housing. This would require the banks and the lending institutions to make available a proportion of their money at interest rates of 6 per cent and 7 per cent.
I do not think there is anyone in this House who is not sympathetic to the minister because of his very difficult task in respect of housing. I know he is sincere in his desire to get housing back on the road in this country. Unfortunately he is handicapped by some pretty conservative friends in the Cabinet, in a philosophical sense, inasmuch as his portion of the federal budget is not nearly large enough to deal with this massive problem.
I hope that the minister will listen very carefully to the representations that will be made to him tomorrow at the federal-provincial conference at which the provinces have indicated their willingness to go a little farther. I hope the minister will go a little farther and commit a much more meaningful amount of money, and a more significant program in terms of land banking, public housing, and so on.
I did want to mention one other matter that I neglected to mention earlier. Under the sewer program we have a proposal for per-capita sewage grants. It would seem to me that it would be necessary, if we are serious about providing low cost housing, to tie those grants to the percentage of housing in the community going to low cost housing so that there is some commitment from the municipalities that they will pay their share in providing that kind of housing. Right now we are getting local resistance to it for the reasons I have mentioned, namely, that those of us in the middle class have been nicely looked after and we are not sufficiently in tune with the housing needs of the young and the poor. I think I have said enough, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Madam Speaker, because of the lateness of the hour I will cut short my opening remarks and simply say that the housing

January 29, 1975
National Housing Act
problem that we now have is not only a national problem but a very intense local problem in certain areas of the country, and also a very individual problem for certain segments of our population.
There is a group of people who, because of special needs, are attracted to special locations, specific areas in our country, and I refer of course to the special needs of our senior citizens. These are people who are hurt beyond the hurt of all other segments of the population in this critical area of housing. They are people who, because of transportation needs, must live near the urban areas, and this, coincidentally is also the area of greatest cost for housing. Frequently because of health they tend to move towards the areas of Canada where the climate is more moderate, such as southern Ontario, southern B.C., Surrey-White Rock, Greater Vancouver, and Greater Victoria. It is the very attractiveness of these areas that creates the congestion. The congestion accelerates the shortage, inflates the prices, and puts these facilities out of reach of tjie people who need them the most.
But the greatest problem is that we see it as a problem. There was a time when the elderly were counted as an asset; today they are counted as a problem. Their accumulated wisdom at one time in our history was seen as a source of wealth. Their well formed opinions were seen as a force for stability. Their scope of experience was seen as a comprehension which complemented our fixation on specialization. These we considered as assets. So long as we see senior citizens as a problem we will produce half hearted solutions that tantalize rather than cure. It is no solution to invent polite euphemisms such as golden age clubs, sunset pavilions, retirement centres. Euphemisms such as that are not a cure. One hundred years ago the English poet, Robert Browning, in a poem entitled "Rabbi Ben Ezra", said:
Grow old along with me The Best Is yet to come The last of life, for which the
first was made.
I wonder how many senior citizens in our country today would be able to say with Rabbi Ben Ezra "Grow old along with me, the best is yet to come" when they are presented with a housing problem such as we have never seen before.
We have a variety of programs today for senior citizens but, no matter how they are designed, the programs always seem to end up with a housing solution that pensioners cannot afford-the payments are beyond their income, and those elderly who are on fixed income are tantalized by senior citizens' programs that are beyond their reach.
So I would like to make one suggestion to the minister to help in something that might be at least a partial solution to them, and I refer specifically to programs for non-profit senior citizens projects. Those programs are already burdened with land acquisition costs, and the private citizens who have combined resources to help senior citizens in this way have already given extensively. Yet, beyond that there is the expense of the combination of federal and provincial mortgages. In truth, there are some grants given them, but these mortgage payments are at interest rates that they cannot afford. On top of that there are property taxes. Even if the mortgage payments were such that senior citizens could afford them, there are the property taxes which the municipalities cannot afford to forgo because they need this revenue, and the property taxes help to put those projects out of reach of senior citizens.
So I would like to propose to the minister that he consider a program whereby mortgage payments on nonprofit senior citizens housing projects would be forgiven to the level of 50 per cent of the property taxes. In this way the revenue which the municipalities need would be retained for those areas. This would focus on areas of our country where the pressure in housing is the greatest on senior citizens. It would tend to alleviate the pressure in those areas; it would focus on the areas where it is felt most by senior citizens, and it would help to alleviate the pressure on that segment of the population that can least afford this kind of regular housing.
I would invite the minister to consider this proposal to forgive 50 per cent of the mortgage payments on non-profit senior citizens housing projects to the level of 50 per cent of the property taxes. I trust that this will find favour with the minister.
May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Thursday, January 30, 1975