1975-03-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates an exchange took place between the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) and some hon. members which has implications for the rights and responsibilities of all hon. members. When the minister was questioned about the communications branch of the National Research Council, he told the committee that this agency, which has security responsibilities, had been transferred to the Department of National Defence. When asked what changes in the estimates this necessitated, the minister said:


Mr. Drury:: Under what particular item it appears in the Department of National Defence I do not know.


Mr. Beatty:: Could I ask you where the change is this year? Where was it last year in the estimates? What vote was it?
MR. Drury: I would hope it would have appeared in a number of votes.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You would hope that it would have appeared in a number of votes?
MR Drury: As is customary in security matters.
This was later elaborated upon as follows:


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would not like to convey the impression that the estimates are inaccurate; that the estimates are dishonest. What I was merely endeavouring to say is that the estimates, the appropriations made for security purposes within the government are recorded in the estimates in a way which would make it difficult for somebody who is hostile or antagonistic to Canada to-
MR Clark (Rocky Mountain): Such as the opposition.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He said that, not me... who are hostile to Canada, through an analysis of the estimates to get some notion of the size, shape and perhaps even the activities of our counter-subversive forces.
Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the government has chosen to deal with secret information is offensive to a democratic system based on the approval of the spending program by an elected assembly. It is insulting to suggest that the choice in a parliamentary system is either to deny and hide the existence of security activities, on the one hand, or to run the risk of exposing totally material which ought to be classified in the national interest. There is a middle ground which is compatible with the parliamentary control of expenditure. The present method is contrary to the Constitution and to the government's own description of the purposes of the estimates. Section 54 of the British North America Act states that the Governor General recommends expenditures to the House for specific purposes. This provision is repeated in Standing Order 62(1) of this House which states:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Standing Order 63 is germane to the point, and says in part:
-it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the
Senate.
The emphasis is on the right of the House to approve the details of expenditure. These Standing Orders are further developed by Beauchesne, citations 244(3) and 246(3) which stress that amendments to change financial recommendations of the Crown can only be made after further recommendations by the Crown setting out a new proposal. When the government presents its estimates it states categorically that their purpose is to provide to the House the necessary information on which to make a judgment. In the preface to the estimates for 1975-76, paragraph No. 1, we find this statement:
The proposals with respect to voted items are conveyed formally in these estimates in the wording and amount of the votes which, when included in appropriation acts, become the governing conditions under which the expenditures may be made.
Paragraph 4 continues, in describing reasons for changes in the form of estimates:
The decision of the Government of Canada to adopt a system of budgeting by programs, a "planning, programming, budgeting system", with its emphasis on defining program objectives and showing the full costs for each program, was also a determining factor.
In view of the attitude of the Minister of Science and Technology, these two descriptions are untrue and the assurances they are meant to convey to members of parliament are misleading and deceptive.
I have not raised this question of privilege today, and the matter was not pursued by my colleagues on the miscellaneous estimates committee because we believe that the state has no right to be extremely careful in its release of information considered prejudicial to the security of the state. Quite the contrary: members of this party concerned about freedom of information, such as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), have repeatedly stressed that this is a valid criterion. However, the position which has been taken by the minister represents an unhealthy extreme. Members are to find out about security organizations by accident and then be denied any opportunity to ask questions about the scope and purpose of such activities or the amount of money to be spent on them.
While it would be comforting to be able to accept assurances that everything being done in the name of security and secrecy is fit and proper, recent history is crowded

March 25, 1975
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
with instances of the abuse of security organizations in countries where these organizations were completely shielded from investigation by democratically elected representatives of the people. My proposition with respect to this is that too much security and secrecy brings its own dangers.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this practice referred to by the minister rejects the very procedural foundation upon which approval of estimates is based and prevents members of parliament from fulfilling their responsibilities. For this reason, if you find that I have a prima facie question of privilege I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark):
That the practice of hiding security program estimates amongst unrelated headings be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the committee be empowered to recommend a more suitable procedure for presenting and dealing with estimates relating to national security.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I am the one who has given rise to this question of privilege, perhaps I might say a word on it. Without question, what the hon. gentleman read in the way of citations and instructions governing the preparation and presentation of estimates was entirely factual and covers generally the fullest and most complete disclosure to a responsible parliament that we can contrive. Indeed, in so far as I have been responsible for the preparation and presentation of estimates, that has been the objective I have sought to achieve. However, matters of national security are somewhat different and the problem is not peculiar to Canada; indeed, this is the universal dilemma of the nation state.
In order for a national security program to be effective, it must be prepared to counter undercover, hidden, clandestine operations of other people, such as the intelligent services which operate against the interests of the national state, or against the interest of Canada. The counter-intelligence movement, or the security apparatus which is countering interests whjch are inimical to Canada, or countering interests which are pursuing purposes which are inimical to Canada, must, in order to be effective, itself be under cover and not known to an enemy. To take a popular analogy, this is a bit like engaging in a poker game in which one man discloses his hand by putting it on the table and the other keeps his hidden and then proceeds to bet.
This, however, presents those in a democracy with a serious dilemma, namely, how to have an effective counter-subversive organization which, in order to be effective, must not be publicly known and the operational details of which should not be disclosed to persons against whom it is operating.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: And the details of which must not be scrutinized by parliament.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I point out to hon. members that the security apparatus of Canada is not directed against Canada; it is directed against those outside Canada whose interests may at times be inimical to our own.


Mr. Peters:: That is exactly what Hoover said about the CIA.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In order to secure funds for these operations, we must and should seek the approval of parliament. The matter must, therefore, be included in the estimates. The problem, from the administrative point of view, is how-


Charles Joseph Clark: To hide it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -to seek this parliamentary approval without disclosing in a comprehensible and clear way precisely what is being done, and how. In order to achieve this purpose, an endeavour is made not to include in the estimates, as normally is the case with other programs, a discrete heading showing the entire amount of effort, or the entire number of people and the entire organization and purposes involved in counter-subversive operations: these are not put under one heading as by doing so we would serve the cause to which the organization is opposed. To do so would serve them admirably but it would not help Canadians and our parliamentarians.
To get over this dilemma, when members of the House or the House collectively have felt in the past they must know either the global arrangements or the details of the program, we have, on matters involving national security arrangements, informed parliament in camera rather than on a public basis. Members who participate in such in-camera sessions are under the obligation not to use the information they acquire in a public sense, that is, not to use the information they acquire in public ways or in connection with any other program.
I suggest this with some deference, but if it is the view of the House that it is important at this juncture to have information and a briefing on the security arrangements, I would be quite prepared to recommend to my colleague the House leader that arrangements be made for an in-camera session, on the understanding that those who participate in it accept the responsibility for treating in confidence the information they gather in respect of this national problem. They would be obligated not to disclose this in a way which would harm the interests of Canada.
I think this procedure has always been open. I feel strongly that it would not be in the interests of Canada to tip our hand, so to speak, in a public way merely to satisfy curiosity or the demands of those who would write interesting and perhaps exciting articles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on this matter. I noted with interest the reference made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) to in-camera sessions. The last in-camera session of this House of Commons that I can remember took place in 1944. Therefore, we are talking about something that does not happen under normal conditions.
The other point I want to make is this. It is open to the government, certainly under the Regulations Act and maybe in other ways, to provide that certain matters be kept secret. I suggest that it is one thing for the government to act under that authority if it feels justified in doing so. However, it is quite a different matter to distrib-
March 25, 1975

ute expenditure items through a number of estimates, in effect to distort the picture that is being given to parliament of how money is being spent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather it is that practice about which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is complaining. I believe the complaint is well taken. If the government wants to keep certain information secret, it should do it legally under the appropriate act; it should not distort the estimates it places before parliament.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the offer that has been made by the minister, I ask that my question of privilege be stood at this time, and perhaps we can discuss the matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: I might inform the hon. member that I had that very intention, for two reasons. First, the question of privilege raises the very important point of the right of opposition members to be able to make inquiries in an examination of the estimates and in voting supply, as opposed to the right of the government to retain certain information as secret and confidential and to perhaps go to the length of distributing it throughout the estimates in some unseen way in order to protect that secrecy. The question is extremely important and complex, and I would like to look at it carefully. In addition, there is the offer by the minister that might want to be considered by hon. members before this matter is resolved. Accordingly, it would perhaps be best to ruminate over the Easter break and see what might develop.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Regional Development in both official languages-Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke).
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43, concerning current and ever increasing difficulties affecting Air Canada which are seriously impairing the efficiency of the corporation and detracting from its reputation and public image. I therefore move,
Veterans' Housing
seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government forthwith arrange an inquiry under the Inquiries Act to investigate certain aspects of Air Canada and its operations, with particular reference to continuing chaotic conditions in the Winnipeg finance section, also the status of and financial accommodations given to the vice-president of personnel to determine whether this executive has been accorded unique treatment vis-a-vis other Air Canada personnel.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to seek permission to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent and pressing matter is the ongoing process of building the Pickering airport, bearing in mind the recent statement made to the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that he would stop this process if it were proven to him that the majority of the people in Toronto were opposed to it. Yesterday, a poll indicated that 54.4 per cent of the people of that city were against the construction of the Pickering airport as the project now stands. Therefore, on the basis of this and previous polls, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport that the Pickering project be not proceeded with for at least two years in order to enable a continuation of studies concerning this matter, including studies relating to new technology dealing with the reduction of noise levels as well as the possible development of the Toronto Island airport in regard to short-range STOL routes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43 and the unanimous consent of the House is required before it can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the decision reached by the government concerning the provision of housing assistance to veterans. As hon. members

March 25, 1975
Veterans' Housing
will recall, and as reported at page 1072 of Hansard for November 5, 1974, I stated that an urban housing program for veterans retiring from post-war careers would be inconsistent with the Veterans Land Act which was an agriculturally-oriented rehabilitation program designed to assist veterans following their discharge from wartime active service.
I went on to say, however, that it was realized many low or modest income veterans have needs in respect of housing, and that in recognition of such awareness and of the greater relevancy of the provisions of the National Housing Act to their needs, a study was under way to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist these veterans. My colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), shares my pleasure in informing the House that the government has decided to provide some special assistance to low or modest income veterans within the context of the provisions of the National Housing Act.
Having regard for the increasing age of veterans, good housing at low rental levels is economically and physically more practical for many than home ownership. Accordingly, to provide further incentive toward increasing the availability of such accommodation it has been decided to provide an additional capital grant of 10 per cent to nonprofit organizations which build low-rental projects primarily but not necessarily exclusively for the housing of veterans.
As hon. members are aware, there is provision under section 15.1 of the National Housing Act to provide nonprofit organizations with start-up funds of $10,000. A grant or contribution is made of 10 per cent of the capital cost of the building project. Other provisions of the National Housing Act may also be utilized in the development of. section 15.1 projects. Loans equivalent to 100 per cent of the net cost are made on a long term, 50-year basis at a preferential rate of interest.
The additional 10 per cent-which will also be available where the land is acquired by CMHC and leased to the non-profit organization-should be of significant help in the level of rental rates which are established and maintained with respect to projects developed primarily but not necessarily exclusively for veterans. Veterans' associations and other non-profit organizations have shown interest in past years in low rental projects. It is hoped that the provision of an additional 10 per cent capital grant will encourage further or fresh initiatives by such groups.
Turning now to the area of home ownership, the government considers it appropriate to provide a cash subsidy of up to $600 annually to veterans as defined in the Veterans Land Act who obtain loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or from approved lenders for the construction or purchase of new houses and who meet the income and child dependency criteria of the Assisted Home Ownership Program.
This subsidy of up to $600 will be additional to that available under the AHOP plan for the purpose of reducing payments of principal, interest and taxes to the range of 22-25 per cent of a veteran's adjusted income. It will provide a basis, accordingly, for enabling additional veter-
[Mr. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans
ans in the low or modest income levels to acquire home ownership who may not be able to do so today despite the existing favourable provisions of the AHOP plan.
I referred earlier to the advancing years of veterans, and while this does not necessarily have any bearing on their productive capabilities it is only natural that progressively fewer meet the child dependency requirement of the AHOP plan. It is evident, too, that many veterans eligible under AHOP from an income level standpoint would find it more practical and economical-particularly in communities located outside major metropolitan areas-to purchase existing good quality houses rather than build or buy a new one.
In recognition of veterans in these circumstances, an annual interest reduction grant of up to $600 will be made to veterans as defined in the Veterans Land Act who obtain NHA loans from approved lenders, who have not owned a home in the preceding three years and who would be eligible under the AHOP plan except for the child dependency or new house requirements.
I have no intention of suggesting that the special housing assistance measures on behalf of veterans that I have just announced touch on all the needs or circumstances that veterans may have with respect to housing. I would point out, however, that the provisions of the National Housing Act are broad and favourable, and there are a variety of plans in operation in most provinces, many of them in conjunction with the National Housing Act. Even if it were otherwise feasible and possible, therefore, it is not considered that special assistance for veterans would be warranted with respect to each type of requirement they might have and regardless of income level.
It is contemplated that the administration of the measures I have announced will be carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with support from officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Similarly, the additional funding required for subsidy purposes will be disbursed by CMHC from resources provided by Veterans Affairs. Not all of the administrative and financial requirements have yet been completed. However, I hope all necessary arrangements will be concluded soon in order that action to implement the measures may be initiated at the earliest possible date.
Earlier in my statement I referred to the Veterans Land Act. Operations under that statute commenced as early as 1942 and this weekend, after more than 30 years of activity, the authority for the director to accept loan applications for the establishment of qualified veterans will come to an end. This does not mean that the act or the administration will cease to exist. More than 140,000 veterans have received financial assistance totalling more than $1 Vi million. Of those veterans, more than 60,000 still have VLA contracts representing a principal indebtedness of $545 million. The contracts for many will not expire until on or about the year 2000, and they will be eligible, of course, to apply for additional loans until March 31, 1977.
The special housing assistance measures for veterans that I have announced do not represent a replacement of the Veterans Land Act because, as I stated previously, it was neither designed nor intended as a housing program but as an agriculturally-oriented, post-war rehabilitation plan. I nevertheless thought it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to
March 25, 1975

conclude my statement with a brief reference to some of the vital statistics pertaining to VLA operations, to the tremendous contributions the legislation and VLA settlers have made to the growth and well-being of Canada, and to salute the dedicated officials who have administered the act over the years and will continue to do so for many years to come.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say a word of appreciation to the minister for providing the opposition with a copy of the statement which he just read to the House. Normally it would fall upon the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) to speak for the official opposition on matters related to veterans affairs. However, it may not be known to the House that just this past weekend the hon. member lost his wife who passed away quite suddenly. I know hon. members on all sides of the House will join with me in offering to him and his family our deepest sympathy in their time of bereavement.
I welcome the fact that at long last the minister has seen fit to make a statement regarding housing for veterans. Ever since a few years ago when we saw the Veterans Land Act coming to an end, we on this side of the House, joined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), have made representations on many occasions and used many devices of procedure in the House of Commons to extend the Veterans Land Act in order to accommodate veterans who have not yet been able to provide themselves with proper housing. We were assured at one point when the government defeated our motion to extend the Veterans Land Act that housing legislation was in the works and would soon be presented.
Since then we have been waiting a long time, and that is why we welcome this announcement today. However, I must say we are deeply disappointed with the contents of the announcement, because we were given to understand that special housing legislation would be introduced into the House designed solely for the benefit of veterans and directed toward those people who have given their all in defence of our country in times of great danger and need. But what do we have in the statement made by the minister? We have an embellishment and enlargement of the National Housing Act, really nothing that is pointed directly at the veterans.
These are men who have pride, Mr. Speaker, They took pride in the service they gave their country, and they like to feel that their government and the Parliament of Canada respect them to the point where they will introduce legislation directed specially at them in recognition of their great sacrifice. We feel that despite the amendments to the National Housing Act which the minister referred to, this is really a token gesture to our veterans that is far, far less than we were given to understand the government was going to make in its proposed legislation.
At least twice in his statement the minister said "primarily but not necessarily exclusively for the veterans". We take exception to this. We think these measures should be primarily for the veterans; the veterans are what the Veterans Land Act is all about. We are given to understand that this replaces the Veterans Land Act. We note, too, that some of the increased grants and assistance
Veterans' Housing
to veterans is not being given directly to them but, rather, to non-profit organizations which construct low rental housing projects for people such as veterans but not necessarily for them.
We welcome the fact that the minister has seen fit to propose an amendment that will give a cash subsidy of $600 annually to veterans. This is an important step and it is fitting, proper and right that it should be done. We feel this will help veterans in the low income group. I note that the minister says it is in addition to that available under AHOP, so I presume it is in addition to the $500 already available to people who build or purchase new homes under the National Housing Act or through CMHC. Our principal disappointment with this is that it is not special legislation. I realize the minister has just said that the program does not touch on all the needs or the circumstances veterans may face in respect of housing. This is exactly the fault we find with it; it certainly does not touch on all the needs, and this is again why I say that special legislation should have been introduced.
Much of the work is to be carried out by CMHC with the assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This department has been relegated to second place in the administration of legislation and changes which affect veterans. The department should be in first place because, after all, we are dealing with veterans of our country.
In conclusion, I certainly join with the minister in his salute to the dedicated officials of the department who have over the years administered the Veterans Land Act to the benefit of a great many veterans who chose to settle on the land and become full-time farmers. Too much good cannot be said about the work they have done. However, I register deep disappointment over the fact that we are not seeing today the introduction of a special housing act aimed solely at the needs of our veterans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with my friend, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), in saying how deeply sorry my colleagues and I feel for our friend, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). He is one of the most distinguished and best respected members of this House and we are indeed sorry that he is experiencing this very sad bereavement.
I also join with the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand in expressing, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), a word of appreciation for what has been done during the past 30 years or more under the Veterans Land Act. The tribute to those who have administered this legislation is well deserved. I think we should also pay tribute to the veterans who have taken advantage of this legislation and have made Canada a better place for what they have done under its provisions.
In the same friendly mood I should like to say that all of us in this House have a great deal of respect for the able and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs. When he rises to make an announcement or say anything, our instinct is to approve and applaud. I regret that there has to be some qualification in what I say in that respect today. We feel that this announcement, promised last November 5 and 6,

March 25, 1975
Veterans' Housing
is a very real disappointment. May I point out that in the past 30 years or more, veterans in need of housing or with housing problems have been able to go to the veterans land administration, a division of their own Department of Veterans Affairs. From now on they will go to to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or to the developers who operate under AHOP. There is no longer any special place, a place of their own, for veterans to go, as veterans, to get assistance in connection with their housing needs.
I would also point out that although we have dared to hope during the months that we would be getting legislation respecting veterans housing, there is no suggestion in this announcement that there is to be any legislation at all. By the process of an announcement, veterans are being turned over to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) in this regard. Considering the difficulty that Canadians generally have in getting assistance on their housing problems from that minister, I do not see that this is any great day for veterans-to be told that they must go and see the Minister of State for Urban Affairs or one of the agencies which operate under that minister.
Let me also point out that the statement which, of course, is made today to keep a promise that something would be said before March 31 contains very few details. There was even a comment in the statement to the effect that most of the details have not yet been worked out. All of that leaves open the question of whether there is to be any legislation, and are we going to get any chance of making sure that the provisions which are to be put into play for veterans are really the kind that will be of assistance to them? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that to us the statement is a disappointment.
In the main, the minister breaks his announcement into two parts; he talks about rental housing for veterans and then about home ownership. Under the heading of rental housing he says that non-profit organizations which can now get grants of a certain size for the construction of rental housing can get an additional 10 per cent if the projects are built primarily, but not necessarily exclusively, for veterans. The most the minister can say in respect of that arrangement is that it should be of significant help in the level of rental rates which are established for such veterans. There is no guarantee at all that there is to be any discernible benefit to veterans. The veteran will just have to go to a non-profit organization, hoping there is one in his area, to try to rent accommodation, daring to hope that the rent will be a little less than it would have been had this announcement not been put into effect. It seems to me to be a very small offer that is being made to veterans so far as rental housing is concerned.
In connection with home ownership, again the veteran is being told he can no longer knock on the door of the Department of Veterans Affairs but must knock on the door of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. He is told there are some additional grants available to help cope with interest, provided he meets all the conditions. First of all he has to be a veteran within the meaning of the definition in the Veterans Land Act, and that in itself is a limitation. Then he has to meet various conditions set down in the National Housing Act or under AHOP. In the final analysis, it means that the veteran who is seeking to buy a home is at the mercy of the developer who operates

under AHOP, and it has been made clear that in recent years there have been practically no homes offered under AHOP in the large urban centres in Canada where 75 per cent of Canadian people live. If no homes are available, the extra assistance is of no help.
There is a slight improvement in that there will be there grants of so much money per year to help a few veterans pay the interest on the mortgage, but of what use is that help if the veteran cannot get a home under AHOP in one of our large cities?
The one thing there is in this program that does not seem to be there for non-veterans is that there can be assistance for the purchase of a home that is already in existence. But, of course, then we are under the various ceilings and provisions that are in the legislation. The cost of a home in our cities is such that one wonders whether it will be of any help.
All told, there is no doubt in my mind that the minister's heart is in the right place and that he wants to help the veterans, but I think he has been conned by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs into making a statement that sounds as though it provides something for veterans but that really provides very little.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends opposite can boast and applaud their minister and complain about our criticism all they want. They will find out very soon that it really is a disappointment that the Veterans Land Act was allowed to lapse-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and that the government did not put something in its place that would be of real help to our veterans.
This is my last sentence, Mr. Speaker. Veterans are now being told that for housing help they must go to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs; considering how unhelpful he is to Canadians in general, that is a pretty poor show for the veterans of this country.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to join the two speakers who preceded me in offering the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) our deepest sympathy in his cruel bereavement.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I listened attentively when he read it and I seriously pondered on the standards of living, the benefits that are granted to veterans in the various countries I had the opportunity of visiting. I thought that Canada, and I am most convinced of this, is one of the countries which have done the most in the last few years to help well deserving veterans.
So, I should like in their name to thank the minister for his statement which will certainly be of assistance to retired veterans. It is obvious that because of their age many of them who would like to own their house are not
March 25, 1975

in a position to keep it as they would like to. To overcome those difficulties, the minister announced that he wants nonetheless to help them provide for themselves decent housing and to this end, an additional capital grant of 10 per cent will be provided to non profit organizations; the program will be under the responsibility of another department.
I would like, and we have to take things as they are, to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), since he will be in charge of the management of that program, to suggest to his officials as well as to those of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be considerate to veterans, to be patient enough and give them explanations when they will request information on the advantages of the law and those available from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In short, they should not be too harsh with them, rejecting their request on all kinds of pretexts under some regulations which sometimes are not acceptable to the minister or the legislators so as to give further satisfaction and additional advantages to some groups of individuals.
I should also like to ask him, seeing I have had the opportunity of visiting some of the construction done under the supervision of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whether he is aware that it is not always of the best quality. Veterans have the right to live in comfortable, well-built first quality and solid homes, in which they will be happy to live.
The minister also stated that there will be a cash subsidy of $50 a month. To my mind, that is an excellent idea, a step in the right direction; I am sure that measure will.be welcomed by those who will want to take advantage of it.
There is another aspect of the statement of the minister that I consider very important because I live in a rural area. Provision is made to allow veterans to buy old houses that are still in good condition and can be renovated; this means that the price of these houses will correspond to their means. In addition, in some parishes, on the outskirts of Quebec City or Levis, and the same must surely apply to Montreal and other large cities, several farms have been regrouped, houses have been abandoned which could still be lived in. So, if under the terms of this act veterans are allowed to retire some distance from the cities, in the country, some balance will result between the rural and urban populations; those who live in the country will be able to share the burden of public expenses with a larger number of people. To my mind, because of this, people will be able to say toward the end of their lives: We now live in a healthy environment, where the air is pure, where there is space. That will be the crowning glory of their lives. That way, Canadians will prove their gratitude to them for their devotion and courage in fighting for our freedoms.


Mr. Boulanger:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mer-cier (Mr. Boulanger) on a question of privilege.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy. On behalf of the committee on veterans affairs and as chairman of the committee, I would like to take this sad opportunity to offer the hon. member for Humber-
Oral Questions
St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Jack Marshall) our sincere sympathy on the passing of his wife.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the fact that about 11 per cent of Canada's recent oil imports have been from Saudi Arabia, and the fact that we are getting a large proportion of our oil for eastern Canada from that country, can the minister tell us what communication he has had from Ambassador Shen-stone in Jidda about the possible impact of the death of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia this morning on our oil imports?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the untimely death of the king. I have just returned from my office, where I was making inquiries on that very point. As of this moment we have not received an analysis from our ambassador on what possible implications this may have on a number of issues.


James McPhail Gillies: Has there as yet been any communication whatsoever from the ambassador?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have just told my hon. friend that there has not.


SAUDI ARABIA-SUGGESTED VISIT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
James McPhail Gillies: Perhaps I could direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the Minister of Finance will be in the Middle East-and I realize this will be in his capacity as chairman of the Group of Twenty-would he give some consideration to extending that trip and visiting the capital of Saudi Arabia to make known Canada's concern about the need for a continuation of a steady supply of crude oil from that country?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the countries I had intended to visit. I will have to reconsider the situation in view of the events today.
4456

Oral Questions ENERGY


CONFERENCE OF OIL PRODUCING AND CONSUMING
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On March 11 he was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition pertaining to Canada's position in regard to the International Energy Agency talks on a common oil policy, and he indicated that he would reply in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, since he had not had an opportunity to provide a complete answer. In view of the fact that the preparatory meeting of the French-sponsored meeting of oil producing and consuming nations and developing states will be held on April 7, would the minister briefly tell the House whether the government supports the idea of an international floor price for oil, and what floor price the government believes would be consistent with Canadian energy development interests?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In general terms, the government has lent support to the proposal agreed upon by the IEA with regard to an international floor price. It is assumed that the price would be higher than it was in October, 1973, although significantly lower than the current international price. The actual level has not been determined between the members of the IEA and the government is maintaining flexibility of its own position in these discussions.



Harvie Andre: Apparently the meetings of the International Energy Agency on March 6, 7 and 20 did not reach agreement on the matter of a common international floor price or on the need for a common safeguard mechanism on floor prices to protect certain essential investments and, rather, proposed a series of co-operative measures which summed up to a "safety-net concept" which would not be described in detail until after the March 20 meeting delivered a final verdict on the proposals. Would the minister tell the House what was decided at the March 20 meeting, and precisely what the safety-net concept means?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it would be preferable, as I indicated before, to discuss this in the parliamentary committee, if we could find an occasion on which to do so. It is a rather complicated set of proposals.


Harvie Andre: In view of the great importance of this question and the fact that the meeting will be held on April 7, will the minister make a full public statement on the government's position on these matters before that time?


Walter David Baker: Say tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: Before April 7.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it probably makes more sense, as I have said, to have a full meeting in the committee and discuss the matter. Then the questions can be asked there.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, during the presentation of the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Minister of Public Works said, in reply to one of the points made, that one of the reasons for the high level of unemployment in Canada is the number of women on the labour market. I ask the minister if he shares the view that it is because women are trying to get jobs that we now have high levels of unemployment in our statistics. If he does share that view, could he tell us what the government is doing specifically about women on the labour market?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague with whom I share this bench would know that when we talk about women it should be put in context and we should find out exactly what he said and in what context he said it.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO EXPAND GROWTH RATE AND PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the minister to explain that, but I will not. Instead, I will just quote another gem from what the Minister of Public Works said yesterday. He said, in the same comments, that the government had every intention of maintaining "the current high rate of growth" in the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the minister if he regards a zero growth rate as a high rate of growth. Second, and related to the first question but more seriously, what does the government plan to do about expanding the growth rate in general, and what does it plan to do about expanding employment opportunities for women in particular?


John Napier Turner: My hon. colleague has just returned and I really ought to consult him, but with reference to the question of whatever the growth rate in Canada will be for 1975, the OECD in Paris has again declared that we will have the highest growth rate of any of the 24 industrial nations in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: You never had it so good.


John Napier Turner: I take some encouragement from the fact that the labour force last year, or 1973-74, grew at the rate of 4.4 per cent, which included
March 25, 1975

many new entries into the labour force of young men and young women and also an increasing percentage of women. As long as our labour force continues to grow more rapidly than that of any other nation in both absolute and relative terms, it will continue to be a policy of this government to stress employment and growth.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Paul Martin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like now to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Since today is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the ILO commitment to the principle of equality for men and women in the labour market in terms of pay, and in view of the most recent statistics of pay for men and women in managerial categories in which it is stated that women receive roughly half the pay of men for the same job; that in the service sector they receive roughly half, and in the clerical sector-


John Napier Turner: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: This is a very important matter. In the clerical sector women receive two-thirds of the rate of pay of men. In view of these statistics, could the Minister of Labour inform the House what specific programs the federal government has to ensure equal pay for equal work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may want to make a brief comment, but the subject is much too lengthy to be dealt with in the question period.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: As the hon. member knows, the vast percentage of hiring takes place in the private sector and falls within provincial jurisdiction. I think we have been doing very well, however, under Sylva Gelber in the women's bureau where we have been trying to conduct the most progressive campaign of any industrialized country in the free world to rectify this situation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the shocking decrease in industrial productivity which took place during the past year, which is the worst performance this country has had in this regard in 17 years, the deterioration of which is continuing into the present year, and one of the principle reasons for the steady deterioration of the trade picture being additional unemployment, would the minister advise the House
Oral Questions
whether he is giving consideration to productivity incentives, based directly on productivity achieved, for introduction into his new budget, which must be introduced in the very near future if the present recession is not to turn into something very much worse?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have recited to the hon. gentleman, but obviously without too much success, the incentives this government has introduced to encourage productivity and performance in the manufacturing and processing industries in this country. As a matter of fact, I can only recall to him what the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States said a week or so ago when he was here, in response to a question by a member of the Canadian press concerning his explanation for the relatively better performance of the Canadian economy in comparison with that of the United States. He said it was because of the incentives to business given by this government two or three years ago.


George Harris Hees: As the incentives which the minister introduced some time ago give business the choice of paying out those incentives in additional dividends, putting the money into reserves or putting it into more productivity- one chance in three-I ask the minister once again, as those incentives have not produced the right results, whether he will consider introducing incentives based directly on increases in productivity, so that the Canadian taxpayer will receive a dollar's worth of benefit for a dollar spent and thus greatly increase productivity in this country.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. gentleman the figures. I do not want to belabour this point at this stage in the question period. In terms of the dividends paid by Canadian business in the last two or three years, they have not, as the hon. gentleman knows, been at an historic high, so profits have not been dedicated to payment of dividends; they have been retained in earnings and they have been reinvested in capital plant and equipment by Canadian business to increase productivity. For that reason, 1973 and 1974 saw the highest percentage increase in capital investment in the history of this country.


AIRPORTS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister deals with the proposed Pickering airport. On February 21, the Minister of Transport stated in this House:
If the hon. gentleman can bring some kind of evidence to show that the majority of the population is against the Pickering airport, I am ready to revise the whole thing.
In light of the result of the latest information survey made public last night, which showed that 40 per cent of Malton area residents and 54.4 per cent of metro-wide
29557 - 7)4

March 25, 1975
Oral Questions
residents are not in favour of a second international airport at Pickering, and knowing that the Prime Minister stated on one occasion that if the majority of people living in the area-even if only 51 per cent-did not want this airport, the government would not proceed with it, will the Prime Minister take these views of Canadians under serious consideration and bring the nearly $2 billion Pickering issue back to cabinet to revise the government's position?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: These figures certainly will be drawn to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker, and I will look at them myself. I would merely remind the hon. member that since this whole issue began, two elections have been held on the government's policy, and that the setting up of an inquiry board and being attentive to its report has been vindicated in the elections which returned this government.


PICKERING-PROPOSED DELAY OF CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO ALTERNATIVES
Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question. In view of the negative reactions to Pickering airport by various polls, not just this one but previous ones as well, would the Prime Minister take under consideration the proposal to freeze the Pickering project, at least, and the proceedings for a period of two years in order that studies by independent agencies on the reduction of noise on new and existing aircraft, the development of STOL routes, as well as better utilization of agricultural lands, could be completed by the different organizations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there already has been a report of the nature that the hon. member suggests, which was made public just a few months ago. As a result of that, the House will recall that the government did not decide to freeze, to use the hon. member's word, but did take a decision which permitted the maximum amount of flexibility. It will permit the expansion required to meet the increased traffic which is certain, but no decision was made on that part of the expansion which had earlier been predicted, to take care of a much larger increase in traffic. This will permit the government the maximum amount of flexibility in the years to come to expand Pickering if necessary, and not expand it if it is not necessary. In the meantime, the commitment made to the people of Malton will remain.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the question raised by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley in respect of the disposition of a majority of people affected by that airport, I think it is essential that I put on the record that a very thorough survey was taken-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and relates to the Hamilton harbour activities and dredging irregularities. It is noted that over the past few weeks we have been trying to have documents tabled by the minister involved. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Solicitor General to table the letter from RCMP Commissioner Nadon which he read in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on March 13, 1975, which was really a chronological account of how the RCMP became involved in the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not having had the benefit of hearing the letter referred to or having seen it, I shall not give those instructions. If it is merely chronological, I am sure the substance of the information can be made known to the hon. member. As to the letter itself, I repeat, I do not know if it is of a privileged character but certainly an a priori communication between the commissioner of the RCMP and the minister would be privileged and would not be tabled in the House.


HAMILTON DREDGING CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER DATED JANUARY 16, 1973 FROM MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary. In view of the fact that the minister-and he will correct me if I am wrong-indicated that he was prepared to file that letter provided names were deleted and "Xs" and "Ys" inserted, would the Prime Minister now discuss this matter with the Solicitor General to determine whether that latter at least can be tabled in the House?
I would ask the Prime Minister this second question. Would he now ask the Minister of Transport to table his letter of January 16, 1973, to the Solicitor General on the ordered inquiry into alleged irregularities in the Hamilton harbour activities, keeping in mind that the Minister of Transport in the first instance indicated that he would table that letter and that he subsequently reneged on that promise? Will the Prime Minister now discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport and see to it that the letter will be tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss the matter with both ministers, but I repeat to the hon. gentleman that if the letters are in the nature of communications which happen intradepartmentally, and if they contain information which might be restricted or confidential, I would advise them not to table them.


HAMILTON DREDGING CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER FROM MR. CAMPBELL TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a last supplementary to clear up this matter of
March 25, 1975

tabling of documents. Keeping in mind that the Prime Minister has now given an undertaking that he will discuss the matter with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transport, will he also see to it that the Solicitor General tables Controller Jim Campbell's letter of August 30, 1972, and the report of the Hamilton harbour committee that was attached to that letter? In other words, this is the material that was submitted to the Solicitor General's office by Controller Jim Campbell of the city of Hamilton. Will he now look into this matter with respect to the Hamilton harbour activities, through the Solicitor General, and see whether those documents can be tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am led to understand that Mr. Campbell's letter was marked "Confidential"-


George Harris Hees: After it arrived, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and therefore it would seem that it would be proper to respect that character of confidentiality unless Mr. Campbell himself wants to take that character away from the letter. I assume the hon. member has some influence around Hamilton; perhaps he could ask Mr. Campbell directly, rather than ask the minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been advised by my colleagues that Controller Campbell indicated on television within the past two or three days that he would give his permission for the release of his letter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why doesn't he make it public?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the Prime Minister now discuss this matter with the Solicitor General and see whether this material can be tabled now that the controller has given his permission?


BOOKLET ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES OF THE FORCE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER APPROVES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General regarding the publication today by "The Cadre", a newspaper of the University of Prince Edward Island, of the information that a booklet on interrogation techniques of the RCMP, written by Chief Inspector A. R. Roberts of the Calgary city policy, is being circulated by the training and development branch headquarters, Ottawa. The booklet contains a series of brainwashing techniques, numerous stereotypes of suspects, derogatory descriptions of certain religious leaders, and is exceedingly and excessively sexist in attitude and comment. Is the minister aware of this document, has he approved it for general use by the RCMP, and will he table it so that members of the House may be aware of its contents?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this booklet but I will get a copy and report as quickly as possible.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As, according to affidavits, I understand this
Oral Questions
book to be in general circulation at the moment, will the minister report to the House tomorrow in order that the circulation of the book may be terminated at once?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will report back as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As an industrial milk policy is to be announced by March 31, does the minister intend to make that announcement in the House tomorrow.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. I said I will, if it is at all possible.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister developed the details of the new indexing program which he indicated will be linked to the cost of production? Also, will he say whether a consumer subsidy is being contemplated, in view of the increased price of industrial milk?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to be patient and wait and see. If I told him that, there would not be anything to announce later.


PUBLIC WORKS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Since drifting ice on the St. Lawrence river causes a problem every year because of the retaining walls built by the federal government, hundreds of feet of which are in a very bad condition and even under demolition, can the Minister of Public Works tell the House whether he will take the necessary steps to assure the maintenance of these walls which, as I said, were built to protect riverside properties which will be damaged again during the year if nothing is done.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works assures the maintenance of these walls to prevent the erosion caused first by navigation and second by the buildings of the federal government. The erosion caused by these two factors is a matter of concern to us. I can assure the hon. member that we try to maintain the buildings already in place and to erect new ones where it is necessary.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Oral Questions
In view of the answer made by the Minister of Public Works that he relies on the causes of navigation or on federal government works, can the minister say for how long has the regulation establishing at 2,000 feet from the bank the transportation that could affect it been in existence? In determining federal government assistance for building retaining walls, does the minister take into account the speed and tonnage of ships, which have changed in the last several years and cause considerable damage to riparian properties, in spite of those standards established by the Department of Public Works? Does the minister intend to review that policy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the changes that occurred in the field of navigation and we are reviewing the standards from the engineering point of view. Therefore, we hope to have early confirmation regarding those standards.


FAILURE OF SOME HOSPITALS TO ESTABLISH THERAPEUTIC ABORTION COMMITTEES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the minister's recently stated concern that not all Canadian women are benefiting from the right to have therapeutic abortions, as permitted by Canadian law, and the government's desire to have Canada's abortion laws applied consistently by hospital therapeutic abortion committees, can the minister advise this House why a majority of Canadian hospitals still have not established therapeutic abortion committees to handle public applications, and what governments can do to correct the situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, hospitals come under the responsibility of the provincial governments. However, the hospitals are public institutions and in my view should provide those services that are demanded by the public generally in their areas. I spoke recently about the situation in Quebec, but I should also point out that the situation in several other provinces is not much better than that found in Quebec.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Have representatives of the two workers' groups on the west coast, the longshoremen foremen and the longshoremen, received copies of Bill C-56 and, if so, when did they receive them?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, certified copies of the bill are being flown to them now, and I except they will have them later today.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the bill was passed last night, copies of it were available even before that, so why was there this extraordinary delay in the communication of the bill to the people involved? I understand that until they have had a chance to examine the bill they do not intend to say what their action will be.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that certain union leaders have said they will not instruct their men to return until they see certified copies of the bill. That is why certified copies are now being flown to them. An earlier flight this morning could have been used to take out these certified copies; unfortunately, it was not used. I am advised, and I want to check this, that a wire was sent outlining the contents of the bill, and they have that. Now, certified copies are on their way.


FINANCE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I hope for one of his full, frank and precise responses. In view of our dismal balance of payments outlook and the substantial deficit in our balance of payments which we and the minister anticipate, do the minister and the Bank of Canada intend to offset this deficit in our balance of payments by pursuing policies which will encourage the inflow of capital and offset our balance of payments deficit on current account?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is on current account; the hon. gentleman is quite right. I mentioned a figure in the House last week when I anticipated that our current account deficit would be between $4 billion and $5 billion. In anticipation of balancing that deficit with foreign investment, I indicated two things: first, I indicated to the provinces that the guidelines set by my predecessor, when we were in a surplus position on current account and asking the provinces to restrict their borrowings first to the Canadian capital market and then to foreign markets, have been withdrawn. In other words, the provinces and provincial agencies are free to borrow wherever they feel they are able to get the best interest rate. Second, I extended the exemption from the withholding tax for a further period on governmental obligations, thus indicating that it is the government's intention to encourage investment by way of debt and, subject to the conditions of the foreign investment review legislation, equity, in order to improve the balance of our current account deficit.
As for the Bank of Canada, the bank acts as the government's agent on the foreign exchange account. The bank and the government are allowing the Canadian dollar to float, the value of the dollar to be set by market forces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the minister and the Bank of Canada intend to encourage the inflow of the necessary capital to Canada by
March 25, 1975

maintaining a sufficiently attractive interest rate in Canada which will encourage investment in this country, even though that interest rate may not otherwise be particularly appropriate for the expansion of our economy?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. As the governor made clear in his annual report which was tabled in this House last week, the interest rate is designed to accommodate and encourage economic expansion in Canada but to avoid rates of monetary expansion that would provoke a resuscitation of inflationary pressures later in the year. The hon. gentleman will have noted the reduction in interest rates in the short, medium and long term throughout the past three months. I think the position is fully set out by the governor in his report.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to national security and our security in relation to our involvement internationally. The Minister of Public Works talked about counter-subversive groups and the necessity to manipulate our estimates in order not to tip our hand. Is the RCMP the head of that group? Do they have sole jurisdiction or is there a group working under the direction of the RCMP with regard to national security or international involvement where national security is at stake?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather more involved than I could answer satisfactorily. Security and intelligence operations are essentially under the direction of General Dare who is the deputy commissioner of the RCMP. That is the extent of the information that I can impart to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I seem to have pried open a can of something. Is the RCMP the head of our national security group? That is a very simple question. Do they operate along the same lines as the CIA in the United States or the British Secret Service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the CIA or the national security service of Britain operate; therefore, I am not in a position to answer the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple question. Is the RCMP responsible for our natonal security? Surely the Prime Minister knows what I mean by that. If not, is it under the security planning group which processes information from the RCMP? That is a direct question. There is nothing secret about it. Surely, Canadians are entitled to that information.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a cabinet committee on security and information which receives reports from the RCMP and looks at various aspects of security in
Oral Questions
which not only the Solicitor General and the RCMP are involved; National Defence is involved in one aspect, and External Affairs is involved in another. The whole operation of gathering intelligence means that we use whatever methods we can to gather that information.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns reports that the cost of fertilizers has risen over the past three years by as much as 400 per cent. Would the minister say whether the government has been able to determine what has caused this phenomenal rise in fertilizer costs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I hope to table tomorrow the fact-finding sheet that was prepared in the department.


William C. Scott: In view of the vital role played by fertilizer in our agricultural industry, I ask the minister if the government is planning any measures to ease the pressure on our farmers as a direct result of these high fertilizer costs, especially at this time of year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since some Canadian tourists were forced to depart in haste and leave possessions behind during recent political troubles in Portugal, will the minister and our Canadian representatives in Portugal do what they can to see that the jettisoned belongings are returned to their owners? May I also ask if the new Portuguese regime is being recognized by Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our officials will co-operate in ensuring that Canadians are given every assistance in any eventuality that occurs. I am not quite sure of the new regime to which to hon. member is referring. Hopefully, an appropriate regime will be established in Portugal as a result of free elections to be held in that country at an early date. That is an expectation which I am sure the hon. member would support.

March 25, 1975
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


DATE OF PUBLICATION OF BAYDA COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact we have just completed a second legislative enactment to have people in the port of Vancouver return to work, and in view of the fact that two weeks ago I asked the Acting Minister of Labour to report to the House at his earliest convenience on the progress and recommendations of the Bayda commission with regard to labour-management relations, is the minister now in a position to advise the House what the situation is with regard to that commission and when we might expect some recommendations for the long run?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received a report from Mr. Justice Bayda that he expects his report to be completed in the month of May.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the serious financial losses which innocent third parties incur as a result of legal and illegal strikes and lockouts. Is the government giving any recognition to this very serious and ever growing problem? Also, is any thought being given to developing some mechanism whereby innocent parties who are financially victimized by the actions of such labour disputes may have recourse to compensation, be it from management, labour or both? If not, why is this not being actively considered?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that particular question has been asked in this House in a number of different ways; there is nothing new in it. Naturally, the government is very conscious of the impact of strikes upon many persons, but has no new solutions as to how that impact may properly be borne.
* *


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Has the minister intervened, or does he intend to intervene with the Canadian Transport Commission with regard to the requested 20 per cent rate increase by B.C. Telephone Company?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Telephone Company

has applied, through normal channels, to the CTC for rate increases, and the government has certainly no intention to intervene before the commission has fulfilled its duties.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister was requested by the British Columbia minister of communications to ask for a delay in the CTC considerations until such time as a study had been conducted into the pricing policies of B.C. Telephone Company, and a study conducted into the amount of money B.C. Telephone Company had sent to its parent company, General Tel and Tel, in New York. Is the minister's department willing to conduct a study into those two aspects which will not be considered by the CTC, so that that kind of information is made available to the public and the CTC before this rate increase is considered?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the British Columbia Minister of Communications that this investigation is in progress, that it should be completed within the next three months or so, which means, according to the schedule set by the Canadian Transport Commission, before this agency must decide on the rate increase applications submitted by the British Columbia Telephone Company. My British Columbia counterpart has been advised accordingly.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark - Renf re w-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. As Canadians have the feeling of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", will the minister now assure this House that his department will take the same action against illegally striking letter carriers as they took against other employees on an illegal strike, and fire them?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: The hon. member has expressed his own sentiments, and I am sure they will be noted by labour as well as by management.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It deals with the tragic event in Saudi Arabia. Can the hon. gentleman advise us whether the condolences of the Canadian people have been sent to King Khaled, and will the Canadian government be represented
March 25, 1975

at the funeral of his late majesty, King Faisal? If so, by whom?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: All these matters are under consideration at the moment.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Carr Munro: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked me when Mr. Justice Bayda's report would be in my hands and I said May. I unintentionally misinformed the hon. member; it will be in late June or mid-July.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I remember the situation two or three or even four years ago, the government was making diplomatic protests and in other ways representing its concern in Saigon and Washington over the treatment of North Vietnamese-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald W. Munro: -and the inhabitants of Hanoi in particular. What I should like to know now-


An hon. Member:: Orders of the day.


Donald W. Munro: -is whether there are any plans today to have our ambassadors in Hanoi and Peking, and perhaps also in Moscow, protest against the treatment of the Vietnamese and Cambodian people who are still, be it noted, travelling south to the territory under the control of South Viet Nam or else being besieged in Pnom Penh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has made a representation which will be considered. He must, of course, bear in mind that what is now occurring in South Viet Nam is a total collapse of the armistice which was agreed to, and that the only real solution to the difficulties there is a will on the part of the signatories to uphold the armistice and to seek a peaceful solution.


Donald W. Munro: Surely we can stretch our humanitarianism to the point at which we are capable of responding to the plight of refugees seeking to avoid communist domination, just as we did when communist centres were being attacked. My question is this: are there any plans in train at this moment to send special and massive assistance by way of supplies of food and other-
National Housing Act
wise to the refugees who are fleeing from the invading communist armies, victims of this sad and apparently endless war?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, the Canadian government has supported humanitarian activities in Indo-China and has done so from time to time in the face of criticism from certain quarters. That humanitarian approach to assist the suffering and the innocent will be continued; this government will continue to respond to these humanitarian feelings.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46 to amend the National Housing Act as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to amend Bill C-46, the National Housing Act, at the report stage as listed on the order paper, refers to the first reading form of the bill. The reprint of the bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs has now been received and is in the hands of all hon. members. The form of the motions, as put by the Chair, will refer to the reprinted version of the bill.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended in clause 5:
(a)	by striking out line 49 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"as the corporation may approve and except on the condition that the rental agreement as established between the corporation and the original owner remains in effect for the full term."
(b)	by striking out lines 2 to 7 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"respect thereof
(d)	the rental housing project shall be maintained at such standards as the corporation may prescribe in respect thereof; and
(e)	the corporation shall have the right to terminate the agreement in the event that the owner of the rental housing project commits a breach thereof and in such a case when an agreement is terminated, the ownership of the rental housing project shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Corporation."
(c)	by striking out line 10 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"twenty-five years from the date of completion".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are proposing is an amendment to clause five of the bill. The amendment which the government has proposed to the National Housing Act as set forth in Bill C-46 is outlined in the explanatory note which reads:
4464

National Housing Act
This amendment will enable the corporation to make contributions to owners of rental housing projects who have obtained loans from approved lenders if the owners have entered into agreement with the corporation under which they have agreed to comply with certain conditions relating to the operation of rental housing projects.
This clause refers to limited dividend builders. The purpose the government has in mind is to give subsidies directly to the builders of limited dividend housing. Mr. Speaker, may I go over with you the history of limited dividend housing across the country? For many years very little use was made by builders of the limited dividend housing provision. In recent years, more especially in the last two years, the government, recognizing a shortage of housing, has attempted to use the limited dividend provision of the National Housing Act as a means of persuading builders to build more homes. The amendment it proposes is, in effect, a direct appeal to the builders to build more homes under the limited dividend provision. The attraction offered to the builders is a direct subsidy provided they apply for a loan from an approved lender.
The history of limited dividend building has been a dismal one. In the past, very few houses have been built, and none would be built in the future were it not for the subsidies the minister is prepared to make available. This is the first time I have heard of a minister giving subsidies to builders-one would almost think these builders were living in a welfare state because of their poverty at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, the builders have never had it so good from the point of view of profits. The minister, who has been caught in possession of a very poor record with regard to housing starts, especially in the first three months of this year, is now bringing forward this amendment in order to encourage the contractors to build under this section. However, this is only on the basis that they are given a direct subsidy.
What really hurts is that the people who benefit from the subsidy are not the people who become the tenants in these developments. The people who benefit most are builders. It strikes me that if we are going to attack the problem of housing starts in Canada and try to solve the housing problem of low income people, then we have to take measures to protect this low income group, not only in the number of housing starts but also in the rent to be paid.
This is a very poor approach to solving the housing problem of low income people. The proper approach is to increase the amount of public housing in Canada, as a first step. The second step is to increase the amount of nonprofit housing. The approach of the minister, in keeping with the philosophy of his party, is to give most of the benefits to the builders, so that the "haves" then have more.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are a little confused as to which amendment my good friend is referring at this particular time. Is he referring to the first amendment, motion No. 1?


John Gilbert: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would not have known it from my hon. friend's speech, but I suppose he will get to it eventually. I am not being sarcastic; I just was a little confused.


John Gilbert: For the benefit of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) I am talking to the first motion. I am talking about the limited dividend developers who are being given a direct subsidy by the government so as to encourage them to build more homes. This is what we are opposing. The reason we oppose it is that builders under limited dividend projects enter into agreements with CMHC in regard to rentals for certain periods, usually 5, 10 or 15 years. I would not have some of the qualms I am now expressing if the agreement were for 15 years, but the practice has been, and I am sure will continue to be, to enter into an agreement for only five years.
Let me just draw a picture of the benefits that the developers get in this regard. First of all, they get direct subsidies on the interest paid on mortgages from approved lenders. This brings down the mortgage rate substantially. I suppose the answer of the minister will be that this is reflected in the rent charged the tenant. If this were the case, I would not feel too badly about it. But according to past experience, after the five-year period expires, the owner, who is the builder or developer, has the right to change the agreement. If he does so, the rents of the people in the complex, the apartment building, are changed. If they do not like it-and this has been the history of developers-the developers sell the building. They carve up the building into condominium apartments and then they sell it.
The builder who has received the subsidy on the mortgage from CMHC then sells these condominium apartments and makes a capital gain. That is the first great advantage that he gets. In the meantime, if he has lost any moneys he can claim capital cost allowance, and this capital cost allowance can be applied against any other income the builder may have. Experience has shown that when the building is vested in the owner, the developer, the building standards diminish substantially. There is no control over the building standards, as is the case when CMHC has control.
In addition to that, this is an inefficient use of scarce capital that the government has for housing construction. My authority for that is not only my party but the Canadian Council on Social Development. All the government need do is to get the Bank of Canada to underwrite a bond issue for $1 billion, pay institutions or private investors interest of, say, 9 per cent, and then use this money directly for the building of homes in the public housing sector, in the co-operative sector and in the non-profit sector. But no, the government would rather give money put up by the taxpayers of Canada to builders who are already making a large amount of money.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I said that the agreements that are entered into are usually for a period of five years. I also said as a result of experience we have learned that the building standards imposed by the builders cannot be equated with those imposed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister has put forward an amendment to try to bring these standards up to the standards of Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
March 25. 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	4465
tion, but we are still not prepared to accept the measure of control that CMHC is going to impose upon these builders to whom the minister has got down on bended knees and asked to build homes.
We want CMHC to impose standards that will ensure that these homes will be structurally sound for a good length of time. We want CMHC not to enter into a five-year term, giving the full benefit to the owners and developers after that period; we want the term to be 25 years so that a real measure of benefit will be passed on to the tenants, not to the owners.
It is bad enough that the minister is giving a subsidy to the builders. Not only that, but the mortgage insurance on these buildings will not be under the control of CMHC but will be passed over to the private sector. In other words, you have a situation where there is a real rip-off in regard to capital cost allowance. A subsidy is paid to the builder. There is no control over building standards. There is the possibility of a capital gain on the part of the builder after five years when the apartments are turned into condominiums and the people for whom the apartments were intended are driven out. You have inefficient use by the government of scare capital for housing for low and moderate income families. Lastly, mortgage insurance is passed from the public sector, that is CMHC, to the private sector, the insurance companies. Is it any wonder that we in the New Democratic Party feel there should be some guarantees given to tenants in regard to building conditions? Hence the first part of my amendment.
The second part of the amendment provides that CMHC should see to it that such standards as the corporation may prescribe in respect thereof are maintained. In order to put real teeth into this provision, if there is a breach of the conditions on the part of the builders the ownership of the property should pass directly back to CMHC. That is the only effective way of making the builder conform with proper building standards. Giving a builder the right after five years to turn the apartments into condominiums and sell the building at a capital gain is really too much. Rather than five years we say the period of agreement should be 25 years, and then the direct benefit of the subsidy will pass to the tenants.
I should close my argument on this part by pointing out that the limited dividend section has been used by the minister to advance housing primarily for middle income families, and this does little or nothing to provide a solution to the problem in respect of people of low income families.
I remember a speech by the minister to the Toronto Home Builders Association on December 3. At that time he expressed his concern by saying that almost 800,000 Canadian households spent more than 25 per cent of their gross income on shelter. He said what was even more disturbing was the knowledge that 107,000 tenant families with incomes under $3,000 spent over 50 per cent of their incomes for shelter. I am positive that this limited dividend section will do nothing for the 107,000 families who have incomes of under $3,000 and spend 50 per cent of their incomes for shelter.
29557 -8V2
National Housing Act
I am in direct opposition to the philosophy of the minister who wants to pass on the benefits to the builders and developers rather than to encourage and help people in the low income group. It is rather striking that in the brief presented by the Ontario Welfare Council, which has been distributed to all hon. members, it is pointed out that the main target of the limited dividend section is primarily the middle income families. It suggests this is a rental program for middle income families which does nothing for the lower income group.
Surely, at a time when the minister is so concerned about the poor housing record for the first three months of this year, and when his 210,000 target is diminishing every month, he should be directing his attention to the public housing and non-profit sectors. For the minister and this government to give subsidies at this time to builders in order to encourage them to build more homes for middle income families is highly improper. For those reasons we have moved this amendment and have asked for the cooperation of members on both sides. We want the minister to change those aspects in respect of housing standards, and more especially to change the term with regard to the rental agreement from five years to at least 25 years so the benefits in housing may be passed on to the proper persons.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I understand and share the hon. member's concern about those who are spending a disproportionate share of their income on housing, including those with whom we are dealing and will continue to deal under our non-profit program, our co-operative program, our public housing program, our senior citizens program, and our AHOP program, to which an extension was announced recently.
I do not know whether the hon. member appreciates the purpose of this particular legislation, but it is intended to deal with what is emerging as the most critical single issue in the housing situation in Canada, and which affects people not actually in the poverty group, as we say, but Canadians on low incomes who are finding it impossible to find accommodation without spending a disproportionate amount of their income on rent. The intention is to try to increase the stock of rental accommodation in the country, which is perilously low at this time, running at less than two per cent vacancy across the country and below one per cent in many major urban centres. We want to increase the rental accommodation stock for all Canadians in order, if at all possible, to avoid increasing rents.
The hon. member referred to the inefficient use of funds. Let me suggest that this is a most efficient use of funds. I think it is important that hon. members appreciate the difference between this legislation, which is to use the private sector funding, as opposed to limited dividend funding, which we intend to continue because it has been successful in the past. This is a most efficient use of funds, because with subsidies in the range of $16 million we expect to attract somewhere in the range of $1 billion into the mortgage market for low rental accommodation. In fairness, I should say that the $18 million to attract $1 billion is divided between home ownership and limited dividend rental accommodation.

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
This seems to the government to be the most efficient way of using the taxpayers' money to get the greatest leverage possible. One should understand that we are dealing with private sector funds, to encourage building in that part of the market where there is an acute shortage and a need to get starts going on rental accommodation for the lower income group as quickly as possible. If one understands that, I think he can understand the balance of the argument.
As hon. members know, when I first assumed this portfolio last fall we experimented with a $50 million limited dividend rental program. We found there was an enormous response. As a result of discussions and studies we are now confident that there is a substantial amount of private funds that could find its way into the rental market, but only for higher income groups. This would not produce rental accommodation which the average Canadian can afford.
The intention here, therefore, is to apply the subsidies so as to encourage rental agreements with the owners who will accept those in lower income groups at lower rents. If the owner does not do that he does not qualify. This will be monitored by CMHC officers across the country so that we know the benefits are passed on to the tenants. If within five years the tenants' incomes increase, as they have continued to increase in Canada, we see little purpose in using taxpayers' money to subsidize their rents. In the meantime, we are increasing the stock of rental accommodation in Canada, which is important in trying to reduce the pressure on rents across the board.
The hon. member suggested that the owner could then sell out. If the hon. member will read clause 5(2)(b) he will see that the project or any part thereof shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of during the term of the agreement, except with the consent of the corporation and on terms and conditions approved by the corporation. By stating it this way we are discouraging those who are in the construction business building apartments from building these for low income people, but we can help that by subsidizing, and we hope that as their incomes increase, as they have constantly under Liberal governments, they will be in a better position to afford higher rents. In the meantime, they are being assisted and the landlord is bound to pass on that assistance.
The hon. member also refers to building standards. I think there is some confusion between building standards and maintenance standards. The building standards will be those of CMHC with regular inspections to make sure that standards are at a level of high quality and safety. In respect of maintenance standards, we require that they maintain adequate standards. The amendment would impose sort of a control over maintenance. Maintenance has not been found to be a major problem in the past as municipalities frequently monitor this aspect. We monitor it through the corporation, and certainly the tenants monitor it. We think it would be a built-in disincentive to provide a large volume of rental accommodation for low income groups whom this legislation is designed to attract.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am puzzled by most of the things the minister

said. Let me begin by reminding members of the House that, despite all the minister's glowing predictions and assumptions, the fact is that every month since the minister took office the housing picture in Canada has become worse. When we were debating this bill several months ago, the minister was still talking about his target of 210,000 housing units to be built in 1975. Since that time, we have the official figures released, not by critics of the government, not by members of the opposition parties and not by organizations such as the Canadian Council for Social Development, but by the minister's department.
Here is a news release issued on March 10 by CMHC- with which the minister seems to have some slight connection although I sometimes wonder if there is any at all- entitled "Preliminary February Housing Starts" and marked "for immediate release". It reads:
Housing starts during February were at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 156,600 for all areas, according to preliminary figures released today by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Actual starts during the month in the urban areas were 5,031, a decline of 44 per cent from the 9,029 recorded for the same month one year ago.
Starts of single detached dwellings during the month totalled 2,177, a decline of 48 per cent from February, 1974. Starts of multiple dwellings declined 41 per cent to 2,854.
So, while the minister is telling us that his objective is to have 210,000 units built and that his programs will accomplish this, in fact what we see is a startling and continuing decline in the number of housing units being built.
More than that, when you look at what the government is prepared to do, you see that the amount of money which the minister and the government propose for capital expenditures, and which they propose to give to CMHC, is increased for 1975 over 1974 by just 12V4 per cent. That is just the amount of the increase in inflation this past year, and it is less than the increase in government expenditures for the coming fiscal year as compared with last year. The increase in government expenditures is 15 per cent, but the minister proposes to allocate only another 12 lA per cent to CMHC. So, in fact, we will get less housing units than we did last year.
The minister says that, of course, the government is giving a subsidy of $18 million to builders and that will bring in another $1 billion into the housing industry. That, according to my arithmetic, is a subsidy of 1.8 per cent. Surely, the minister is not telling us that the housing industry, the land developers, the servicing of land, the actual building of houses and of rental units have been operating on such a small margin that $18 million, a subsidy of 1.8 per cent, will suddenly bring into the market $1 billion. The fact is the figures demonstrate that builders are not building individual homes, they are not building condominiums or apartment units, because the cost of a mortgage is such that there is not the demand which is required.
More than that, the minister is following a deliberate policy. The minister and the government have made a political decision. Perhaps in terms of where the votes are, it is a very sound decision. People in Canada have bought the myth, the idea, that everybody should aim to own their own homes. Therefore, people with incomes of $5,000 up to $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 believe, because we have such
March 25, 1975

ministers as the present minister telling them that it is possible for them to own their own homes, that that is possible. So the minister has deliberately taken more and more money, which in other years was allocated for use in the building of public housing units, to devote to programs such as the Assisted Home Ownership Program. I am not critical of the minister trying to meet the needs of people who qualify under that program because they need housing, but they are people who are not anywhere near the bottom of the economic ladder. They are people who have not been able to own their homes and who have rented their homes. The minister proposes to take money, which in other years was allocated to public housing or to senior citizens housing, and put it into programs such as AHOP and to subsidize limited dividend housing.
What is the result of that? I do not have the figures in front of me, but according to the information which I have been able to obtain, every province has already been told by the government and by CMHC that they will have less money for public housing this coming year than they had last year. I am told, for example, that the province of Ontario and metropolitan Toronto had planned to build 8,000 senior citizens' units and 2,000 fimily units in 197576. As I have already said, the minister has decided that the middle income groups need help more, so now apparently the province of Ontario and metropolitan Toronto will only get enough money from the government- because they are cutting back on public housing money, on the kind of money required to build senior citizens housing developments-to build 2,000 senior citizens units instead of the 8,000 units which they planned to build, and 500 family units instead of the 2,000 which they planned to build. That is the effect which the government's program is having.
Last year, according to the analyses which have been made, 24 per cent of the CMHC budget was aimed at low income groups. This year, because of the increased desire of the government for programs such as AHOP, instead of increasing the percentage of money available for housing for low income groups, the percentage will drop from 24 per cent, which I suggest was much too low, to 22 per cent. This is the kind of decision the minister and the government are making Mr. Speaker. It is not because the need is greatest for programs such as subsidizing limited dividend housing, but because the minister and the government believe that that is politically attractive. Private industry is not interested in public housing or in limited dividend housing. The only time it is interested in that kind of housing is in situations such as we have today when, no matter what they do, the prospective private home owner or purchaser simply is not there. Then, when the regular channels have dried up, when the cost of land is so high that the potential private purchaser cannot afford to buy a house, when the mortgage rate is so high that the prospective purchaser cannot afford to buy a house and when the building industry and the developers are in trouble because the so-called free enterprise system does not permit them to operate profitably, they are interested in building public housing units. Only then are they interested in building limited dividend housing.
National Housing Act
The minister has said that the government and CMHC will make sure that the housing units provided under this program will be up to standard. They have never done it up until now-and not just for limited dividend housing. How many ministers in charge of housing have promised legislation which would provide the purchaser of a home financed through Central Mortgage assistance with a warranty so that if he finds in a year or two that there are serious defects in the building he would have recourse? For how many years has that been promised by this minister and ministers before him? This minister said it was just a matter of a month or two, and now we find that there is nothing happening in regard to warranties. If a warranty cannot be provided to guarantee a purchaser under government programs that he is buying a house which is structurally sound, and which will not have major defects, how much more difficult will it be to provide guarantees on housing built by private builders? Private builders do not necessarily want to provide housing under government programs, but when they cannot get into other types of building, they make use of the fact that the minister is providing the money. What guarantees are there that CMHC and the government will do a better job than they have in the past on regular housing? And as my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) says, why five years? Why not ten years or fifteen years or longer?
Governments in Germany and in Scandinavian countries are building housing units, and they are saying in advance that their housing units will remain in good shape for 100 years. The minister is saying that, because he cannot get the builders to build for people who cannot afford to pay the market price, we must build limited dividend housing and give subsidies. But the government does not give the subsidies to those people who cannot afford to pay the rent; the subsidies are given to the builders. Moreover, the government does not require the builder to guarantee his work for a period of more than five years. Surely, we have our priorities backwards. I do not suppose we will ever have enough money to put into housing, but surely whatever money there is should be spend for those people who need housing the most; that is, not for people who hope to be covered under AHOP, not for people who will be covered by limited dividend housing, but for people who need housing the most.
It could be a lot better and should be a lot better for people for whom we are supposed to have been providing housing under our various public housing programs. Surely, that is where the money should have been directed. Surely, the minister could have done that, but if he is going to put the money into limited dividend housing, which I and my colleagues think is a mistake, then he ought to ensure that the limited dividend housing which is built will be of a standard of which we will not have to be ashamed as we have up until now. The minister shakes his head. The fact is that a great deal of the limited housing developments built in the past under other ministers were clearly inadequate, and I am sure not planned to stand for 100 years. As the years go by, we can see as we walk or drive along our streets how inadequate those housing units are.

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act


Barnett Jerome Danson: Just so that the record is straight, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) said that I shook my head. I should like to record that I nodded my head. I agree that standards must remain high.


David Orlikow: I wish the minister would put his money where his words are. I wish I could believe this minister. I wish he would live up to the assurances he is giving us today in a better way than previous ministers in charge of housing. Liberal governments have been in power for 12 of the 13 years that I have been here, and all of them have been subjected to the same kind of situation and the same criticisms and suggestions. Members of the opposition are here to criticize and attack the government, and members on the government side are here to defend the government. The fact is that these suggestions have been made by members of parliament and by provincial governments regardless of their political stripe, whether it be Conservative in Ontario, Liberal in Nova Scotia, Social Credit in British Columbia or Alberta or NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Mr.   De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member will admit that what he is saying now is really not related to the amendment. I am sure that everyone in this House would like to see the bill passed before the recess. We have only 24 hours left. I am sure that everyone wants to make an effort to speed up the process. I think the first step should be that our speeches are related to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the parliamentary secretary's point is well taken. I hate to say that because so many of his points are not well taken. I think it is important that this legislation move forward. I do not suggest that it is everything the minister has painted it to be, but perhaps experience will prove otherwise. Nonetheless, this legislation has been put before us and it has gone through committee. We are now at report stage. I think perhaps it is time we addressed ourselves to the amendments placed on the order paper by the New Democratic Party and stopped this silly filibustering.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton make the same speech when they talk incessantly on Bill C-8?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I think the points of order raised are in order and appropriate to the debate. All hon. members will be aware that this is not a general debate on housing; we are specifically paying attention to clause 5 of Bill C-46 and the particular line mentioned in the amendment. It would assist the proceedings immeasurably if remarks were directed to that point.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if I were out of order during my remarks just now, I may have been out of order earlier when I was talking about the fact that this government is determined to spend money on AHOP rather than public housing. When I was interrupted, however, I was talking about the fact that there is nothing in this legislation and nothing in the record of Central Mortgage and Housing to indicate that they will police the limited dividend housing projects which the minister hopes will be built. That is precisely what I was talking about and I believe I was in order.
The parliamentary secretary was in a hurry when the bill was being debated on second reading; he was in a hurry in committee, and he is in a hurry today. But I want to assure him that we are going to let this bill through before the recess, Mr. Speaker. I wish that he would occasionally show that he means the things he says, and that he would show more concern about the kind of people who are going to live in the limited dividend housing than he does for people here in parliament or those who can afford to build their own homes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on Motion No. 1 (Mr. Gilbert). All those in favour of the said motion please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Gilbert: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended by deleting clause 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I tried with all my Irish persuasion to have members of the House accept the first motion which I thought was a reasonable one. It was not accepted, so this is a second attempt to appeal to the reason of hon. members on a very important point. I raised the point in the first motion. I want to delete the entire section which provides subsidies to private builders of rental housing, and I have set forth my reasons. Builders have had a heyday with regard to capital costs and allowances. We are now going to give them subsidies, but we are not going to have any control over construction and maintenance standards. After five years we are going to give them the opportunity to sell these units that they are renting to tenants and they are going to make a capital gain. This is a
March 25, 1975

very inefficient use of the capital available for housing. The government has added insult to injury by passing the mortgage insurance on to the private companies rather than retaining it in the control of CMHC.
Those were the main arguments I used on the first motion, and they are the main arguments I put forward on the second motion. I repeat, we have a problem in Canada with regard to housing. I am glad the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is here because he is a man of intelligence and compassion and I want to direct my remarks to him.
We have a critical housing situation in Canada. The situation as outlined by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) shows that it is the people in the lower income groups who are affected. The Postmaster General is concerned about these people and we in the New Democratic Party say that the moneys of CMHC as well as private money should be directed to taking care of those people.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has said that over 800,000 people pay more than 25 per cent of their income for rent. He said that 107,000 people who earn less than $3,000 a year pay 50 per cent of their income for rent. We say that these moneys should be directed to two sectors-the public housing sector and the non-profit co-op sector. Is anything more reasonable than that?
May I point out what the minister has done, Mr. Speaker? In December he issued a statement to CMHC setting forth that the federal rental housing program had produced 18 projects for family housing. At that time he attempted to use CMHC money to build housing units for family rental, more especially for the lower income groups. I am sure the Postmaster General will be concerned, because he is concerned about low income people in Toronto.
This is what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs did, Mr. Speaker. He had Green Glen Developments build an apartment complex at the northeast corner of Jane and Finch streets in Toronto and gave CMHC $12,278,000 to build 229 one bedroom units, 66 two bedroom units and 132 three bedroom units. He wants to solve the problem of low income people by building a 33 story complex to house them. I am sure the Postmaster General knows how he would feel if he were one of the people living in that 33 storey building with a family. I am sure he can fully appreciate the social problems that will flow from that type of development.
This approach to rental housing only creates social problems and should not be permitted. Loans to the builders are given at 8 per cent for 15 years. If the minister wants to build homes for low income people, he should provide a low interest rate. If the minister wants $1 billion for housing, he can get it. He should say to private institutions like banks, insurance and trust companies, "You have a social responsibility to fulfil to those on low incomes and you should assign a certain percentage of your money to such people at low interest rates." That is what the minister ought to do. But does he do it? Not for a minute, Mr. Speaker. He goes to the builders and developers-


Mr. Benjamin:: Cap in hand.
National Housing Act


John Gilbert: -cap in hand and says, "Will you please build these limited dividend homes. If you do, we will enter into an agreement with you and, at the end of five years, you can change the rents or sell those apartments and make a capital gain. If you incur any capital losses in the meantime, you can write them off against any profits you might make from this project. Further, we will not ask you to obey the sort of strict CMHC building standards which have prevailed in the past."
I appeal to the sensibilities of the Postmaster General. Surely, he does not support this type of bill which provides for subsidies for five years. After five years, the builders are to be released from almost all of their obligations. Most of their commitments under this legislation will end. If ever the Postmaster General should stand in his place and vote in favour of an amendment like the one we are proposing, it is now. I appeal to him, to other ministers, and to backbenchers of the Liberal and Conservative parties to do the same.
Surely, we can meet our social obligations in Canada. Can we not house our poor on the basis of limiting builders' profits? Can we not erect buildings which conform to adequate building standards and which will last for many years? I shall watch anxiously, when the vote is taken, to see how the Postmaster General and other ministers vote on the amendment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had a lot of fun at the Postmaster General's expense, which is quite normal these days, almost as much fun as I had when considering the hon. member's dual policy on industrial relations, a dual policy made evident last evening when he and members of his party voted in favour of ordering striking longshoremen in British Columbia back to work. He and his colleagues were being pragmatic.
The minister is a man of compassion-I say this sincerely-and he is trying to be realistic in housing policies. Ideally, I suppose everyone in this country should live in a nice, self-contained bungalow, on a lot 50 by 100. Many of us bought homes like that after the end of the second world war, when land was reasonable. I myself bought one through Central Mortgage and Housing; even then the mortgage was not easy to pay.
Most of the present ministers' policies are aimed at helping low income families. He has tried to induce private funds into the market, in an effort to see that the private industry assumes its social obligations. I understand the hon. member's point about a 33-storey apartment building. But we must face reality; look at things as they are in the centre of Toronto. Land there is very expensive. I suppose the alternative to the hon. member's scheme is to say that because land is so expensive in the centre of Toronto, because it is so expensive to build anything in the heart of Toronto, poor people in the Toronto area must live 55 miles from the centre of the city.


John Gilbert: I was referring to a project which is already 20 miles from the centre of Toronto.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Perhaps part of the problem is that the Tory government which has been in power for the last 35 years in the province has not been intelligent enough to

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
take advantage of this government's land banking program, which it has known about many for years. Or, if that government did release land, it did not release it for the right type of housing, as is obvious.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no filibuster. I will sit down, then vote for the amendment with a clear conscience, particularly as I know the minister intends to direct as much public and private money as possible into the market, so that we can help people who depend on rental housing to acquire suitable accommodation.
The minister knows my views. He knows we should be spending millions of dollars more in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and on the north shore of New Brunswick. The minister is the one who educated me to these facts during many meetings in cabinet. He, like everybody else, must do the best he can with the money at his disposal. Let me say that, at the present moment, the government's number one priority is to spend money in the housing sector, in order to stimulate the economy. That action is necessary, as I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the conventional wisdom will concede, given the current phase of the business cycle. The government wants to meet its social obligations and a greater proportion than ever of housing money is being directed to people on low income, and particularly to people who, because of circumstances beyond their control, are forced to depend on subsidized housing.
Instead of castigating the minister, we should be thankful that we have a minister of such compassion responsible for a sensitive social portfolio.


John Gilbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the 33-story complex to which I referred, and about which the Postmaster General talked, is not in the centre of Toronto; it is in the suburbs, at least 20 miles from the centre.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference whether the complex is 20 or 50 miles from the centre. Perhaps, logically, it ought to be 75 miles from the centre. I am sure that there is no room for any sort of housing in the heart of Toronto, no room for poor people's, rich people's or anybody else's housing. Perhaps there is no room because of past poor town planning. The hon. member is asking the parliament of Canada to think for the government of Ontario, which did not have enough intelligence to provide for proper zoning regulations in that community, and make it possible for people to live in the heart of Toronto. That, of course, is one of the problems with big cities in this country.
Our people, unlike people in Europe, no longer live in the hearts of our cities. We should be fighting to bring people back to the centre of our cities, instead of building high-rise and office buildings. At night, after six o'clock, the centres of our cities are like dark canyons. I agree with the philosophy. I think everyone in the House does. But you must face reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I had assumed we are discussing some sort of point of order. It escapes the Chair exactly what the point of order is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) that we hoped that, with the appointment of a new minister in charge of housing, we should see a fundamental change from the sort of housing policy the government has followed for the past number of years. We hoped for a change in the direction of the Canadian housing policy, and we do not have it. We are witnessing more of the same. Let us not forget the point of the amendment, the point which the Postmaster General forgot to mention. It is this; we should quit subsidizing those who do not need subsidies. Instead, we should put more of the money we save into low income and limited dividend housing. That should stimulate housing starts in Canada and represent a change in policy. Such change in policy is long overdue.
The Postmaster General is concerned about basic human rights, about which the people in this country and members of the United Nations are also concerned. But is not a basic right the right to decent housing? Apparently that right is not extended to low income people. Under this government the developers have the right to charge all the market will bear and speculators and developers have the right to do their worst. You know, the money changers were driven from the temple 2,000 years ago but they "snuck" in through the back door under this government's housing policies.
A fundamental change is necessary with regard to how we are going to develop housing for low and middle income families sufficient to meet their needs. This will not be accomplished by following the same method we have been using since the end of World War II. It is not going to happen. By following the concept of charging all that the traffic will bear and allowing usurious interest rates to be levied against people with low and middle incomes, we will not succeed. The subsidies now being provided for the industry, the builders, developers and land speculators, should be used to subsidize interest rates for low and middle income families. Those earning less than $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year should get an interest rate on their mortgages of 6 per cent. They would then get their houses built. They would either build them themselves or hire developers to build them.
There should be a freeze on land prices in our cities and the suburbs. We should quit allowing land to change hands two or three times through interlocking companies with a markup each time. We should put an end to the uncivilized and inhuman situation of allowing a 50 by 100 foot lot to sell for $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000. That is not free enterprise. That even flies in the face of the principles and concepts of members opposite, but yet they perpetuate policies and legislation that continues along the same line. That is why we are trying to put forward these amendments.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) knows the situation for low and middle income earners. He has worked with those people. In fact, he lived in those circumstances. The red herrings that the minister dragged into his remarks do not help. As one of the leaders in cabinet, I thought he would try to persuade the minister responsible for housing and his other colleagues to make the fundamental change in housing policy that is required so that
March 25, 1975

we can really put up houses for those who need and are able to pay for them.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister sponsoring this bill. Within the last few minutes I saw a report in the London Times regarding an announcement that was made by the British government in co-operation with the Greater London Council which was based on their experience. That is a small country with a large population. The city of London has more than ten million people. Governments in that country have traditionally built a much higher percentage of the housing stock for rental than has ever been dreamed of in Canada. They decided they would no longer build high-rise apartments for family dwellings.
I have a question for the minister which I hope he will answer. Has the minister and his officials in his department and CMHC really considered the effects of putting families into 33 storey apartment buildings? I am talking about the social effects on families with two or more children living in three-bedroom apartments in buildings of this size. Has consideration been given to the problems of policing and everything else that will arise as a result of putting hundreds of families with two or more chi'flren into 25, 30 or 33 storey apartment buildings? Will the minister assure the House he has given some thought to this and tell us something about the effects of that kind of planning.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment is trying to accomplish what the first one tried to accomplish. The other tried to dissect the clause. This tries to eliminate the clause completely. I made my remarks with reference to this previously. They still stand. It is a difference in understanding.
I believe this is a gross misinterpretation of the diversion of government funds. Government funds are going entirely to low income Canadians. Private sector money is coming in as well. A 1.8 per cent or 2 per cent spread in interest rates is very important to anyone building apartment accommodation which we want to have built for all Canadians, especially those with low incomes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on Motion No. 2 of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Royal Assent


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Possibility of provinces sharing cost of chronic care hospitals; the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-Energy-oil-Request for investigation of possible fraudulent increase in import prices; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt)-Agriculture-Request government not make change in grades of beef purchased for armed forces.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills: Bill C-54, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975; Bill C-55, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1976.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 25,1975
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his

March 25, 1975
Criminal Code
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 25th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions. Shall orders Nos. 167, 3, 4, 10, 17, 21 and 24 be allowed to stand and retain their precedence on the order paper?


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is extremely difficult for members of this House to have any knowledge of what is being discussed in the hour that is allocated for private members' business. The procedure set out is that the order is supposed to be followed. We are continually being asked for unanimous consent to pass over bills. Your Honour has already listed Nos. 3, 4, 10, 17, 21 and 24 which have been on the order paper since October 15, 1974. I do not believe it is in the interest of hon. members to continue this procedure. I think at an early date we must ask the members to proceed in the order in which the order of business appears on the order paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer) moved: that Bill C-230, to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring broadcasters, referring specifically to CBC television, within the Criminal Code provisions respecting offences that tend to corrupt morals. This simply means that the general public would be provided with an avenue through which such person or persons could be charged with a criminal offence. There is no intent here to define what is obscene, immoral or indecent-that is the responsibility of the code of law.
At present there is no vehicle available to the Canadian taxpayer to effectively control CBC programs for which they are forced to pay an increasing amount each year. They can only express their opinions to members of parliament or to the CBC but, due to the protection that Crown corporations enjoy through lack of government interference, and under the cloak of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, their complaints prove to be an exercise in futility. If the CRTC would follow a set of guidelines established by the majority of Canadians, and if the CBC
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
could be held responsible for its actions, this type of legislation would not be necessary.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is aimed at the CBC, the expenses of which could be construed as a levy of $15 on every man, woman and child in Canada, or an expenditure of over $350 million this year. When people pay for a product, they have the right to a product they can appreciate and enjoy. Unfortunately, in the minds of taxpayers, during the past five to seven years there has been rapid and continuing depreciation in the value of the CBC. In this age of technology, knowledge should be increasing and improving-there are greater opportunities to learn. Why then should we have vulgar and corrupt programs inflicted upon viewers by this publicly-funded outlet? I cannot accept the two-bit statement of those who ask if there is not a switch on a TV set or, if CBC productions are so objectionable, why is it requested to extend into new areas. Anyone who makes this type of remark is missing the point entirely, as is the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who merely says he will relay the complaints of MPs to the CBC.
If criticism had any effect at all on the CBC, we would not be required to bring up such matters in this House. Why should anyone in this country have to turn off his TV because of a despicable CBC program for which he is paying? As long as the CBC is a Crown corporation, operated by public funds, it has a responsibility, as does the government, to provide satisfactory programs for residents in every area of our country. If the CBC will not furnish acceptable services out of the millions of dollars it spends, why not sell it to permit a private firm to provide enjoyable entertainment? At least then taxpayers' dollars would not be involved.
Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to take time to give more details to this House, because members of parliament are well aware of the dissatisfaction of constituents, and in some cases of their anger, about CBC shows. Time does not permit me to list the numerous objectionable productions emanating from that corporation, but I do want to focus attention on one in particular-The Ten Lost Years-which was apparently an attempt to depict the hard years of the thirties. While those were difficult years, they were not lost years for those who struggled through them. "Lost" could better be applied to those whose thinking is so badly warped they could not portray what did happen during the depression due to inability to comprehend; instead, they foisted their interpretation of life today on those earlier years.
I would like to read, now, a letter which was addressed to the CBC, a copy of which I received:
Sunday evening productions under the guise of 'Canadiana' (not to be confused with either drama or entertainment) are consistently so bad that I, for one, am asking the Minister of Communications and Transport, and also my local member of parliament to get you off the air. 'Ten Lost Years', your effort of last evening, indicated clearly the group of alleged performers lack both direction and talent; even the minor character parts were terrible.
Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate aspect of that entire program, other than its vulgarity, was neglect in not portraying the down-to-earth philosophy of our countrymen who brought Canada through those troubled times. The depression of the 'thirties was world-wide; it was not unique to us in Canada, and we have to accept that fact,
March 25, 1975

but added to the woes of western Canadians was the drought which hit the prairies. The only drought revealed in the "Ten Lost Years" was the dearth of facts, and the drought in the minds of its producers.
The producers used the setting of the hard times of the 'thirties to place emphasis on the standards of a sick segment of our society. I want to quote from a letter which reads:
Today a percentage of our society has a tendency to render the minimum of service for the greatest possible gain. Thoughts of making a contribution are completely lacking, and to say this unfortunate philosophy extends throughout the world of today, or that it is worse in other countries, is really a poor excuse for having it obtained in Canada.
Canadians who lived through the drought and the depression of the thirties did not ask for, expect or receive government handouts which are ordinary procedure today. They faced the difficulties of those years with fortitude and determination; defeat was not part of their make-up.
"Ten Lost Years" did not depict the shipping of carloads of vegetables donated by residents outside the drought area to the needy; it did not depict farmers removing their remaining physical resources in covered wagons several hundred miles to a new land, without complaint, to start again; it did not depict the endless hours of toil, all to no avail because tractors were sitting idle in sheds or fields without fuel to operate. Horsepower had to be relied upon to till the soil. The program did not show the farmers who managed to feed their stock using horses to build roads to work out their taxes; it did not show women, urban and rural, taking picnic baskets to community picnics without cost to anyone to enjoy ball games and other sports at a time when such tremendous value was placed on fellowship. The show did not depict Saturday nights when those fortunate enough to possess radios waited with anticipation to welcome neighbours to hear musical programs of fun, of class and moral fibre; it did not portray crops being blown out by the roots and fences completely buried by topsoil, powder-dry for lack of moisture. No mention was made of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board came into its own in those years, or that the Bank of Canada was founded for the benefit of Canadians. No, the creators of this falsification did not do so because, even with their expertise at degrading, which was their obvious goal, they could not penetrate either corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the CBC sacrificed a wonderful opportunity to provide entertainment of educational worth and vivid recollection and, either due to lack of initiative or disregard for reality, chose to place emphasis through calculated deception on immorality and obscenity in a complete distortion of the truth. Canadians who know, through experience or otherwise, what actually did happen in the 'thirties are not willing to have their tax dollars spent on programs neither suitable for viewing nor factual. This bill, if passed, could be the basis of control over productions which exceed approved limitations. I trust my proposal will receive the support of all good parliamentarians.
Criminal Code


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam
Speaker, I am quite moved by the warm welcome I am receiving. I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-230 introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who has just stated why he introduced this bill.
Its purpose is to amend the Criminal Code to make it perhaps even more illegal than it is already to broadcast obscene representations and matters. I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for his courage in introducing such an imaginative bill in this House. I appreciate that he certainly represents the views of the voters in his riding. Having recently sat on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I know for a act that several members are concerned about having received mail from their voters about dramatic programs that were shown on the national network, and particularly the English network of the CBC.
I know the hon. member certainly received mail from his constituents, and as their view corresponds no doubt to his, he moved in the direction he did today, and I can only commend him for that. However, I am not sure myself I share the same views. The hon. member's purpose is commendable in that it states in this House what seems to be a regional concern. On the other hand, the bill he introduced, if passed, would have a national bearing, and that bothers me somewhat. I also represent people from downtown Montreal, people who never miss an opportunity to let me know, as their member of Parliament and chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of the House of Commons, when they are not satisfied with programs they see on the national network and the private networks.
However, in the case of programs referred to, namely "Ten Lost Years" or other programs recently mentioned at the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts such as "Baptizing" and other programs whose names I forgot, I did not receive any adverse comment from my constituents. I do not think there was much either in Ontario. It was at both ends of the country, more especially in rural areas of Canada, that those programs disturbed the people.
Now, I already see a weakness. The member is concerned by an apparently regional problem. I do not think that hon. members-after all, they do represent the entire country-will blindly pass such a bill.
For the information of some members who did not have the opportunity to attend the last sittings of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I repeat some views put forward by the CBC authorities on the lewdness or alleged lewdness of some programs. For instance, Mr. Picard said that it is difficult, in this day and age, if the corporation truly wants to discharge its mandate and depict our Canadian society as it is today, to picture only the bright side of things because, unfortunately, our society also has its dark side.
What is news? As always, more often than otherwise, violence if not obscenity. But some would have the corporation overlook, in its productions, that aspect of Canadi-

March 25, 1975
Criminal Code
an society; still, it is very real; that was one of the points Mr. Picard made.
He made another with regard to the artistic value of some plays broadcast, on request, by the corporation. Some of those plays have undeniable intrinsic value; still, it happens that in the course of the performance sex or violence are displayed.
In my opinion, if the play as a whole is not only an excuse for sex and violence, but tells a story which is logical, which makes sense, and which has an artistic value, I do not see why it should be rejected outright simply because there is a scene here and there of sex, for sex is an integral part of our lives. This does not mean that productions must be filled with sex, but I feel that we should not fall head over heels because we see a breast on the television screen, for these are quite normal things.
Do we want our state-run broadcasting system to waste its time depicting a Victorian style society which no longer exists, which falsely tries to show us a society which is made up of angels and which has nothing in common with reality? We do not expect that from our national broadcasting system, and we do not want it to become something like Moliere's Tartuffe,, if you know what I mean.
There is a question I wish to ask all hon. members. Should we censor the media? As a matter of principle, I feel that it is important to stop there. Films are no longer censored in the province of Quebec. Once they have been screened, they are either accepted or rejected in their entirety. Films no longer get clipped as they used to be. A decision is taken as to whether the film is acceptable or not. Those which are deemed acceptable certainly contain scenes which some people can normally be expected to find offensive. Otherwise, if you do not want to offend anyone, you will not show anything daring, and you will probably end up displeasing those who would like to see daring scenes. You cannot make everybody happy. And yet, a middle-of-the-road policy is certainly not impossible bearing in mind that viewers always can exercise a control over what reaches their households through electronic media. The listener who doesn't like a program has ample freedom to turn off his set, watch another program, read his paper or even do at home what he does not like to watch on TV.
I wonder if we should censor media and run the risk of hindering creativity. In all media there are devoted people whose work it is to show people what comes out of their creative minds, to show things with an artistic value. Frequently, the shows which are programmed are based for instance on books, on novels. For example, everybody heard about a film entitled The Carpet Baggers, of course a very bold one. Yet the film was based on a novel which was a best-seller. If everybody rushes to buy that book, how could a film producer be smitten with remorse and regret or ask himself a million questions before he starts shooting his film?
Media may be censored if the matter arises, but whoever does so should wonder what the results may be from a creative point of view. It can be done, but only after it has been thought over.

Do we want to run the risk of describing an artificial society, I shall refer to it presently, a holy society that does not exist? All kinds of directions can be given to our media. Parliament can even force them, if it so wishes, to show nice things only. We know that in other countries, national television corporations used to show the people nothing but nice things; but of course those nations came to require more freedom, and certainly the intention here is not to restrict the freedom of the media.
Finally, the basic question arises; Are we to take the decisions for the people? The decision to watch or not to watch TV, to turn the radio on or not to do it is a personal decision, a matter of choice very easily exercised by the people. They can be deprived of that choice, but we should first ask listeners and the general public whether such is their wish. I do not believe that such a decision can be taken in the course of this kind of one-hour debate. I am not inferring the decision would be intrinsically bad, if a majority of Canadians were to tell us: Choose what we are going to see. Maybe that decision will be made in the future. But before acting, we should await the order to do so.
I would emphasize at this point that the Criminal Code, contrary to what the hon. member for Red Deer apparently feels, already includes a number of provisions on obscenity. Criminal charges may already be laid in cases of obscene showings on television. Through this bill, the member seeks more specific measures. This is of some concern to me, because creativity could be restricted in the process. Television and radio producers already live under some sort of threat. In addition to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has coercive powers much more effective than amendments to the Criminal Code. The CRTC already established regulations on obscenity, and they can even suspend media licences. That is much more serious than putting an employee of the medium in prison for a month. This sword of Damocles is much more likely to make owners of media think twice than the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code.
Since provisions to that effect already exist in the code, I wonder if the bill is not more an answer to a purely
nnlitinal anH rnrrinml nrrtklnm nknuf itrUi/iU
UX1U xCgiuuJ/IVUIVUI, auv/ut VV 11U.11 OUiUC 111CU1UCI a
are understandably concerned. I am willing to be tolerant and to accept their point of view, but I would also like them to accept the point of view of those who are not concerned, who watch television openmindedly, and who are able, when they are not satisfied, to turn it off without asking the government to do it for them.
Today's debate, Madam Speaker, will certainly be useful. Obviously the CBC is already aware of this debate. Its president and senior officials will certainly read carefully what was said here and will be alerted, above all after the two sittings of the Committee on Braadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which were devoted almost entirely to this problem. This means that today's debate is very useful, that it will allow the concern of a part of the public to pass through, as it was presented to the House of Commons by its representatives. In my opinion, in the present democratic system, this is a good thing. Those who are concerned about something have the right to express their views. They did here today and the parties interested will certainly benefit from it.
March 25, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	4475


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, one almost hesitates to rise on a debate of this nature. One must at the outset offer some words of congratulations to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for his courage in presenting this bill to the House, because one knows that if any question is raised about the standard of material shown on television, the person raising the question immediately comes in for the kind of attack that we have just heard from the hon. member opposite. Admittedly his attack was a far more gentle putdown than some of the recent ones directed at members who have chosen to question particularly the programming of the CBC.
We have just heard that this matter is a rural matter, as though there was some quality in rural life that developed a narrowness or myopia of vision, an inability to see things as they are. Having a rural background, I reject the suggestion that the rural life, by its very nature, mitigates against the intellectual examination of problems that face society at the present time.


Mr. Blais:: There may have been something lost in the translation, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), and at no time did he make a distinction between rural and urban communities. He was speaking directly of regional things, and in view of the fact that the mover is from Red Deer, perhaps that is what was indicated. I am from a rural area and I do not feel that my area was being slighted.


Howard Earl Johnston: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the translation and not directly at this distance to the hon. members' remarks but certainly the word "rural" was used, as well as the suggestion that the whole thing was a regional matter. I have received a fair amount of mail in the last three weeks on this issue from points all the way from Truro, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver Island, and a fair portion of it came from the province of Ontario and from the urban metropolis of Toronto. I would suggest that almost all the voices from across that space, from the larger centres as well as the smaller, were saying the same thing to me. I do not accept the idea that the problem is appreciated only by a few people in one particular area of the country.
The problem is nationwide and undoubtedly worldwide. When we read publications from other lands we see that it is not isolated to Canada, in any way, shape or form. The putdowns come in a variety of ways. During a session of the committee I referred to a letter written by John Hirsch, head of t.v. drama, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Toronto. He sent the letter out to the major newspapers of this country. In this regard there was some particular discussion of programming, and Mr. Hirsch said in his letter:
It is a matter of determining the role of the CBC in the consideration and formation of public taste; that is, whether the corporation is to follow or to lead in such matters.
Obviously it is not up to CBC to go wildly off into avant-garde styles and far-out situations and language, but rather to remain just a few steps ahead of the whole viewing public in such matters.
Criminal Code
If one looks at the whole picture there seems to be a sort of downward slide rather than a process of elevating or raising the level of the standard of value. When there seems to be a downward slide one is suspicious of any writer that talks about being ahead of the general public in a direction in which one would not wish to see the country or its broadcasting moving. Certainly, if one watched the television production "You'll Be All Right, Jamie Boy" he will know that this was pretty far out both in circumstance and language, and deserving of a fair amount of criticism.
Mr. Hirsch then went on to describe recent years' programming and he described it as a diet of harmless, rather blah material from CBC drama of little significance, programs that were made to be turned off, and he said the vigour and challenge came from American programs. I am not questioning the accuracy of what he describes about CBC programming over recent years, but it seems to me that the answer to that problem is not to go from bad to worse but to make some effort to improve the situation. In talking about American programming Mr. Hirsch says that they have managed to handle such difficult subjects as abortion, homosexuality, gang-rape, wife swapping and other purported untouchables.
One thing that concerns me very much about all of this is the attempt to build an unshockable viewing audience. I would be very much concerned about a nation whose national network, or any network, handled some of the subjects in the list given to us by Mr. Hirsch and it produced no critical response to and through members of parliament. That would concern me, because I think that by that time we would be sunk in apathy a long way, and we would be at a point where we would not react any more to situations that should give us cause to react. I have been concerned about this for a long time.
When I am not in parliament, I teach school. A year ago, browsing along a bookshelf I picked up a book called "Go Ask Alice". I am surprised that it has not made the roster of CBC drama programs. It purports to be the diary of a 14 or 15 year old girl who is a drug addict. It is truly the bottom. The class I had at school used to write tiny book reviews for me and I always told them to write about anything they had read, it did not matter where they read it. I discovered over the course of a few weeks that several people in my class had read "Go Ask Alice" and spoke of it in most glowing terms.
When I asked one day in class how many people had read the book, about five girls put up their hands. I asked then how many of them thought it was a good book, and all five hands went up again. It concerned me that they should see that particular book as a good book. It was truly the bottom in terms of language, in terms of lack of a plot, and in terms of ripping off young people by purporting to be on the level of "The Diary of Anne Frank". The cover purported the books to be similar. So I asked my pupils why they thought it was a good book, and they said to me, "That is the way it is, that is where it's at."
Again I am concerned about the acceptance of an utter lack of standards, the absence of everything one might call traditional morality. I was very concerned about Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Criminal Code
Hirsch's defence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in his letter when he said:
Now the Canadian viewer suddenly finds himself confronted on our drama programs with an image that is his own. He sees that he is like others.
I would hope that the Canadian viewer was not confronting himself on some of the recent programming on CBC. I would hope we were not at that level yet. I would hope there were still some happy families in this country, some fathers who were respected by their children and beloved by their wives, that there were within the country some normal family relationships because, if there are not, then we are in a bad way indeed.
Finally Mr. Hirsch said:
In other words, we have to give the viewers not only what they think they want, we have to give them the kind of high quality that the honest, creative artists we are trying to employ know they will want once they try it, and once they get to like it.
I was extremely concerned about the analogy to feeding a small child a variety of vegetables that he does not want to eat but that he should eat. Very often, children are exposed to those vegetables gradually to get used to the taste and eventually find themselves liking it. The argument there is usually that the offending food is nutritious and of value. But I would be very suspicious of the same effort going into conditioning the Canadian public to some of the recent programming that they have had on the CBC. I would be concerned indeed if a public shown "You'll be all right, Jamie Boy" would not be shocked by it, and would not resent in particular the point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer that they were paying for it at the same time.
I do not wish to limit my remarks to the CBC because there is a great deal we should consider seriously about the whole spectrum of television broadcasting in this land. I am one who believes in the abolition of the death penalty, and yet as I watch television occasionally-one does not have to watch it very closely, all you have to be is in the next room listening to the sound effects-I recognize the compendium of crime, violence, torture and rape that is placed before the Canadian public night after night, usually starting early in the day and placed before small children and often babies. Given that it is not much wonder if we seem to be retreating into violence and retreating from our standards and abandoning moral values. That is one thing of which we should be very careful.
There are other programs that would almost qualify for the label of obscene. Here again one moves into matters of opinion, but when you see a "Miss Teenage Canada Pageant," for example, one sees a sort of exploitation of those people. That was not a CBC but a CTV program. I think one wonders about the value and the contribution that will be made to this country by that sort of program.
I am also concerned that those people who question such programs become the recipients of the kind of criticism that was directed at the members of the broadcasting committee in this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail by columnist Geoffrey Stevens. What one says is characterized as a "knee-jerk reaction," and the entire committee is labelled as grossly incompetent and having spent its time on programming rather than on any diligent seeking out

of the financing that goes behind the CBC. I do not see much point in digging too deeply into the CBC financing if the question in the minds of the public concerns the product that comes out at the end. That is one of the areas at which we can and should look.
I hope that voices in the House will continue to hold to their critical faculty and not be afraid to express it, because I still feel that across this land there is a great majority who want something better and expect something better from television.
One of the things which worries me about our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that I suspect the young writers of Canada, or the honest creative artists of this country, while they may be very honest and very creative, quickly learn what can be sold to the organization and begin to tailor their product accordingly. I think the same is somewhat true of films. One would hope that we could still find a market for a dramatic presentation of a family which triumphs rather than of a family which always fails.
The previous speaker mentioned the CRTC, and it seems to me that as the years have gone by, with the change of name and the change of function, that body has in a sense lost some of the authority and the concern it had when it was known as the Board of Governors of the CBC. In that older name there was the suggestion of some watching over, and some guiding along the lines which are hoped for in the bill presented this afternoon. I am afraid that that control and that concern are now rather lost.
I can appreciate the despair in the letters which come to me from people who feel they are voiceless. They know that something is wrong, and they sense this very deeply. Yet they cannot make any impact at all. They then turn to their member of parliament and hope that a voice will be raised somewhere. I trust that these voices will not be silenced by the kind of criticism which has been handed out to members of the broadcasting committee over these last few days because they have dared to raise questions of real concern to a great many people in this country.
I feel that there is room for the CRTC to be some kind of watchdog. I realize that there are avenues which could be followed at the present time by someone objecting to programming in terms of launching a suit, but I realize as well that for the average citizen, whether he lives in a great city or in a rural area, the problems of effectively launching a suit against the CBC, or against the CRTC, are very great indeed and are not likely to be undertaken.
I do trust that as a result of the debate we have been having in the last three weeks, and as a result of all the letters which have been written, we can have a good look at the kind of programming which is too prevalent and be prepared to do something, not just about what is usually called obscenity or bad language, but particularly about the violence, the bloodshed, the treatment of law enforcement officers-those factors which must play a role in the rising tide of crime facing this country.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and the concern of many hon. members in
March 25, 1975

this House and of people across the country about the programs which appear not only on our national network but on all networks, and in all facets of the communications industry. They are concerned, whether they are from rural areas or urban areas, about the use of obscenity, profanity and immoral activities by anyone, whether it be in broadcasting, newspapers, or books. No matter where it may be, I feel that close scrutiny of such questionable material must be carried out at all times by those responsible for the activities of all broadcasters, reporters, advertisers, and all those related to the dissemination of information and entertainment, not only on the public broadcasting service, which seems to be the prime thrust of the concern here this evening, but on the private sector of broadcasting as well.
I am concerned that much of the criticism has been directed, whether rightly or wrongly, against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and members of that broadcasting group. This bill states that everyone commits an offence who, being a broadcaster, or an officer of an employer of a broadcaster, allows to be broadcast an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation. That takes in the complete segment of broadcasters, from those behind the microphones to the cameramen, script men, writers, producers and directors, no matter where they are in that broadcast segment. I think that perhaps in this respect we must consider where the broadcaster fits in, what he has done, and what regulations he is now concerned with regarding this matter.
Other hon. members will no doubt deal with the legal aspect of this bill, but in the next few minutes I would like to direct the attention of the House to the effect the bill will have on the broadcasters at the grass roots level of broadcasting. I believe that one of the first concerns would be a precise definition of what is obscene or immoral. As we have learned in the recent hearings of the broadcasting committee, of which I am a member-and I agree with much of what the previous speaker has said regarding reports of the broadcasting committee which have appeared in the newspapers recently-there is certainly a wide divergence of opinion even amongst the members, broadcasters and all the segments of our population as to what is immoral or indecent. What I may feel is immoral or indecent other members of this House may not feel is immoral or indecent, and I think that one of the first things we have to define is the common standard of immorality or indecency. It would be terribly difficult, if not impossible at this time, to arrive at that precise definition.
Last fall, for example, all of the networks presented scenes of the slaughter of calves performed publicly, scenes which immediately shocked a response from the general public and from this House as to the problems faced by the members of the agricultural community, and it was a response that was rightfully made at that time. Surely some segments or individuals in our society found those scenes to be distasteful. Some of them have told me that they found them to be very distasteful, but those are scenes which the farmer takes for granted because he sees them every day of the week in slaughter houses and in other situations. If this bill became law the private citizen could say that that was obscene and immoral, and bring a charge under the Criminal Code.
The Royal Assent
The bill before us now makes no comment with regard to the extreme violence that is seen not only in the public sector of broadcasting but in the private sector as well, and in many cases more so in the private sector. I believe the extreme violence depicted on television is of parallel importance to the matters raised by the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to immorality.
Another matter of great importance is the effect this bill would have on the level of broadcasting. The bill refers to "Every one... who, being a broadcaster-" That includes the disc jockey on morning radio, the cameraman, and even those members of the press gallery who are broadcasters. The provisions of this section of the Criminal Code would cover the situation where anything they said was considered obscene. Producers, directors, and even copywriters would be included.
This is a complex business which is regulated not only by the Canadian Radio and Television Corporation but by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. This association has a code of ethics which member stations follow, and it exercises control every step along the way. As well as being subject to the scrutiny of their profession members are, of course, subject to the provisions of the Criminal Code and the regulations of the CRTC.
At the present time the CRTC has authority to refuse to grant or renew licences in the broadcasting industry. It can also levy fines against a station or an individual broadcaster guilty of obscene, indecent or profane language or pictorial representation. The CRTC takes into consideration at the time of licence renewal any complaints that have been received from the general public about obscene programming. To my knowledge only a few fines have been levied in this respect and I believe they were against the private sector. I do not know of any renewal of licence having been refused by the CRTC on these grounds. I should draw to the attention of the House the self-regulatory-Mr. Speaker, I note the arrival of Black Rod.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
Bill C-54, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March,
1975.	-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C-55, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March,
1976.	-Chapter No. 37.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do not leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
John Gilbert: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 28 to 38 at page 3 and by substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Subsection 15.1(3) of the said Act is repealed.".
He said: Madam Speaker, the amendment I am moving at this time is very important. The two amendments I moved this afternoon were not very well received by the minister and the Liberal party and, I am sorry to say, the members of the Conservative party.
The substance of the first two amendments was directed at the private sector. We in the New Democratic Party are opposed to giving subsidies to builders and developers. Motion No. 3 is an opportunity for the members of the Liberal party, especially the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), to redeem themselves and to vote for a particular sector of the housing industry. I refer specifically to the non-profit sector.
The non-profit sector has had a rather short but impressive history with regard to housing in Canada. The reason is because it has embraced a large number of dedicated people who are prepared to work for little or no pay in order to solve the housing problem. They give some assistance to people with low and moderate incomes.
From time to time the government has been kind to the non-profit sector. I remind hon. members that under the present law the non-profit sector, which includes co-ops, was entitled to 100 per cent financing, a $10,000 start-up fund for its projects, and a 10 per cent capital grant. These appeared to be generous provisions, and they were. The

members of the non-profit sector appreciated that help from the government.
Originally they did not have that type of help. At the most they had 95 per cent financing. The government saw the need of the non-profit sector and its contribution to lowering housing prices. It gave those provisions and that help to that sector. As a result the government has experienced a great number of dedicated people trying to solve the problem, especially in the large urban areas. But those people experienced rising land costs which made it very difficult for them to operate. The government realized that, and the minister said he would try to make a change. He said he appreciated the high cost of land and the government would step in to allocate moneys so that land could be purchased by CMHC and leased to the non-profit sector.
In his announcement, the minister set forth the objective of CMHC to give further assistance to the non-profit sector by purchasing land and leasing it to that sector. However, when he made his statement he was very ambiguous as to what he was going to do. He, in effect, said that if the government applies moneys to purchase the land, it could not continue some of the other assistance.
I will remind hon. members of those provisions. There was the $10,000 start-up fund, 100 per cent financing, and the 10 per cent capital grant. He said, in a very ambiguous way, that if the government was going to give moneys to purchase lands, and the land is to be leased to them by CMHC, he was going to cut off their 10 per cent capital grant. This was the "either or" proposition that the minister put to the non-profit sector. This is the reason I am moving this amendment.
We had before us in committee a group of dedicated people representing different housing groups across the country, especially the city of Toronto. Their argument was all-persuasive. In fact I never heard so many compliments paid by members of the housing committee to the presentation that was given by the Toronto Non-Profit Housing Federation. I say again that these are young people who have dedicated their time, ability and energy to help solve the problem.
This group pointed out some of the great benefits of non-profit housing. They pointed out that the residents of non-profit and co-operative housing projects enjoy security of tenure, which is a vital ingredient in the healthy social environment that is necessary for both the individual and the community. In other words, there is security of tenure for the residents who occupy the rental units within a project.
They pointed out that the non-profit corporation manages the housing and allows for more control over the administration by the residents than does the private market rental. This means no huge government bureaucracy or tremendous overhead to manage housing, as in the case of public housing projects. They emphasised security of tenure and far more control over the administration. If Your Honour had been in the House this afternoon you would have heard some of the remarks by members of the NDP with regard to the administration of not only public housing projects but also limited dividend projects operated by the private sector.
March 25, 1975

Thirdly, they pointed out that the non-profit sector is aimed directly at providing accommodation for low and moderate income households. That is more than important, because of the attitude of the minister, and because the legislation favours the private sector and the middle income group rather than the low and moderate income groups.
They pointed out, fourthly, that non-profit housing is a non-inflationary form of housing, unlike other government housing programs. What they mean by that is that the acquisition of an existing unit for rental, or the building of a new project for the non-profit sector both have the object of not making a profit. If there is ever a philosophy that should be enunciated and implemented in regard to housing in Canada, it is the non-profit aspect.
If the profit aspect entered into education, for example, very few of us would ever have even a third or fourth grade education. If it entered into medicare, then we would not have the health care and assistance that we have today. These young people realize that if profit enters into housing and we want to implement the basic principle that people are entitled to decent housing at affordable cost, then we either have to make a profit out of housing itself, or operate on a minimum profit. This means that we do not increase the cost of land or buildings in this sector.
This is in direct contrast to the situation in the private sector, which treats housing as a commodity and tries to make as much money as it can in as short a time as possible. The result is the high land costs and high housing costs so prevalent across the country today. In the city of Toronto alone the average cost of a home is $54,000. With the high interest rates prevailing today it is very difficult for a person living in Toronto to buy a home.
The federation points out that if the minister did not continue the capital cost allowance provision and the subsidy, this would have a marked effect on the non-profit sector. To illustrate this it prepared a table which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister because I think it is of great importance. For a one bedroom apartment with a monthly rent of $216 in a non-profit project, a person would require an annual income of $10,400; with provincial assistance the income would have to be $9,200. This is a very high income for the average low income family to achieve.
In the case of a large family which requires a four bedroom apartment, the total monthly rent would be $416, and this would require an income of between $17,700 and $20,000. These two examples do not include the cost of the land. If you take $25,000 to be the average cost of land for a home in Toronto, you have to add at least $7,000 for the land cost.


Walter David Baker: Plus the lawyer's fees.


John Gilbert: Yes, plus the lawyer's fee, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) points out. If the non-profit sector is to direct its efforts toward assisting the low and moderate income groups, then it cannot serve this part of the market. This means that there has to be a shift from the lower and moderate income groups to
National Housing Act
the middle and upper income groups before these units can be occupied, and this is not the purpose of the nonprofit sector.
As I have said, Madam Speaker, the purpose of the non-profit sector is to take care of the low and moderate income earners. The subsidies have been far outstripped by the land costs that have prevailed across the country, especially in the large cities. Therefore, we are asking the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and all members of the House to retain the 100 per cent financing provision, the $10,000 start-up fund, and the 10 per cent capital cost provision. The minister has made the 10 per cent capital cost provision an alternative and by so doing, when CMHC acquires the land and leases it to the non-profit sector, he makes it impossible for that sector to function. I know that is not the minister's intention.
I cannot believe that the minister, who is concerned about housing, would direct his efforts and the financing of CMHC toward achieving this purpose. Never have I heard a more persuasive argument than the one I heard from the young people representing the Toronto non-profit groups. They pointed out what was going to happen if the minister made the 10 per cent capital grant an alternative. Surely this is the time to help this kind of group. We should take into serious consideration the fact that the minister has said there are thousands of people in Canada who require help to find housing because of their financial position. I cannot believe for one moment that the minister would agree to bring in legislation prohibiting or restricting the non-profit sector.
Therefore I make a special plea to the minister, and also to the former minister of housing, now the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), who was responsible for sponsoring Bill C-133 in 1973, which gave a thrust to the non-profit sector by creating a capital grant of 10 per cent, a start-up fund of $10,000, and mortgage financing to the extent of 100 per cent. I ask the Minister of National Revenue to plead with and persuade the Minister of State for Urban Affairs not to do what he is doing in this clause of the bill. I was rather proud of the Minister of National Revenue when he was minister of housing-


Mr. Basford:: You did not say that at the time.


John Gilbert: The reason I did not give him too much credit was that it might have gone to his head. It might have given him a big head, which he is so capable of acquiring from time to time. I thought he had the right idea in regard to the non-profit sector, but this has been stripped down and restricted by the present minister of housing. I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to stand up in his place when my amendment is called and to vote for continuing the $10,000 start-up fund, 100 per cent financing, and the 10 per cent capital grant.
The minister wants the $10,000 start up fund and the 100 per cent financing, but if the land is acquired by CMHC he does not want to give the 10 per cent capital grant. I am rather ashamed of the minister that he should want to do this because he is a man of good feeling, a man who is genuinely concerned about housing, even though he has

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
not reached the right solutions. I hope the minister will change his mind and accept the amendment.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) with regard to third sector housing on which I place a high value. This is a new and important initiative taken by my predecessor, and one which I am following with enthusiasm.
As the hon. member said, these projects are eligible for 100 per cent financing of the capital cost, 10 per cent forgiveness to compensate for the cost of land, and up to $10,000 in start-up fees for groups who build, buy, or manage low-cost housing. In addition provincial assistance is often available. If this is still not sufficient to bring rents down to a level tenants can afford, there are the new provisions of section 44(l)(b) of the National Housing Act which have just been applied to non-profit and co-operative housing units-this is a rent supplement whose cost is shared by the provinces and the federal government.
As the hon. member has stated, in some cases even a 10 per cent grant is not sufficient to cover the cost of land, especially in high rent areas such as Toronto. In situations of that sort we give non-profit groups an option; the CMHC will then buy the land and lease it back under an arrangement which will enable tenants to go in at rents low-income people can afford. So we are not proposing to take something away. On the contrary, this constitutes a significant benefit. These rents can be set at levels which low income people can afford. I hope these measures will encourage more non-profit groups to go forward in areas where land costs are unusually high.
The hon. member for Broadview is aware of my interest in this subject, and of the interest taken by members of my family in his constituency who are dedicated to this whole area of third sector housing. It is something in which I believe very deeply, bearing in mind the economic benefit to those involved, the enhancement of the community spirit which is bound to be present, the social benefits to those who are managing their own housing and, not least, the fact that these projects will eventually serve as a real countervailing force in the marketplace.
This is a movement to be encouraged. I encourage labour groups wherever I speak to them, as I did yesterday, to emulate the example of the United Auto Workers in moving into this area. Veterans groups will now be able to do so on a much greater scale as a result of the announcement made today by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). Legion branches, which are possessed of valuable property and the services of men who have been dedicated to this organization throughout their lives, will be able to take advantage of these provisions.
I do not know of any other nation in the world which has gone so far in doing something for yet another generation of veterans-not young veterans, as we were when we came back from the war, charging off to raise families in the country-we are a little more tired now, and those days cannot be recaptured-but more mature men and women whose needs are still to be served.
The provision which the hon. member for Broadview would remove is, I suggest, one of the most beneficial

which could be included in favour of low income and non-profit groups whose work I should like to see encouraged.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the comments the minister has made. I would be surprised if he could convince members of this group that he is right. After all, as I said earlier this afternoon, we sit in opposition and we have a different philosophy. What puzzles me is not that the minister cannot convince us, but that he cannot convince the few people, the far too few people, who have involved themselves in co-operative and non-profit housing. If one accepted the rousing comments the minister made a few moments ago one would think that co-operative housing is flourishing in this country, that hundreds of thousands of people are living in co-operative housing, and that an appreciable proportion of our housing needs is being met by co-operative housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. One half of one per cent of the housing accommodation in this country is made up of co-operative housing projects.
One of the largest projects in the country happens to be in Winnipeg, and most of the units are in my constituency. Not a year goes by but I hear complaints from the dozen or more people who spend hundreds of hours a year working to try to promote more co-operatives. They complain about how difficult it is to get anything from the minister, about the bureaucratic way in which the CMHC is conducted, about the time it takes between the initiation of a project and its completion. They say that by the time approval is finally obtained from the minister the people for whom the plan was intended no longer qualify and they have to move up to a higher income bracket.
As I say, what interests me is that the minister has not been able to convince the people who are really interested in co-operative housing that this legislation will really help. Looking through my files I see a report in the Globe and Mail of last August, according to which Mayor Crom-bie of Toronto, the people involved in the Labour Council, and the representatives of the non-profit housing organizations, are completely dissatisfied with the minister and his program.


An hon. Member:: You have picked some authority!


David Orlikow: I am not so concerned about the Mayor of Toronto. I know he is a Tory. But I am concerned about the people in the Labour Council and in the non-profit housing organizations in Toronto. They are saying that the minister's program and the legislation we are considering simply do not meet their needs.
Let me just refresh the minister's memory in case he has forgotten. The news report says:
The Labour Council of Metro Toronto's cooperative housing program has suffered the latest blow in a program that has endured several since the National Housing Act was amended in June, 1973, to permit 100 per cent mortgage financing for co-operative groups.
A week ago, Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. officials told the Labour Council that it could not use provincial subsidies to calculate the economic viability of its plan to build and rehabilitate 98 units-
March 25, 1975

And, they added, without the subsidies the projected rents were too high to consider financing the proposal.
That is precisely what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has said. The article then states:
The labour council has supported non-profit housing by community groups, and taken part in the acquisition of housing to be operated by the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corp.
City politicians and officials, as well as people involved in non-profit housing groups, are afraid that if the Labour Council can't get CMHC approval for a non-profit proposal, with all the resources it has at its disposal, then no one can.
The Labour Council has said, as quoted in this article:
"Our hope of attracting community institutions to engage in housing will be seriously upset- "
These organizations have talked to the chairman of CMHC and to the minister, and have indicated that they are caught in the squeeze between rising costs in housing and the regulations set by CMHC. Mr. Teron sent a reply to these people and said:
"We do include any provincial subsidies in assessing the viability of projects.
Similarly, they do include the 100 per cent funding of land in the calculation, and it is this provision that has made it virtually impossible for co-operative housing organizations to expand. The minister is concerned about getting groups into housing, and he knows there has been a very marked drop in the number of housing starts this year. Here we have groups of people who are prepared to do a great deal of work. They are prepared to participate in the planning of the projects, of the units, and in respect of the acquisition and the best use of the land. These people are doing this work without pay, and are not as concerned as private builders with making profits.
In this day of high costs one would think the minister would be interested in helping these groups promote their ideas so that more people will get into co-operative housing. Instead the minister has said, as other ministers so frequently said in the past, that he is not really prepared to help co-operative housing groups in order that they can grow and build houses, setting guidelines in respect of housing so that the private sector cannot simply charge as much or more than the traffic will bear. This is the purpose of the amendment moved by my colleague. It is our hope that the government and parliament will do whatever is possible to encourage co-operative housing groups to become a meaningful factor in the provision of houses for Canadians.
Unfortunately the minister has simply not met any of the arguments put forward by these people, and it is obvious that he has no intention of doing so. We will hear more fine sentiment. As the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggests, the minister talks a good game, but when it comes to taking action or doing something for these groups of people who are prepared to do a job to meet some of the problems of housing, all we get from the minister is a flat no.
I must say I am disappointed with the minister. He made many excellent speeches in the early stages of his ministerial responsibility, and I really thought that for once, by choice or by accident, we had a minister who really cared about housing and about the needs of the ordinary and the poor people. To my regret I see that I was
National Housing Act
wrong, and that what we have is another minister who will agree that this is the right thing to do but will not bring in any legislation, or find the money, to do these things that are required.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In accordance with section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Gilbert: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-46, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"in Council and in no case shall such rentals exceed 4 per cent of the book value to the Corporation of the land".
He said: Madam Speaker, this amendment applies directly to the non-profit sector. I thought we would have had some co-operation from the minister, members of the government party and members of the Conservative party in respect of assisting the non-profit sector to build more homes, but we did not get that co-operation.
The minister in his remarks referred to veterans housing and suggested what a great advantage this would be to veterans in conjunction with the announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). Let me just take a few minutes to outline the purpose of this amendment.
The minister has said that if a non-profit group goes into a project in respect of which the land is purchased by CMHC the group is not entitled to the 10 per cent capital grant. We have tried to point out that if that is the case the rents that will have to be charged will be too high to shift the accommodation to the low and middle income groups. In addition, these groups should be given some idea as to what the rent is to be in respect of the land.
When a business acquires a building it sets up a schedule of depreciation for tax purposes that applies over the life of the building. I understand that if a brick building is involved it is set up for 40 years at 2V4 per cent. In these cases CMHC will be acquiring the land and there will be a 100 per cent factor to be set up in respect of the purchase of that land.

National Housing Act
Part of the non profit sector is saying through me that, if it has to purchase land, it should have some idea with regard to what it will cost over the life of the project, and the amendment says that it should not exceed 4 per cent over the life of the project. I would like the minister to get up and say that this is such a worthwhile program that we should charge them one dollar a year rent. This is a formula which the city of Toronto and other large cities use when they give land to non-profit groups. They say that in order to keep the rents down the cost of the land must be kept down. Being city property the cities give it to them for one dollar a year. I think the minister should do the same, but if he does not go along with the one dollar a year formula, CMHC regulations should not exceed 4 per cent of the cost of the land.
When we were in committee the minister said that he wanted to be more flexible and that he did not want to commit himself with regard to this matter. This means that CMHC regulations will give a discretionary power to the officials in CMHC, and they will indicate that a project really has to pay for itself, but they will not put in the cost of the land. We are saying that the minister and CMHC should indicate that in such worthy projects the rent should be one dollar a year. If that is not possible or feasible, then it should not exceed 4 per cent. If the non-profit project stops its function, then by charging one dollar a year rent there could be a provision in the lease whereby the land, and the building on the land, will revert to the ownership of CMHC. I ask the minister to help the non-profit sector. I have the feeling he wants to, but he is not doing it.
I have received the message from the non-profit sector that they are not the least bit pleased with the alternative method the minister has proposed because they know it will be a burden on their costs when they are trying to keep down rents for people in low income categories. It defeats the very purpose of the non-profit sector when it shifts from the low income group and only is available to the middle and upper income group. It puts the lower income group at the mercy of the only remaining sector with housing for them, and that is the public housing sector.
I hope that the minister will see the strength of this argument and, not only the strength of the 4 per cent, but really the strength of the one dollar per year rent with the provision that the land would revert to CMHC and, if the land reverts, the building thereon also reverts.


Mr. Railton:: Oh, no.


John Gilbert: I hear the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) displaying his usual friendly and combative style. I hope that he will get up and tell us where we are wrong. We are saying that the non-profit sector is being terribly restricted by the provisions of the minister, and what we want-


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to interject. I am not too sure that the hon. member knows what he is talking about. He invited me to make an interjection, and I would say that the non-profit idea will be worth about 30

per cent to the people who rent, because the rents will be down about that much from the average rents of other-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This is a point for debate. If the hon. member wishes to participate, I will recognize him after the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


John Gilbert: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Welland, and I hope he will take the opportunity to speak after I finish. I would like to tell the House that the percentage of the total housing stock in Canada under the wing of the non-profit sector is one half of one per cent, and the minister himself wants to increase that. We all want to increase it, and the only way we can increase it is by giving that sector help. The minister has restricted help. He has given the subsidies to the private builders, to the lending institutions like the banks and finance and trust companies, but what he has done to the non-profit sector is restrict its operation.
At the end of the year we will find that this sector's one half of one per cent of the total stock will be reduced even further. It will probably be one quarter of one per cent. This will not give us any pride; it will not give the Minister of State for Urban Affairs any pride, or the hon. member for Wellington. I think all of us should direct our attention and our energies to increasing the stock of nonprofit housing. We should encourage it.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has just turned around and looked at me, and I think he said, "John, you are right." I can just feel the vibrations from the hon. member for Hamilton West because he knows that in the city of Hamilton there are dedicated people in the non-profit sector who want to increase the number of units for low income people. I hope that at least he on the Conservative side will stand up and support it with all the strength he displays on other measures.
I hope that the minister will see the wisdom and the common sense of the amendment, agree with me, and undertake that the rents chargeable to the non-profit sector will either be one dollar a year with the reversion feature if the non-profit project ceases to operate or, at the very least, 4 per cent. If he did so, I am sure that the minister would be very proud.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I was invited to participate in this debate, and I am quite happy to do so.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


William Arnold Peters: I was very impressed with the comments made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). While I am not familiar with the quotations given a few moments ago from the Globe and Mail concerning the situation in Toronto and the problems there, I have learned over the years that land prices in Toronto are very high. One of the reasons housing has become almost impossible for even the middle income groups in this country is the high cost of land.
In my own area a number of organizations have been established over the years which built low rental units, and in most cases they have had to raise their rents, because of maintenance and other costs, to a point where
March 25, 1975

CMHC and the Ontario Housing Corporation have been invited back into them. I am thinking particularly of one which involves quite a number of veterans and which is one of the first projects of this nature the Legion undertook. I am certainly in agreement that one of the problems with this project is the cost of land.
In the type of housing the Legion was interested in providing there was absolutely no advantage in owning the land. If the federal government wanted to hold the land in title and provide it free of charge, it would have been acceptable. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, the federal government owns a great deal of land. An inventory was taken a couple of years ago and it turned out it had land it did not even know about. In the province of Quebec the federal government started to sell land, and then when it looked at the situation closely it reconsidered and decided to hold that land. The federal government owns a considerable amount of land in every major city and it is costing money to maintain it. The government has no use for it at the moment and is holding it for future development.
One of the best things the government could do would be to provide federally owned land to organizations that want to provide accommodation for the people they are concerned with, at the lowest possible cost. The minister has said that this bill will assist the veterans, but I doubt that. I was shocked to hear the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) delegate his responsibility to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) today. In doing so he gave the veterans absolutely nothing and took from them a long established program which, in my opinion, could have provided some advantages for them in the area of housing.
It would be easy for the government to provide land to interested organizations that could, as the hon. member for Broadview suggested, either pay the municipal taxes, which may be 4 per cent, or pay the government a dollar for it and let the government pay the taxes. In those cases where agencies or organizations are willing to provide the time, effort and labour, I think we should co-operate to ensure housing at a cost people can afford.
I understand that in the city of Toronto one of the major elements in the cost of housing is the price of land. I discussed this with one of my sons who lives there and was shocked when he indicated that a building lot costs about $25,000. I looked in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star and saw that he was right. Not too long ago you could get a house for that price.
There is not much sense in promoting home ownership for people in a low income bracket if it is going to cost them 50 per cent of their wages. They would be better off to move into totally publicly supported housing and go on welfare. Of course many people are doing just that. It is not only the native population that we have neglected in this country. We have also neglected 25 percent of the rest of the population who are in the low wage bracket and are faced with the high cost of housing.
I can see no reason why the Minister of State for Urban Affairs would not be willing to take ownership of the land that rests with the Minister of Public Works in many
National Housing Act
municipalities, and designate it for low rental housing to be provided by other agencies.
The Legion in Haleybury started a project to provide its members with accommodation at a reasonable price. It worked hard on this but it is now in difficulty because of escalating costs and because we have not been providing the veterans with matching increases. The Legion is now asking the Ontario Housing Corporation to take the project over from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The minister has not shown any initiative in the field of public housing, but at least he could provide land at cost and so enable organizations to establish non-profit housing for people who are desperately in need.
Members who represent small communities are aware of the goodwill that exists in them and the desire of people to organize their time and efforts to develop non-profit housing for those who need it. I think the hon. member for Broadview is right when he says we could make land available to organizations on a lease basis for 4 per cent, or for a dollar, or even free of charge. Let us not give the kind of advantage that is in this bill to the big contractors, the friends of the minister, who are going to build houses. Because they get 1.8 per cent of the total cost they are going to raise the money to build houses? They have previously never built houses unless they got 15 per cent or 20 per cent.
A community spirit has to be developed in this country, Madam Speaker, and one way to do this is to allow organizations, willing to give their time, and sometimes money, to develop housing that is suitable for people and will provide a better standard of living for those who are not now able to afford decent housing. Anything else will not bring credit to the minister and, worse than that, will not build houses.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Madam Speaker, I was most interested to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Broadview effectively support the provision which calls for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to own land and retain title to it; that, of course, means for the people of Canada to own it and retain title to it.
The point that there are times when the consideration should be one dollar or 1 per cent is something I accept. The hon. member for Broadview asked me to stand up and say that. It is something I accept. There are other circumstances where it may not be applicable. It means the option for a non-profit group will be whichever suits them best. If it were limited to 4 per cent and the land was worth $1,000, naturally at $40 per year that is the option they would take. That would not be so bad, and it may be the right way to do it.
If the result is not economic rent, perhaps we are not going about this in the right way. If these people are getting the economic rent anyway, then they are depriving other non-profit groups, other sectors, other low income people of those funds. They might help in a particular development, but it might be unjust to let them take advantage of such programs if there are not sufficient

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
funds for others. The land may be charged at $1 per year, or the rate may be 1 per cent, although I suggest in most cases it will be under 4 per cent. In some situations the interest rate may be 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent. I think we must reserve our rights, otherwise we should give an unfair advantage to one group at the expense of another.
The intention is to give the non-profit or co-operative groups the right to the option. That is what we are trying to do in all our programs. We want to give people options which were never available to them before. As I say, we are trying to provide young people and low income people with the sort of option they have not had so far.
If the 10 per cent forgiveness allowance is not enough to cover the cost of the land, we can go further, buy that land and lease it back to these people at a low rent, to make certain that rents are maintained at a low level.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, will the minister permit a question?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Certainly.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, although I approve of the minister's remarks I am worried in case we shall continually bring in amendments to our housing legislation. We have done this many times in the last three or four years. Has the minister, in his numerous discussions with municipal and provincial leaders across the country, received any indication that, with respect to land which still belongs to the Crown after buildings are erected on it, municipalities will accept the kinds of grants which the government gives in lieu of taxes and not charge taxes on that land? In other words, if the federal government is willing to make concessions, are these municipalities willing to reciprocate with concessions in their tax structure?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the hon. member's suggestion. I have not had such discussions, but cannot say CMHC officials have not had them. I will inquire. The hon. member for Timiskaming made an interesting suggestion which I intend to pursue because it opens a number of possibilities. The type of land he speaks of may be owned by other private groups, by churches or Legion groups. I wish to pursue this suggestion further. I thank the hon. member for raising this idea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Gilbert: motion No. 5:
That Bill C-46, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, be amended in Clause 13:
(a)	by striking out lines 41 to 48 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"qualified owner,"
(b)	by striking out line 12 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(l)(b) where the loan was made at a".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the last motion I shall move. The hon. member for Winnipeg North suggests that if I can persuade the government to accept this amendment, I shall be as successful as if I had persuaded Paul to change his mind on the road to Damascus.
In 1973 the minister then responsible for housing, who now is the Minister of National Revenue, introduced Bill C-133 providing for the Assisted Home Ownership Program. He was proud of that program and thought great things would come of it. It was to come under the aegis of Central Mortgage and Housing. In 1974 the government acquired 4,000 existing homes under that program and built 16,000 additional homes. Its record was quite good. The program made available 20,000 homes to low and moderate income people at reduced rents.
We thought that was a fair start for the AHOP program. Then the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs came on the scene, and things changed. He said the AHOP program would apply only to new housing. The program was restricted, but the minister was proud of the funds which had been allocated for it. Now, by producing the present amending bill, he is abandoning the AHOP program. The government is not to be involved. It is saying to private builders that if a purchaser is approved by an approved lender for a mortgage under the AHOP program, the government will give that purchaser a subsidy with which to pay the higher interest rate he must pay on the mortgage.
When the government controlled the AHOP program the purchaser paid a rate of interest fixed by the government. Now that approved lenders have entered the picture, interest rates will increase, probably up to 10.5 per cent. In effect the minister says, "I will give the purchaser a subsidy; he may pass it on to the lending institution." In other words the minister says, "I will give a subsidy to the lending institutions; the government will pay it to the purchaser, or mortgagor, who will pass it on to the mortgagee."
We say that is wrong, that the government should control AHOP because the lower interest rate represents an advantage to the buyer. If the government were to assume greater responsibility, it could exercise greater control over the administration, over building standards and over maintenance.
Not content with giving a subsidy directly to financial institutions, the parliamentary secretary moved an amendment in committee which said that private insurance companies should handle the mortgage insurance on these homes. So, what do we have? The government wants
March 25, 1975

to subsidize the financial institutions, and the parliamentary secretary wants private insurance companies to handle the mortgage insurance on these homes. I suggest that when the government was more directly responsible for the AHOP program, CMHC controlled building standards and the matter of mortgage insurance. There are tremendous sums of money in the mortgage insurance fund-I think over $400 million at the moment. Claims against the fund are minimal. I therefore think that it is logical to ask CMHC to handle the mortgage insurance fund.
What does the minister do? What do the financial institutions do? They say they want a subsidy on any AHOP mortgage, as well as mortgage insurance. If that is not getting it two ways, I do not know what is. Unfortunately it fits in with the philosophy the minister has expressed on different occasions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) says it is the trickle down theory, the trickle down to the financial institutions such as the banks, the trust companies, insurance companies and private insurers.
The minister put it in a rather coarse but meaningful way when he said it was more bang for the buck. It is more bang for the buck to the lending institutions, developers and builders. That is really what he is talking about.
If assisted ownership is to apply to low income people, they should have the benefit of any subsidies paid by the government in order to reduce their mortgage interest rates, and they should have the protection with regard to mortgage insurance.
When this program was devised in the first instance in 1973, we told the present Minister of National Revenue that it really applied to the middle income group and not the low income group. They said we were wrong. It is fair to show that it goes to the middle income group.
The best example of this is the city of Toronto. Michael Dennis, housing commissioner for the city of Toronto, wrote a report which was published in February of this year showing what the AHOP program has done for the city of Toronto. What has happened? Not one house was built in the city of Toronto under the AHOP program. In Metro Toronto, which includes the suburbs, only 191 were built. I brought this to the attention of the minister when we were in committee. He replied that there were 1,716 built in Metro Toronto. He said they have gone as far as West Hill. West Hill is half way to Oshawa. I have never heard of it being included in Metro Toronto. This was the feeble answer of the minister and his officials with regard to the AHOP program. The AHOP program should help people in the lower income group.


Mr. Darling:: The rural areas too.


John Gilbert: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) says it should also help people in the rural areas. I agree 100 per cent. It should help people in rural areas, small towns and big cities. We said that. It has helped people in small towns.
National Housing Act
The minister has said that in order to qualify for the program you must have a certain income, and the home must be within a certain price range. He pointed out in committee that under the AHOP program the average income of a purchaser is $9,336. May I add that this really only applied to those in the small towns, villages and rural areas. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka can tell me with a nod that that is a big income for a person in a small town to make in order to qualify under the AHOP program. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) can tell me that the income a person needs to qualify in the city of Toronto must be very large.
Not one house was built under the AHOP program in the city of Toronto. Only 191 houses were built on the metro scene. It is about time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stopped looking after the oil companies and started looking after people in the city of Toronto. I have never seen a minister who is so sympathetic to the oil companies and so unsympathetic to the people of his area with regard to public housing and the AHOP scheme.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was there before you, John, and I will be there after you.


John Gilbert: I would think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would direct his attention to the housing problem in the city of Toronto and ensure that the AHOP program applies to it. I thought he would have made sure that the non-profit sector would have been taken care of by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, especially in his area. The minister's area is very much like mine. There are many people on low and moderate income.


An hon. Member:: In Rosedale?


John Gilbert: His riding is in two halves, with the rich in the north and the poor in the south.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Living in public housing.


John Gilbert: This is the reason we have brought this amendment to the attention of the House. The subsidies are going to be paid to the financial institutions, by way of giving them to the borrowers, who will pay them to the mortgagees. It does not apply to old housing. If the minister had any generosity about thim he would have applied it to old as well as new housing. His answer is that he has to increase the number of starts, and therefore he is going to direct the moneys only to new housing. The net effect is that he hurts those people who want to buy older houses.
I have never had so much help from my colleagues on any matter. The reason is that they believe in it. They believe we have to help the low income people in all these tricky schemes such as AHOP. So far they have only worked for those with a higher income. We are paying them a subsidy which they pass on to the lending institution. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is proud of that. We in this party are not proud of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: My colleagues are giving me full support. Furthermore, we are giving subsidies to the banks and we are giving the owners the opportunity to sell within a

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
short time and make a capital gain. There is something that is morally wrong about this. I thought the minister would have taken that into account and devised a program which would have said we will control the AHOP program under CMHC, it will apply to old and new housing, there will be a lower income interest rate, the mortgage insurance will stay within the body of CMHC, and we will do our best to increase the number of starts. However, that has not happened. He has again yielded to his philosophy with regard to the builders and financial institutions.
The minister has given way to the philosophy that housing is a commodity from which profits should be made, instead of yielding to the sensible philosophy that housing is something that should be enjoyed by all Canadians at an affordable cost. His government is directing him away from that and yielding just to the commodity aspect. I am not proud of the minister with regard to his approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been kind enough to mention my surpassing interest in public housing. If he intends to take seriously his temporary assignment as housing critic for the NDP he should visit downtown Toronto and familiarize himself with the area, because if he were there he would find that my constituency contains the greatest concentration of public housing in Canada. Under this government, with the St. Lawrence development, we are providing low income housing for people in the downtown area. I would be glad to introduce the hon. member to the problems in the inner city so that he might understand them and take a more sympathetic approach to them than when he talks about putting AHOP out of the suburbs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: As a non-resident of Toronto I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question. He has talked about the public housing in his constituency. I wonder if he is proud of the public housing we see around St. Jamestown.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to say that in the downtown area the public housing available in St. Jamestown is at least better than the private housing that was there before-the boarding houses and the poor accommodation. I am glad it was a Liberal government brought about those programs which led to better housing there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as another non-Toronto resident I should like to remind the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that it was a former minister of national defence and minister for housing, who later sat on the other side of the House, who stopped that scheme.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't sit anywhere now.


John Gilbert: He sits in the Press gallery.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The amendment also has to do with mortgage insurance. I should like to ask the minister, who has told us how much he is in favour of limited divident housing, to explain how he can reconcile the private handling of mortgage insurance in the face of what he agrees is a fundamental human right-a decent place to live. Suppose a person falls behind in his mortgage payments, or dies. Does the minister feel it is proper that a private mortgage insurance company should make a profit from the misfortunes of others? Does he think this should be part and parcel of public housing? Why can he not go to the credit union association, for example, where insurance on loans and savings can be obtained at cost? Such organizations as these recognize the fundamental human right to housing. Why does the minister not provide for them in his legislation-


Barnett Jerome Danson: You have not read our amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The amendment of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has met that point. In any case the minister hands over the mortgage insurance business to private enterprise. If he wished, he could insure mortgages through CMHC.


Barnett Jerome Danson: We do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: After paying lip service to non-profit making organizations the minister brings in legislation which prevents them from becoming effective; he stacks the deck in favour of his private enterprise friends. If the hon. gentleman has concluded that private enterprise is unable to do the job, as his words have indicated, why must he place roadblocks in the way of these non-profit organizations? Will he make a fundamental change in his housing policy by accepting some of our amendments?


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has stated, this bill has received careful scrutiny both in the House and in the committee. It has given members on this side of the House an opportunity to stress to the government the great concern we have about the magnitude of the housing crisis which exists in this country.
At second reading the official opposition stated that while we supported the amendments in Bill C-46 in principle we did not feel they were adequate or relevant to the severity of the emergency in the housing field. That emergency is readily documented. Housing starts in recent years have shown a continuous downward trend. Here are the figures: 269,000 in 1973; 222,000 in 1974, and 210,000 predicted by the minister for 1975. And this is at a time when the Economic Council of Canada, in its 11th annual review, has recommended 250,000 housing starts per year in the 1972-76 period. On the basis of the first two months of 1975, CMHC is now forecasting 175,000 starts for the year as a whole but it is doubtful such a figure will be reached. At the same time CMHC predicts that Canadians will form nearly 230,000 new households in 1975. In all likelihood we shall see a shortfall this year of 70,000 as between household formations and housing starts.
In the face of the severity of this shortfall and the consequent social problems the minister consoles himself with a recital of housing completions for last year. That is
March 25, 1975

sorry solace for the thousands of Canadians who will be forced into inadequate housing and cramped quarters before the end of this year, many of them at prices they can ill afford to pay. It is interesting that the minister should talk only about housing completions last year and made no projections of what may be anticipated in this regard in 1975. I can tell him that the completions, like the starts, will see a drastic decline.
The present amendments to the National Housing Act, when considered in the light of the current housing crisis, are impotent to deal with the situation. They are palliatives of a kind maybe, but solutions, never. Recognized as palliatives they can be accepted along with their shortcomings. However, the tragedy is that the minister, in his enthusiastic embrace of these measures, has sought to persuade the House and the public that they offer a cure to the present ills of the housing industry. This is not only misleading but dangerous in that it could induce a false complacency about the present emergency that would deter the government from taking firm action to tackle the root causes of this crisis.
We know that some 220,000 fewer people are employed in the construction field than at the same time last year. We know housing starts and completions are down drastically. We know that the measures the minister has put before us will not suddenly reverse these trends. The minister knows this as well and should be bringing forward other programs, other means of stimulus for an industry that contributes 15 per cent of our gross national product. Nowhere is such a program in sight.
Nowhere is there any government proposal to reallocate some of its massive $28 billion spending program to housing. Nowhere is there any indication that housing will assume a higher priority in the concerns of the government. Nowhere, indeed, is there any sign that the government recognizes the seriousness of the situation-certainly not if the bill we have before us is all that we have to rely on now.
During the committee hearings we had the opportunity to hear representations from the Toronto Non-Profit Housing Association, as was mentioned earlier. We heard about their concerns as to the lack of real government initiatives and commitments toward housing built by cooperative societies and non-profit companies. As well, the lack of emphasis given to rural and native housing was stressed over and over again. The slow pace at which rural and native housing programs are beginning indicates that the government is forgetful or ignorant-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) but since the point has been raised today on at least two other occasions by members in certain parts of the House I would ask her why she is not speaking to the amendment. I would rather hear her speech on third reading. She has
National Housing Act
not said one word yet about amendment No. 5. She is making a third reading speech, and that is the time I should like to hear her give it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to listen he would hear what I have to say. As someone has just said, I left off at the word "ignorant". As I was saying, the slow pace at which rural and native housing programs are beginning indicates that the government is forgetful or ignorant of housing needs in the smaller centres and rural areas of this vast country, and indeed this whole bill discriminates in so many ways against those people in the rural areas who need housing. But, most important-and what the bill does not deal with-is the major shift in housing policy that is being imposed by the CMHC capital spending budget. The capital spending budget determines government policy. It allocates the amount of money that will go to cost shared programs with the provinces.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to rule whether or not the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is speaking to amendment No. 5.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to all the amendments, including amendment No. 5.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would ask for reinforcement from the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who this afternoon-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes the Chair to make a ruling, he should at least give the Chair a chance to listen to the point he is trying to make, which I did not get the chance to hear. I did not even get the chance to give him the floor. I invite the hon. member to express his point of view.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am repeating only what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of housing said this afternoon in regard to speaking to amendments that we are dealing with on report stage. I am asking Your Honour to rule whether or not the hon. member is speaking to the amendment. I submit that she is not.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my interjection this afternoon was with respect to an irrelevancy that would be obvious even to the blind. I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and I think her speech is a sound one. If by chance Your Honour finds her out of order, which in view of what she is saying I would very much doubt, Your Honour can rule at that time. But certainly the interjection of the hon. member is premature.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, I think every member of the House is committed to seeing this bill pass this evening. Conversations with representatives of every party have been held and it has been agreed that we should all make an effort to refrain from speaking on third reading. Since the representative of the official opposition has refrained from saying one word during report stage, she will be
4488

National Housing Act
making, on the occasion of the last amendment, some remarks in lieu of speaking on third reading. I understand that is the unanimous agreement of all of us since we are committed to passing the bill tonight, as the Senate is waiting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the point raised by the hon. member is well taken as far as the procedure is concerned, but I think he ought to leave it to the Chair to decide. I feel the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is making a quite useful contribution to the debate. Of course everything that has been said might not be exactly relevant to the amendment, but I am sure it will be to the benefit of all members of the House as well as to the legislation we are studying at this time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, most important-and what this bill does not deal with-is the major shift in federal housing policy that is being imposed by the CMHC capital spending budget. The capital spending budget determines government policy. It allocates the amount of moneys that will go to cost-shared programs with the provinces and those that will go directly to unilateral federal programs.
There is a massive shift away from the socially assisted programs the federal government has developed with the provinces and municipalities over recent years to programs such as AHOP, which is the one being dealt with in this clause, programs which are controlled and operated out of Ottawa primarily for those in the moderate income range. Directly traceable to the capital spending budget of CMHC is the two-pronged shift in government housing policy-first, a cut-back in cost shared programs with the provinces and municipalities in favour of the theory that Ottawa should have control, and second, a move away from the long established role of government to assist with public housing to a new and questionable role of supplying mortgage moneys at privileged rates to those in the moderate income bracket.
One is almost inclined to suspect that these major policy shifts are designed primarily to satisfy the building urge of the president of CMHC. Certainly they are arrived at in isolation from the needs of those most closely related to the housing scene-governments at the municipal and provincial levels.
This shift in housing policy, as I pointed out to the minister the other day, is directly accountable for a shortfall this year of some 4,000 senior citizens units in the province of Ontario alone, and a similar situation is developing in most of the other provinces. My colleagues from Saskatchewan and British Columbia have already mentioned this situation.
Earlier today the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) decided to set the matter straight by pointing to the great involvement of the government in the field of public housing and the shortcoming on the part of the government of Ontario to match it. Obviously he had not been looking at recent figures, or even consulting with his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). For the record, Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster

General may be interested to know that in 1973 the federal government's allocation to Ontario for socially assisted housing was $130 million, in 1974 it was $78 million, and in 1975 it has been set at a mere $50.4 million whereas Ontario has a take-up capacity of some $400 million, which has been encouraged over the past number of years by programs on which the federal government has now defaulted.
The capital spending budget of CMHC has gone up just 12.4 per cent this year while at the same time Ontario, recognizing the housing emergency, has increased its spending on social housing programs by 50 per cent. I mention these figures so that the Postmaster General and others can be better informed on what is taking place in Ontario.
This situation is very serious, Mr. Speaker. The decrease in funds to Ontario and to other provinces for socially assisted housing as directed by the federal government illustrates the point clearly. The federal government has shifted its priorities in residential construction through manipulation of the CMHC capital spending budget, a budget which heretofore there has been no opportunity to review.
Members of the New Democratic Party have been trying to utilize the present bill to come to grips with the shift in government policy. I do not believe this bill is the vehicle to achieve that goal, Mr. Speaker. The most direct way to ensure this is to let us have the capital spending budget of CMHC for examination in detail. In committee on March 20 the minister assured me this would be done. Tonight I would like further assurance from the minister as to when we will have a reference of the CMHC capital budget from the House to committee. I should like him to tell us when this will come about, because only then can we have a proper examination of the reasons for and objectives of the shifts in government housing policy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that there be much longer forward planning on the part of the federal government to meet the housing needs of the country. Certainly if the government is to honour its commitment to the cost sharing programs it is imperative that that be done. At present the provinces and municipalities are limited in their planning by the way in which they are presented with a year to year allocation of federal funding into which they have had no input, and about which they have not been consulted.
The government must spell out its priorities clearly for longer periods and put an end to the stop-start approach it has had to these programs. There should be some immediate steps to establish a formula for a period of at least three years so that the provinces, municipalities and other groups can undertake and initiate programs with the confidence that they will be able to continue them once they are started, with help from the federal government.
There is no overall, coherent approach to the housing needs of the country. There is no long term planning and no co-ordination with transportation policy, immigration policy, and land use policy. Rather, the minister is content to rely on faith and prayers for a sum he says will be in the vicinity of $1 billion this year from private mortgage lenders, and as well on a multiplicity of restrictive programs such as the one he introduced today for veterans.
March 25, 1975

I would urge the minister not to resort to further bills of this nature, which are really offered as palliatives, but to face up to the tough job of persuading his colleagues to give housing the priority it should have in the emergency situation that does exist in this country.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that tomorrow evening the House may adjourn for the Easter recess, and it is my understanding that if this bill is approved this evening by the House it will be considered in the other place and might receive royal assent before parliament adjourns for the Easter break. Under those circumstances I would move, seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen):
That the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order 6 be suspended in relation to the daily adjournment to permit the completion of the consideration of Bill C-46.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the minister. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of the Standing Order that if fewer than ten members rise then the motion is automatically deemed to have been accepted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should read Standing Order 6(5)(b) as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Ten members not having risen, I declare the motion carried.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I presume that this is not the closure motion, and that all that is being referred to is this stage of the bill. I think it was unnecessary for the House leader to raise the matter, but I would bring to your attention another standing order which requires unanimous consent for third reading, and of course that cannot be covered by this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should read the beginning of Standing Order 6 (5) which says:
When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, a member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
And it goes on.
My interpretation of this is that the minister expressed the wish that the legislation be passed tonight through all stages. Unless otherwise interpreted by other hon. members, my interpretation, as I said, is that this piece of
National Housing Act
legislation-as decided by the majority of hon. members because no ten member group stood up to oppose-would have to be completed tonight before the adjournment.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no objection to the passing of the motion which the hon. government House leader moved. There is another section, however, which says that when there is a report stage debate, third reading will not be taken, except by unanimous consent, on the same day. That is all I am referring to here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have tried to be clear. The motion was moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), and reads as follows:
That the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order 6 be suspended in relation to the daily adjournment to permit the completion of the consideration of Bill C-46.
As far as I can interpret the wish of the House, "the completion" of Bill C-46 does not only apply to the report stage, but it would apply to some agreement as to the third reading of the bill so that it can be adopted by the Senate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I personally, and hon. members from my party, are quite ready to have all stages of this bill considered tonight, but I am concerned about the procedure, and I just want to be certain that we are doing what is appropriate. It is my understanding that we could not move from the report stage to the third reading of a bill in the same day without leave, and it seems strange to me, with respect, that we should continue 10 do this before ten o'clock. For example, supposing we finished at nine o'clock, I doubt if we could have gone on to third reading this evening without unanimous consent, and it could hardly have been intended that the motion to extend this sitting could give us permission to do something we could not have done before the sitting was extended. I repeat that I would like to see the bill considered through all stages tonight, but as Leader of the Opposition I do not want to see a precedent established which might be unfortunate.
I therefore ask for serious consideration of the point raised by my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party. I do not agree with his objection to third reading being taken, but I suppose he has not taken that position yet. With respect I question the capacity of the House to consider third reading tonight on the basis of the motion put by the government House leader without unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just confirm the point referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) which was suggested earlier by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). Standing Order 75 (13) seems to me quite clear. It says:
When a bill has been amended or debate has taken place thereon at the report stage, the same shall be set down for a third reading and passage at the next sitting of the House.
The motion we have just passed was under Standing Order 6 which says that it must relate to proceedings which are then in progress, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition is quite right in pointing out that it would be going too far to say that that motion gives us the authority sometime after ten o'clock to proceed to third
29557-9%

March 25, 1975
National Housing Act
reading without unanimous consent. The hon. member for Timiskaming has not said he would not give that consent.
Half an hour ago things were rolling along and we thought we would finish by ten o'clock. I think the Leader of the Opposition was quite right. No matter what our views are on how far we should go tonight, we should not establish a precedent which some of us think would be a misuse or abuse of the rule. As I say, Standing Order 75 (13) is very clear, and my suggestion is that we proceed under the motion which has been passed to finish the report stage of this bill and take the votes on the report stage amendments. Then if the government wishes to ask for unanimous consent for third reading, it can do so, and we will see what happens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. member. He has referred to Standing Order 75 (13), but I doubt that this standing order would preclude the possibility of the House making a majority decision under Standing Order 6(5) or otherwise.
Standing Order 75(13) provides for a buffer which, in the normal procedure, prevents the House from going from one stage of the legislative process to another stage, as has generally been accepted within this House, but if the hon. member would take the trouble of looking into Standing Order 6(5), he would agree with me, I hope, that if Standing Order 6(5) had been made to meet the argument he just made, Standing Order 6(5) would only refer to "a stage thereof" instead of saying "a stage or stages thereof."
So it is still my impression that Standing Order 6(5) would be met for some hon. members by putting a motion to the House which expresses the majority of hon. members. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did raise the question of procedure, and I wanted to make this point as a protection for the Chair for later decisions. I will leave it open for hon. members, and I think it would be simpler for hon. members to come to some agreement without committing the Chair to a further interpretation of Standing Order 6(5) as opposed to Standing Order 75(13).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to point out that Standing Order 72 requires readings on separate days, and that in the standing order we operated under last Thursday night when we put the estimates through, we came up against this problem, but in that standing order , which is Standing Order 58(10), there is a specific reference to the fact that the provisions of Standing Order 72 do not apply, and I submit that because that phrase does not appear in Standing Order 6(5), it does not set aside any provision such as Standing Order 75(13). I submit that it would really be quite an erroneous decision for this House to make, that under Standing Order 6(5) it is possible to override Standing Order 75(13) when there is nowhere in the rules any suggestion that that can be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the House often depends on his experience and good advice, and I would not want to engage in a procedural debate. I did express an opinion as to the relationship between one Standing Order and another. At the same time, however,

the House seemed to be ready to come to some kind of agreement and I would invite members to find an immediate solution to the situation which faces us. If hon. members have a solution I would invite them to express it to the Chair.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I still hold the view on the point of procedure, with respect, that the power to proceed to an additional stage cannot be any greater on extended sittings than it was before ten o'clock. I would suggest that we proceed to pass the motion and, if we get through report stage and the government wants to proceed to third reading and somebody objects, then the Chair would have to make a ruling at that stage.


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand the difficulty that faces Your Honour. I have read the subparagraph to mean that we can deal with more than one stage because this section seems fairly clear on that point. On the other hand, it is a very difficult point and I do not think we want to settle it tonight. As far as I am concerned, if we can dispose of report stage I would hope that we would have the co-operation of all members to agree to go to third reading tonight as well, even though this motion I have made might not technically cover that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5 (Mr. Gilbert). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred with all four other motions.
The House will now proceed to take the deferred recorded divisions. Call in the members.
And the Members having been called in.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Before proceeding to the next question, may I point out that since it is past the hour of 10.30 the adjournment debate which was originally to have taken place between 10 and 10.30 will be dispensed with.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Aw, shucks!


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that we are prepared to have motion No. 4 resolved on division, but we would like a recorded vote as previously ordered on motion No. 5.


Mr. Speaker:: The question therefore is on motion No. 4 in the name of Mr. Gilbert. Shall I declare the said motion defeated on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. (Motion No. 4 (Mr. Gilbert) negatived on division.)


Mr. Speaker:: The question therefore is on motion No. 5. The House divided on motion No. 5 (Mr. Gilbert) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 25)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Benjamin	Knowles	NystromBroadbent	(Winnipeg	OrlikowGilbert	North Centre)	PetersHogan	Leggatt	Saltsman- 10NAYS	Messrs.	Abbott	Andre	Appolloni (Mrs.)Alexander	(Calgary Centre)	BakerAlkenbrack	Andres	(Grenville-Carleton)Allmand	(Lincoln)	Balfour

March 25, 1975
Basford B*chard Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brisco
Buchanan
Bussi&res
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caron Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Corriveau Cot*
Cullen
Cyr
Danson Darling De Ban*
Demers
Dick
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Dub*
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Elzinga
Faulkner
Flynn
Forrestall
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer

Messrs.
Gray
Guilbault
Haidasz
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appeile-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hees
Herbert
Hnatyshyn
Holmes
Huntington
Hurlburt
Jamieson
Johnston
Jones
Joyal
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lang Laniel Lapointe LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley MacDonald (Cardigan) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacKay
Maine
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops- Cariboo) Martin Mazankowski McCain McCleave Mclsaac McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Milne
Morin (Mrs.)
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nielsen
Oberle
O'Connell
Olivier
O'Sullivan
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pearsall
Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Penner
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Rondeau
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Rynard
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Churchill)
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Tessier
Towers
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Watson
Wenman
Whelan
Wise
Woolliams Yanakis Yewchuk Young- 170
National Housing Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Barnett Jerome Danson: that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared for the motion for third reading to be called tonight, despite the hour, on the understanding that it is done by leave.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to make her third reading speech now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a point of disorder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For greater clarification of the rule, upon unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Danson, seconded by Mr. Lalonde, moves that the bill be read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might give the House the order of business for tomorrow. The first item will be Bill C-13, followed by Bill C-8, Bill C-34, and Bill C-19.


Mr. Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 11.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 26, 1975