1975-01-27

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Representations from veterans' organizations and individual veterans express urgent concern about the effects of the transfer of veterans' hospitals to provincial and municipal jurisdictions.
The aging of veterans of World Wars II and Korea, as well as World War I, reflects the additional need for bed space and domiciliary care facilities which is being brought about because of changing conditions.
I therefore move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to review the cabinet decision of 1963 which advocated withdrawal of departmental hospitals; to call witnesses from former hospital staffs and veterans' organizations, and that further handovers be suspended until this review is carried out.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, according to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table in the two official
languages the documents exchanged between the government and United Aircraft of Canada Limited.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-374, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, this bill is offered as a vehicle for immediate enactment of those provisions of bill C-2 which would prohibit the extra-territorial application of foreign laws or directives prejudicial to Canadian trade or commerce.
As all parties in this House appear to consider this legislation to be urgently needed, I presume all members will wish to co-operate in giving it speedy passage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? Now?


Mr. Sharp:: At the next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The government House leader says no.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 117, 387, 404, 408, 417,

January 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions
541, 691, 783, 800, 801, 815, 822, 840, 868, 878, 970, 1022, 1026, 1050, 1093, 1094, 1102, 1119, 1122, 1143, 1175, 1194, and 1195.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 689 and 1000 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: How much money has been granted to date (a) by province (b) by linguistic group where identifiable, under the multiculturalism program?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: The following is a listing of grant funds approved under the multiculturalism program from fiscal year 1972/73 to the end of the 2nd quarter fiscal year 1974-75. The listing is presented by province and by cultural group rather than by linguistic group. In terms of its objectives, the multiculturalism program assists Canadian ethno-cultural groups, and not necessarily linguistic groups as such, to develop within the Canadian context and contribute to modern Canadian society: (a) By Province: British Columbia, $220,108; Alberta, $361,887; Saskatchewan, $158,722; Manitoba, $237,329; Ontario, $2,179,040; Quebec, $883,100; New Brunswick, $19,393; Nova Scotia, $176,908; Prince Edward Island, $7,700; Newfoundland, $44,694; Total, $4,288,881. (b) By Cultural Group: Black, $291,331; Chinese, $105,810; Croatian, $9,000; Dutch, $16,810; East Indian, $90,504; Estonian, $18,818; Filipino, $14,000; Finnish, $22,850; French Canadian, $40,865; German, $142,698; Greek, $72,640; Hungarian, $77,418; Italian, $241,657; Jewish, $204,740; Lithuanian, $12,950; Mennonite, $13,868; Native, $45,383; Polish, $258,009; Portuguese, $96,978; Russian, $35,500; Scandinavian, $12,355; Scottish, $47,402; Ukrainian, $450,760; Yugoslavian, $39,855; Others, $600,544; Multicultural, $1,326,136; Total $4,288,881.


Mr. Firth: Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion given consideration to providing loan and grant moneys in the Northwest Territories and (a) if not, for what specific reasons (b) if so, would the Minister give an indication as to the exact date such moneys would be available?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, such consideration has been given and continuing consultations on the subject are being held with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which bears primary responsibility for all matters affecting northern development, (a) There inter-departmental discussions have reached the conclusion that the existing programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which have largely been tailored to meet particular development needs encountered in the more southerly areas of the country, cannot be readily modified to meet the quite different needs which exist in the Northwest and Yukon
Territories. There is, however, general agreement that special measures are required to meet problems and take advantage of opportunities existing in the territories. For this reason, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has assumed responsibility, in consultation with the territorial government, for the preparation of proposals for special types of social and economic development action appropriate to northern circumstances. The objective is to provide, in the Northwest and Yukon Territories, a range of government initiatives and support programs specifically tailored to the needs of those areas but comparable to those available elsewhere in Canada and consistent with DREE's regional development efforts with the provincial governments. In order to ensure that the experience of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion elsewhere in the country is taken fully into consideration, officers of the Department are participating as consultants in the preparation of these proposals. Basic responsibility, however, rests with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as the federal agency primarily concerned, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: How many public servants were employed by the Department of National Defence on October 1, 1974?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The number of continuing full time public servants employed by the Department of National Defence on October 1, 1974, was 32,203.


Mr. Lachance: Does the Bank of Canada refuse to accept silver dollar coins commonly called Silver Dollar and, if so, does the government intend to take measures to correct this situation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Section 8(2) of the Currency and Exchange Act (Statutes of Canada, 1970 ch. C-39) states that: "The Governor in Council may make regulations for the redemption by the Minister of coins that are or that have at any time been current in Canada." Mutilated coins are taken in by the Bank of Canada for return to the Royal Canadian Mint and redemption by the Minister of Finance. Ordinary coins which are not mutilated are not redeemable. A decision to provide for the redemption of any particular coin would be a matter of public policy and, as a result, Parliament would be duly informed if such a decision were taken. With respect to the Olympic coins Section 5(4) of the Olympic (1976) Act states that: "Where in the opinion of the Minister of Finance the amount of Olympic coins in circulation in Canada may be detrimental to the Canadian currency, the Minister shall redeem such amount of Olympic coins as he deems necessary."


Mr. Reid: 1.	In what form is the iron which occurs naturally in 1 lb. of No. 1 Northern Wheat found?
2.	In what form is the iron which is added to the product known as enriched flour?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Effective 1971, No. 1 Northern Wheat was replaced by No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring. The naturally occurring iron in wheat is organically bound to a small, unidentified molecule.
2.	Reduced iron is used for the fortification of enriched flour.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of the financial difficulties presently being faced by the native detoxification centre, Poundmaker, in Edmonton, Alberta and, if so, does he plan to assist in making funds available so that Poundmaker might be allowed to relocate and continue its most useful programme of assistance to native people?
2.	Is the Minister considering reversing the Department's present policy with respect to native detoxification centres so that they will be eligible to receive federal financial assistance?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes. The Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission is considering a Fee-for-Service In-Aid Agreement with Poundmaker whereby the commission will pay for services of a vocational rehabilitation nature on a per diem basis. At present, the Department of National Health and Welfare is awaiting receipt of a copy of the agreement or service contract between Poundmaker and the commission in order to review its contents and determine share-ability under the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons program. In this fiscal year, the Department of National Health and Welfare contributed $13,200 to the board of Poundmaker Lodge for counselling services.
2.	The department is now actively considering with the native people of Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, an expanded alcohol and drug abuse program which will include all aspects such as counselling, detoxification, and rehabilitation.


Mr. Malone: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare proposing a mandatory food enrichment program for basic food products and, if so (a) is there to be a guaranteed nutritive analysis on the labels of all processed human foods (b) will a guaranteed nutritive analysis be stated by percentage of weight (c) will information be supplied to the public at large on how to balance the nutritive requirements for human beings at various stages of growth and physical activity?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, the Department of National Health and
Order Paper Questions
Welfare is proposing such a program, (a) No. The labels of those foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added are required under the Food and Drug Regulations (Sections D.01.007 and D.02.006) to list the names of the added vitamins and mineral nutrients and the quantities of these contained in 100 grams or 100 millilitres of the food. In addition, the manufacturer may state if he so wishes the amount of added vitamin or mineral nutrient contained in a specified quantity of the food (Sections D.01.006 and D.01.005). Manufacturers of all foods may, if they so wish, state the quantities of fat and/or carbohydrate present in a food. If they wish to state the protein content, they are required under Section B.01.061 (2) (a) to state the fat and carbohydrate content as well and in so doing, to group the three statements together and give them equal prominence. Manufacturers of foods for special dietary use recommended for carbohydrate-reduced diets are required under Section B.01.034 to state the quantity of carbohydrate present in the food in grams per 100 grams or on a percentage basis, (b) The Food and Drug Regulations require that the quantity of added vitamins or mineral nutrients contained in a food be stated on the label in milligrams or international units as appropriate per 100 grams or per 100 millilitres of the food with the exception of table salt (Sections D.01.007 and D.02.006). If a manufacturer lists the carbohydrate content on the label of a food, it must be stated in grams per 100 grams or on a percentage basis (Section B.01.034). (c) Information is being supplied to the public-at-large. "Canada's Food Guide" which is published by the Department of National Health and Welfare and distributed by the provinces, describes in easily understood terms how to balance the nutritive requirements for human beings at various stages of growth and development.


Mr. Brisco: To the knowledge of the government, what is the reason put forth by the Province of British Columbia for not wishing to enter into a federal-provincial agreement for cost sharing of intermediate and extended care costs?


Marc Lalonde: The federal government is not aware that the Province of British Columbia has indicated a lack of interest in possible federal sharing of intermediate and extended care costs under either the Canada Assistance Plan Act or the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act as might be appropriate.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968,1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the National Museums of Canada (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?

January 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The
answer for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: 1.
1968	1970	1972	1974(a)	370	369	436	644(b)	$ 1,635,652 $	3,185,452	$ 4,487,369	$ 7,479,142(c)	(i)	5	10	29	40(ii)	Nil	Nil	Nil	2(iii)	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil1968	1970	1972.	1974ive at	S21,000-27,250	24,000-30,000	28,000-35,000	30,250-38,2501968	1970	1972	1974(a)	745	634	767	857(b)	S 4,674,100*$	4,762,574*	$ 6,259,543* $	8,671,031** Excluded are the miners and the railway union	employees.(c)	(i)	6	10	15	23(ii)	1	1	2	4(iii)	1	1	1	1


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the National Harbours Board (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Board?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1.
(a) As of March 31;			
1968	1970	1972	19742,279	2,226	2,195	2,186(b) As of March 31:	1968	1970	1972	1974$ 15,281,738 $ 17	,735,293	$ 20,751,516	$ 23,809,562(c) As of March 31:	1968	1970	1972	1974(i) 7	12	20	84(ii) Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil(iii) Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil2.	The salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Board is $23,500-$30,000.
Note: The foregoing figures do not include the members of the National Harbours Board who are appointed by Governor in Council and who are not classified as employees under the National Harbours Board Act.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970,1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?

2. It is not considered to be in the interest of Devco, which is engage in a competitive business, to disclose the salaries of senior executives.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Canadian National Railways (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (ii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Company?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1.
(a) Year
Number of Employees
March 1968 March 1970 March 1972 March 1974
77,092
72,853
72,759
75,131
(b) The company's records are not maintained in a manner that would readily disclose the information in the form requested, however the total gross compensation for each of the calendar years was as follows:
1970
1974 (estimated)


[Stage Direction]
(c) and 2. It has not been the practice of the company to disclose data on employees' earnings in the manner requested. Certain details on average annual earnings of various occupational groups of Canadian National employees, however, are available from the publication "Railway Transport" Part VI (Employment Statistics) issued annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
January 27, 1975
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Has any arrangement been made to relocate the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture in the city of Drumheller, Alberta?
2.	Has commercial space been rented to accommodate this Branch and, if so (a) where (b) from whom (c) on what date is the lease effective (d) what is the term of the lease (e) what is the cost per month?
3.	For what reason was such relocation deemed necessary?
4.	What services are located in the federal building at Drumheller, Alberta at the present time?
5.	Is the Health of Animals Branch now located on the 2nd floor, with laboratory facilities in the basement of the federal building in Drumheller and, if so, what would be the total cost of renovations deemed necessary to the facilities of the 2nd floor and basement of the building to allow them to continue operations?
6.	How long has the Health of Animals Branch operated from the existing federal building in Drumheller, Alberta?
7.	Were the officers in charge and staff of the local operation in Drumheller consulted as to (a) the present location's suitability (b) the new location's suitability and (i) if so, what was the consensus of such consultations (ii) if not, for what reasons?
8.	If the Health of Animals Branch is relocated in commercially rented space (a) who will take over the space they now occupy (b) will any space in the federal building remain unoccupied?
9.	Who made the decision to relocate this Branch?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes
2.	Yes (a) 80, 3rd Avenue West, Drumheller, Alta; (b) Patricia Mary Swain and Charles Lewis Swain of Drumheller; (c) September 16, 1974; (d) Three years with two one-year options to renew; (e) $300 month.
3.	In addition to the space that the Department of Manpower and Immigration hold in the Drumheller Government of Canada Building officials of that department have requested additional space for a Job Information Centre. This centre is normally located adjacent to the existing office.
4.	At the present time, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Department of Agriculture and the John Howard Society are located in the Government of Canada Building in Drumheller.
5.	Yes, the Health of Animals Branch is now temporarily located on the second floor, with laboratory facilities in the basement of the building. As the total cost of renovations deemed necessary would have amounted to an estimated $55,000.00 Regional Agriculture officials were of the opinion that in the long-term this was unacceptable in comparison to the leased space which was available.
6.	The branch has operated from the existing building since May 29, 1951 (twenty-three years and six months).
7.	(a) Yes. Officials of Agriculture Canada in Calgary and the veterinarian in charge of the Drumheller office were consulted; (b) Yes; (i) A move to leased accommodation was acceptable to Regional officials; (ii) Not applicable.
8.	(a) The space allocated to Agriculture on the main floor will be reallocated to Manpower and Immigration and the basement space will be used for storage; (b) Yes.
Order Paper Questions
The major portion of the second floor as there is no sizable demand for this space and alteration costs would be high.
9.	The Department of Public Works, western region, in consultation with the head of Accommodation, Property and Building Management, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, and the regional office of the Health of Animals Branch, Department of Agriculture, Calgary.
MARITIME FORCES-COST OF OPERATIONAL STATUS OF DDH-280s


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 117, what was the total cost of bringing the four DDH 280s to operational status?


James Armstrong Richardson: The four DDH-280s are now fully operational in Maritime Command although some minor work is still required to fully meet original design specifications. Subject to final audit, the cost of the four DDH-280 helicopter destroyers delivered from the shipyards, remains at $241,800,000 and the cast of post delivery work, which includes the cost of bringing the four DDH-280s to operational status as stated in part (c) of Question No. 117, is still estimated at $2,800,000. The estimate for the related costs, $42,400,000, as listed in part (c) of Question No. 117 is also still valid.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Are there any ships, recorded on pages 140-141 of the 1973 International Shipping and Shipbuilding Directory as being owned by WorldWide (Shipping) Ltd. of Hong Kong, a Company in which Mr. Y. K. Pao is a Director and a substantial shareholder, whose owner, char-terees or operators may be entitled to direct or indirect compensation under the government's oil import compensation plan and, if so, what costs, including extra bunkering costs or other expenses, have been compensated for since the government instituted their oil import compensation policy in 1973?
2.	Are there any claims for such compensation outstanding involving such ships and in what amount?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. No compensation under the Oil Import Compensation Program is paid to vessel owners or charterers. One Canadian importing company has received compensation for freight cost increases incurred in the transportation of oil to Canada on a vessel recorded in the 1974 International Shipping and Shipbuilding Directory as being owned and/or operated by World-Wide (Shipping) Ltd. of Hong Kong. The Canadian importer received Canadian $113,597 as compensation for the increased cost of bunders consumed in transporting one cargo of crude from the Persian Gulf to Canada on the Straits Dahlia (page 138, 1974 International Directory).
2. One Canadian importing company currently has a claim for freight compensation pending for a cargo transported to Canada on the Straits Rose, another tanker owned and/or operated by World-Wide (page 138, International Directory). The amount of compensation has not yet been determined for this claim.

January 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE-COMMAND FUNDING


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What level of funding was requested by (a) Mobile Command (b) Maritime Command (c) Air Defence Command (d) Training Command (e) Northern Command (f) Transport Command for the current year to meet their assigned primary and secondary roles and, for each, what reductions were made, both expressed in dollar terms?
2.	With respect to the estimates for next year, in dollar terms, what are the comparative figures?
Hon. James Richardson	(Minister of	National
Defence): 1. The level of funding requested by the Commands and the expenditures authorized are listed below.		
Insert Question No. 970.	Request	Authorized Expenditures
	(thousands) $	(thousands) $
(a) Mobile Command	45,113	44,013(b) Maritime Command	56,527	53,774(c) Air Defence Command	46,943	45,590.(d) Training Command	48,381	45,971(e) Northern Region	281	183(f) Air Transport Command	48,913	46,2582. Not available until 1975/76 Main Estimates are	
approved.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On the last date for which information is available, what percentage of persons who had registered as out of work and had found employment had been jobless for less than five weeks?
2.	Of the total unemployed, what percentage had (a) voluntarily quit their jobs (b) were lay-offs or discharges?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the reply is as follows: The department does not maintain a record of these statistics.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Since 1964, has Golden Age Federation of Quebec claimed the increase in old age pension benefits and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what manner (letter, petition, meeting)?


Marc Lalonde: The Golden Age Association of Quebec requested that the provision in the legislation which limited the annual increase to OAS pensioners in receipt of the GIS to 2 per cent be amended: (a) May, 1970; (b) By letter supported by a petition. The limit in the annual increase in the pension and the supplement was removed by an amendment to the OAS Act in May 1972. Since then the increases have been in line with the actual rise in the cost of living. Since October 1973, the increases are made in January, April, July and October each year based on actual rises in the cost of living.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	What plans are underway for increasing the capacity of the Wood Islands-Caribou service in (a) ships (b) terminal construction?
2.	On what date is it planned that these improvements and additions will be completed?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Discussions are currently underway to obtain a fourth vessel for operation in this service during the peak summer period, (b) Construction work is currently underway at both Wood Islands and Caribou which will provide an additional end loading facility at both terminals.
2. (a) If discussions mentioned in 1(a) are fruitful, the fourth vessel should be in operation in June 1975. (b) Completion of the end loading facilities at Wood Islands are scheduled for completion in June 1975. The completion date for the Caribou facilities is July 1975.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is it the intention of the government to institute the concept of "Golden Age Passports" as in the United States which are issued without charge to any person 62 years of age or older and entitles the bearer and any person accompanying him or her in a single, private, non-commercial vehicle (a) to enter any designated entrance fee area of the national parks system administered by the department responsible (b) to use any designated special recreation facility provided at any federal outdoor recreation area, excluding those provided by a concessionaire, at the rate of 50 per cent of the established daily special recreation use fee?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health, and Welfare):: It is not our
intention to institute such a concept at this time but it is under consideration.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many Uniguard baggage security people are on duty at the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, British Columbia?
2.	What is the monthly cost of this service?
3.	What is the estimated cost for the year 1975?
4.	During 1973, how many articles were reported to the airport RCMP as stolen from the baggage ramps?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
number of people on duty at any one time varies with need but amounts to a daily requirement for 36 man hours.
2 and 3. This cost is an Air Carrier responsibility.
4. Twenty-six incidents of loss and theft reported.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What Canadian air carriers, using Boeing 727, 737 and DC-9 aircraft are equipped with Pratt and Whitney JT-8D engines?
2.	What action has the Department of Transport taken to ensure that all such aircraft have made necessary modifications to prevent turbine blade separation and consequent engine failure?
January 27, 1975


Jean Marchand: 1.
Canadian Air Carriers using Boeing 727, 737 and Douglas DC-9 aircraft equipped with Pratt and Whitney JT-8D engines are: CP Air, Boeing 727 and 737; Pacific Western, Boeing 727 and 737; Transair, Boeing 737; Air Canada, Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-9; Quebecair, Boeing 727; Nor-dair, Boeing 737; Eastern Provincial, Boeing 737.
2. The Department of Transport is closely monitoring the actions of the Canadian air carriers in the inspection, replacement or reworking of the low pressure turbine shaft. It has been the failure of this shaft which has led to turbine hub separation. There have been 10 in service failures of this shaft in the world's fleet of 7000 engines in 13 million engine hours of operation. None of the failures involved engines fitted to aircraft operated by Canadian air carriers. All Canadian air carriers have taken the appropriate action specified by the aircraft engine manufacturer, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is issuing an Airworthiness Directive on this subject which will require inspections of the shaft. Since compliance with an Airworthiness Directive issued by the aeronautical authorities of the country of manufacture of an aircraft is a condition of a Canadian Airworthiness Certificate it is not necessary for the Ministry to duplicate such Directives.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) considered the transfer of the clearance of incoming mail from the USA destined for the town of Rainy River and its environs from Rainy River to Fort Frances, Ontario?
2.	(a) Was such a proposal actually put into effect and, if so, for how long (b) for what reason was such a proposal considered?
3.	(a) What were all of the anticipated benefits to the Department (b) did these benefits take into account (i) reduction in Customs staff at Rainy River (ii) an increase of staff in Fort Frances (iii) an improvement of working conditions to employees?
4.	When planning this transfer, what were the anticipated benefits to the public which has been served by the existing system?
5.	Was any consideration given to the possibility that service would seriously deteriorate to the citizens of Rainy River when this new system was put into effect and, if so, was this possibility a major consideration in approving the transfer of the clearance of US mail coming into Canada from Rainy River to Fort Frances?
6.	As a result of its experience in this transfer, is the Department considering transferring the clearance of US mail from any of the towns of Rainy River, Fort Frances or Thunder Bay to Winnipeg or from Rainy River and Fort Frances to Thunder Bay?
7.	In calculating the benefits from making such transfers in the future, has the Department worked out a formula to calculate the adverse impact on these communities that result from these transfers and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Yes.
2. (a) Yes. The new procedure was in effect from October 23, 1974 to December 16, 1974. (b) The procedure was considered and implemented because the identical practise has been in existence in most other areas of the Regional Port of Winnipeg for several years without any adverse effect on our service to the general public.
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) By implementing this procedure Customs expected to benefit from the higher level of expertise in the area of tariff classification and enforcement that the staff at Fort Frances could supply, (b) (i) No reduction in Rainy river staff was anticipated, (ii) No increase in Fort Frances staff was anticipated, (iii) The only change to working conditions was that the Rainy River staff would no longer be required to conduct Customs postal examinations in the Post Office facility.
4.	The public would have benefited from the higher level of expertise available in the area of tariff classification.
5.	It was not anticipated that there would be any serious deterioration in service to the citizens of Rainy River.
6.	No.
7.	Any future transfers of service will be evaluated on the basis of information available at the time the change is first considered.


Mr. MacKay: What amount of money is currently owed to Air Canada by other airlines as a result of delays in billing due to the 81-day strike at the Financial Branch of Air Canada in Winnipeg in the summer of 1973?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: There is nothing outstanding as a result of the 81 day strike.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What considerations or studies have been made for the creation of a Canadian office of education jointly sponsored by the government and the governments of the provinces and territories?
2.	What requests or representations have been made for the creation and establishment of such an office?
3.	Are plans under way to establish such an office and, if so, on what date will such an office be established?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
None.
2.	None.
3.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 843, for what reason was Part 3(b) not answered in full as requested?
2.	(a) How long had the crew members on Flight 807 from Frankfurt, Germany to Toronto via Shannon and Montreal been on duty on arrival in Montreal (b) what is the maximum time permitted for flight crews to remain on duty?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Part 3 (b) of Question No. 843 was not answered in full because Part 3 (a) stated that crew duty time had nothing to do with the cancellation of Flight 807 from Montreal to Toronto. Part 1 of that question had explained that the

January 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions
flight was terminated in Montreal due to radiation fog in Toronto.
2. (a) Crew members from Flight 807 had been on duty for 10 hours 50 minutes, (b) Maximum duty time for flight crew by Air Canada standards is 14 hours.


Mr. Patterson: 1.	How many Canadian airshows on Department of Transport airports in Canada paid fees to the Department in 1974?
2.	What were the airshows paying such fees and what were the respective amounts paid in 1974?
3.	What increases are proposed for 1975 in the cost recovery formula?


Jean Marchand: 1. Two
air shows have paid fees. A third air show was billed, but the account is still outstanding.
2.	Abbotsford International Air Show, $11,500; St. Andrew's Air Show, $7,500; Moncton Air Show, $1,875 (uncollected).
3.	Cost recovery formula in 1975 will be related to incremental costs incurred by Ministry of Transport for air shows. Any increase in fees will be related to incremental costs applicable at the date an air show is held.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	How many migratory birds have been determined to have died since 1972 to date on (a) Syncrude property (b) particularly on the Great Canadian Tar Sands property leased by Syncrude?
2.	What investigations, if any, are continuing into migratory bird deaths pursuant to the Migratory Birds Act, on the Athabaska Tar Sands Property?
3.	Is there any agreement between the Department of the Environment or any person on behalf of the Department or any agency of the government, to allow jurisdiction over the tar sands to be exclusive to the Government of the Province of Alberta in environmental matters?
4.	Has any employee of the Department been disciplined, demoted or criticized for any information concerning environmental matters he may have given to a Member or Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and, if so (a) what is the name of each individual (b) for what reasons?
5.	(a) Does the Department see any danger to the Whooping Crane as a result of the Athabaska Tar Sands development (b) what studies has the government undertaken with regard to such dangers?
6.	Has any federal official been refused access to the Athabaska Tar Sands by any person, corporation or government and, if so, what are the particulars?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. (a) 41. (b) None.
2.	Investigations of migratory bird populations, their survival, mortality and habitat are continuing on the Athabaska Tar Sands property.
3.	An agreement is being negotiated which will recognize the jurisdiction of each government in environmental matters.
4.	Mr. A. R. Smith, a wildlife technician has been reprimanded by his supervisor for breach of his oath of allegiance and for passing on unsubstantiated hearsay evidence.
5.	(a) Yes. This danger has been recognized and is considered in the proposed study to be jointly undertaken by Environment Canada and the Alberta Department of Environment, (b) An intensified systematic search for whooping cranes was undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service beginning in 1972. In 1974, with the co-operation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, transects were surveyed between Fort McMurray, Alberta and the Peace-Athabaska Delta. Endangered species, such as the whooping crane, are included in the proposed joint study to be undertaken by Environment Canada and Alberta Department of Environment.
6.	No.


[Stage Direction]
1971 CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE
Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the breakdown (a) for all of Canada (b) for each province and territory (c) by percentages for all of Canada (d) by percentages for each province and territory to the 1971 census questionnaire question as to what was "the language most often spoken in the home"?
2.	For what reason has Statistics Canada announced that it intends to drop the "most often spoken language" question from the 1976 census?
3.	Is consideration being given to amending the Official Languages Act and any regulations and policies thereunder to replace the so-called "mother tongue" criterion with the "most often spoken in the home" criterion?
Return tabled.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What documents of any and all description (such as any type of form, records, stationery, employee directives, etc.) within the entire Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have to be translated into the French language?
2.	Retroactive to what date will all past records of the Department have to be translated?
3.	At what date must all of these translations be completed?
4.	What amount of money was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents?
5.	What will be the total cost of translating all existing documents, forms, stationery, records, etc. within the Department's entire operation?
6.	What is the total additional yearly cost of ordering all new forms, stationery, etc. in two languages compared to the cost in one language?
Return tabled.

January 27, 1975


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in the automotive industry manifested by the announced lay-offs on the week-end which will bring the total of unemployed in this sector to more than 40,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has given the Chair, as required by Standing Order 26, notice of his intention to move his motion and has, therefore, given the Chair an opportunity to reflect on some of the considerations that are involved in the granting of a motion pursuant to that Standing Order. There can be no doubt that the recently announced lay-offs in the automotive industry are a matter of importance and deep concern, I am sure, to all members and that an opportunity to discuss them at an early date would, I am sure, be welcomed by both sides of the House. However, the question that the Chair must ask itself is whether or not it is appropriate, and sufficiently of an emergency nature, to warrant the setting aside of the regular schedule of the business of the House. With respect to this aspect I have several considerations in mind, at least four of which are as follows:
The subject matter of the motion, while it concerns a very serious problem, has, in fact, to do with problems related to one industry, and even that aspect is one symptom of a larger problem, that is to say, the economic condition of the country in general. That subject has been before the House more or less since this parliament began, in various forms and, of course, in this particular form, beginning with the budget presentation and being continued in the rather extensive debate which followed. It has been dealt with just as recently as during the last two days of last week, in the committee stage of two of the budget bills.
Furthermore, not only is the matter before the House part of the larger problem but, in addition, the one industry aspect of it troubles me. Questions have been raised before about the textile industry and its difficulties, and what effect those have on unemployment in the province of Quebec. Questions have been raised, as well, about the lumber industry and the effect of unemployment and lay-offs in that industry.
The reason I express concern is related to my resistance to setting a precedent of interrupting the regular schedule of business of the House, to permit consideration of a one-industry problem of this sort; because, it seems to me, to do this would be to put other members who have already expressed similar concerns into this position: That, if they were to do less than seek the intervention of the House in these matters, they would not be fulfilling
Oral Questions
their responsibilities as members. Therefore, frankly, I am very reluctant to set that precedent.
In addition, the business that was announced for today is also connected with the economic situation of the country. I am referring to the housing legislation, which I understand is the intended business. There has been great pressure to bring the matter before the House, because it concerns not only people affected by lay-offs in the automotive industry, but, also, people throughout the country. Therefore, I would interrupt that with considerable reservation.
I am also cognizant of the fact that if there will be insufficient opportunity through the regular channels of the House to debate the matter in the next few days, it will not be long before opposition days will be apportioned. These, I think, would present an opportunity for the discussion of the particular problem which is the subject matter of this proposed motion. For these reasons I would think it improper at this time to grant leave for the moving of the desired motion pursuant to Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister and government House leader. When will we receive the statement of government policy on conserving energy which the Prime Minister promised us a year ago and which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated at one point at least we would receive before Christmas? I ask this particularly in view of the fact that legislation is now before the House which will put into effect some conservation measures as they apply to the purchase of boats and automobiles.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the minister's statement to the House has been before cabinet on a couple of occasions. It is my understanding that preparations are almost completed. I cannot give a date for certain, but I think it will be within the next two or three weeks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Will the government House leader assure the House the government will not proceed with the legislation which to some extent relates to conservation with regard to purchases of boats and automobiles until it presents its comprehensive policy so that we can assess this legislation in the context of the government's overall policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr Speaker. I cannot give that undertaking. There is considerable urgency in getting certainty about the rates of tax, the excise tax for example, that are

January 27, 1975
Oral Questions
contained in the bills before the House. It is my colleague's hope that these will be through committee of the whole at least within the next day or so and we can get on to the equally urgent questions regarding income tax. I could perhaps give consideration to whether the final stages of the bill will get through before the minister's statement, but even there I do not think there is that vital connection between the two issues that would dictate a postponement.


POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES ON PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND CONSERVATION OF GASOLINE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: thought it might give the government some incentive to bring forward its conservation policy, which is surely a matter of great urgency. May I ask the government House leader or the Minister of Supply and Services whether the government has itself adopted any guidelines or rules with regard to the purchase of vehicles and the conservation of gasoline? For example, does the Minister of Supply and Services now have authority to impose on other departments conservation rules with regard to the purchase of vehicles? Has the government adopted any conservation policy of its own?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has alerted us on that matter. We are negotiating with different governmental departments to develop a plan prepared by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and enable us to draft an effective conservation program in Canada.


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PRICE OF DOMESTIC OIL AND MANDATORY MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister: is the government considering increasing the price of domestic oil as a means of reducing the consumption of this particular form of energy?


Mitchell William Sharp: If such a decision were made it would be announced in the House.


William Gordon Ritchie: Since Canadian oil supplies are likely to be deficient in the very near future, is the government considering mandatory measures designed to reduce energy consumption, or does it intend to rely on persuasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member will have to await the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Commerce arising from lay-offs in the auto industry announced during the weekend which bring the total number of unemployed in that industry to as high as 40,000 according to some estimates. Could the minister inform the House whether the government is considering any specific program to deal with this extremely serious situation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I agree with the hon. member that this is a very serious situation. I have kept very close to it. I have met with parts manufacturers, representatives of the unions and others in the industry. The fact is that there are presently about 13,000 workers on indefinite lay-off- this may last for a period of four weeks-and 14,000 workers on temporary lay-off.


An hon. Member:: Now tell us the good news!


Alastair William Gillespie: At the end of last week I talked to one of the major automobile manufacturers, particularly about the initiative which has been taken in this country and in the United States. I gained some encouragement from the fact that the measures taken here in Canada and in the United States-I am talking about price discounts-have already had a favourable effect, particularly south of the border. I think all hon. members will recognize that the United States market is the major market for the output of Canadian factories.


John Edward Broadbent: Since approximately 18 per cent of those employed in the parts sector of the industry are now laid off, permanently or otherwise, can the minister tell us whether or not the government intends to take specific action to preserve jobs in that sector?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think the parts industry has been the hardest hit segment of the auto industry in Canada. We have taken a number of measures over the past year in an effort to provide new export opportunities to parts manufacturers in this country. These efforts have met with some success and there is promise of further success.


AUTOMOBILES-PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SALES TAX CONDITIONAL UPON PRICE REDUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: The minister has referred to a reduction of prices by the automobile companies on both sides of the border. What he did not mention was that the differential still remains. Would the government seriously consider the removing of federal sales tax on automobiles for a one year period on the condition that the automotive companies bring down their prices to dealers in Canada to the levels charged to their dealers in the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: There has been a steady narrowing of the price gap, as the hon. member knows, and, as he also knows, questions with respect to sales tax should be directed to the Minister of Finance.
January 27, 1975


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-SUGGESTED LETTER OF INTENT FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Will the hon. gentleman and his colleagues, within the next few days, provide a letter of intent to the private companies involved in Syncrude assuring them that the federal government will take a position in connection with that project?


Mitchell William Sharp: Discussions are going on now; I understand there is some sort of deadline by Friday of this week. I cannot undertake that our final decision will be taken by then, but certainly a statement will be made.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the new practice in the Prime Minister's office-the setting up of an informal council of economic advisors to countervail the advice of the Minister of Finance. Will the Acting Prime Minister agree to make an immediate reference which would allow a committee of parliament to review the activities of the Prime Minister's office and of the Privy Council office which constitute, in effect, a government within a government, one which is not answerable, apparently, either to parliament or to the cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Prime Minister, I do not accept the premise of the question. I have been in government for 12 years and I always think it is very useful to get advice from all sides, outside as well as inside, government. I hope this government will continue to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: I apologize to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, for so disconcerting him that he has awarded you a position you do not at least yet hold. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would at least give an undertaking to the House now that senior officials of the Privy Council office and of the Prime Minister's office will be required by the Prime Minister to begin to appear before standing committees so that those officials will be responsible to this parliament in the way that regular public servants are?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt even more seriously the premises of that question. It is we on this side of the House who are responsible to parliament, not our civil servants.


SUGGESTED APPEARANCE OF PRIME MINISTER BEFORE COMMITTEES
Charles Joseph Clark: Then, would the Acting Prime Minister now give us an undertaking that
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister will abandon his past practice and himself begin to appear before the standing committees of this House so that he, as the minister responsible for the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office, will be answerable to the standing committees, as are other ministers answerable for the public servants who work under their direction and who are responsible through them to this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that our Prime Minister would ever be reluctant to appear anywhere. I do think, however, that it is more important that he should be here in the House answering questions than that he should appear before standing committees. I do not think he is personally opposed, but I would caution him, in the interests of conserving his energy for equally important things, that he should not as a general rule attend standing committees.


CRIMINAL CODE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question on matters of national importance to the Solicitor General, whose responsibility extends to the RCMP. I want to ask him whether it is not a fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are very deeply concerned over the multitude of gun-toting criminals who in recent months have committed murders, holdups and the like with firearms. Would he, in order to meet this serious tidal wave of crime, consider bringing section 83 of the Criminal Code before the House, the section that provides for a penalty for anyone carrying a firearm with intent, and make that penalty a minimum of five years so that it will be a deterrent to these thugs who today are terrorizing all parts of Canada?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the RCMP are concerned about these matters. As the right hon. member knows, I personally have been concerned about our gun law for several years now. I should point out that we have in the ministry at the present time a working group studying the adequacy of our gun laws, and I will refer that suggestion to that particular group and take it under consideration myself. I should point out, however, that any change in the substance of our criminal law is in the hands of our Minister of Justice, the Attorney General.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I addressed the question, of course, to the minister because I knew we would get some action from him. The minister mentioned the gun law amendments. He will know that most of those amendments are strongly objected to by law-abiding Canadians, particularly by the Canadian Federation of Wildlife which has 250,000 Canadians as members and who would find themselves in an impossible position if these amendments were brought into effect. Taking the course that I suggest now, would the minister not consider that a deterrent to these people

January 27, 1975
Oral Questions
who today are running rampant in all parts of our country?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am personally inclined to believe that we need more stringent measures with respect to guns. The question both of the substance of our gun laws and the penalties will be considered, and in consultation with the government and the Minister of Justice we shall put some measures before the House in due course when they are ready.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the precarious situation of the textile industry in Quebec and the numerous lay offs, can the minister tell the House whether the Textile and Clothing Board, which has been commissioned to look into that matter, has presented an interim report to the minister, recommending measures to reduce the importations of textile products which compete with those products that can be domestically manufactured?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Textile and Clothing Board provided me with an interim report just before the House rose for Christmas, at which time I announced a number of measures based on that interim report. It was stated also that the Textile and Clothing Board would be going into other questions in greater depth, and I would expect that information in a report very shortly so that I will be able to make an announcement to the House next month.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question arising out of his answers to the question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In light of the fact that there has been a police officer killed in the city of Calgary recently, two killed in Moncton, and two individuals convicted of capital murder in British Columbia, is it still the policy of the Solicitor General and his department to commute the sentences to life imprisonment, particularly when in my opinion there was a fraud perpetrated on parliament in getting the last bill through in the fashion it was put through?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would again have to suggest that the question anticipates a decision which may come before the Solicitor General or the Cabinet in future. I do not know whether the Solicitor General wants to comment, however, this certainly is a question which would anticipate a decision that is not to be made now but will have to be made in future.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the House that commutations are decided by the Cabinet as a whole and not by me as Solicitor General. I also want to make it clear to the House that the cases referred to by the hon. member are not before the Cabinet at the present time, and when they come before Cabinet they will be dealt with on an individual basis.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting and very academic. Would the Solicitor General explain to the House and the country why in all these cases in which people have been convicted of capital murder in relation to the killing of police officers or prison guards, the sentences have been commuted by this government and the government of Mr. Pearson for the last 10 years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if he could or would, I would not let him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the fact that the settlement of the last railway dispute by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall included an understanding that there would be a statutory holiday in February, thought then to be known as "Heritage Day", but in view of the fact the bill for such a holiday did not get passed by the last parliament, so that the railway companies are not giving the holiday to their employees, will the Minister of Labour give consideration to this matter in the hope that the full import of Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations might be implemented?


John Carr Munro: Yes I will, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if it should be necessary to put legislation through parliament concerning this matter will the minister consult with the government House leader as to the possibility of there being unanimous agreement to do this without debate?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the policy that would cover such a measure as the one the hon. member is speaking of is receiving active consideration by the government at the present time. As soon as that consideration is concluded I will be pleased to talk to the government House leader.
January 27, 1975


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is there any intention to proceed with prosecutions under Section 37 of the combines act in respect of false and misleading advertising claims regarding nonleaded gasoline, in light of tests which were carried out and referred to on the CBC program "Market Place" last night, which indicated that non-leaded gasoline was not more economic than leaded gasoline?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we would follow our ordinary practice of investigating potential or apparent violations and give consideration to prosecution in each individual case. Obviously, I am not in a position to make a blanket announcement as to how we will proceed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he now prepared to answer the question directed to his minister by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham last Thursday in relation to looking into these claims, whether or not tests have been conducted by the government and whether the department intends to proceed under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act to lay charges against those who would make these false and misleading claims?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that if in fact there are false and misleading claims in respect of non-leaded gasoline this department will do everything it can to pursue them and prosecute under the law. At the present moment, we have no specific evidence before us which would indicate that this in fact is the case. If the hon. member or anyone else of the general public has information that would warrant that kind of action it should be brought to our attention, and the public can be assured that action would be taken within the law.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the parliamentary secretary and members of the government to the revelations contained in the CBC program "Market Place" shown on the national network last evening which clearly substantiated this claim.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a distinction in the law between statements made and something being proved. I am not in any way suggesting that the statements made were not factual, but is necessary under the law to make a determination of these statements. When that is made, we will act according to the facts as they are.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF CIDA OPERATIONS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the current publicity surrounding CIDA in the Ottawa Journal and other newspapers, which is damaging the credibility of the Canadian International Assistance Program, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs recommend that a special reference be made to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to examine whether CIDA programs are producing beneficial results to developing countries, and whether in fact Canadian money is being well spent, since that is the central question at issue?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the questions at issue are important. As the President of the Privy Council stated earlier in reply to a question, it will not be the intention to make a special reference to the standing committee, but the standing committee, in dealing with the estimates of CIDA, can carry out all the probing necessary to disclose the information in respect of the questions my hon. friend proposes. I hope the committee will take advantage of that opportunity. I certainly will co-operate with it in providing the fullest possible information.


PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW OF EXTERNAL AID PROGRAMS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the limitations of the standing committee at the time of its consideration of estimates, will the minister recommend to the government that it is in the country's interest at this time to have a complete parliamentary review of the ways Canada is involved in helping developing countries, through not only CIDA programs but through our policies affecting the United Nations, trade and monetary reform, so that parliament and the country can get a complete picture of what we are doing and the new directions we ought to take?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that general objective is praiseworthy and wholesome, and can be achieved in the way I have described.


An hon. Member:: It is also necessary.


ADEQUACY OF REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF CIDA TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the government House leader. Based on what he learned in London earlier this month, especially about select committees, are the President of the Privy Council and the government House leader persuaded that the routine and virtually meaningless reference of estimates and supplementary estimates of CIDA to the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence provides an adequate opportunity to parliament to examine government expenditures in this area and to bring to light programs
2618

January 27, 1975
Oral Questions
and practices which may or may not be acceptable to parliament and the Canadian people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is entirely a matter for the committee. If hon. members on the other side of the House wish to pursue this question, I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the president of CIDA will be glad to co-operate. It is really a question of motivation on the part of hon. members.


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF CIDA REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for a long time now to have this matter referred to the committee in order that it may be considered. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will be referring the report of CIDA to this committee so that it may undertake this work and not be under the axe that is always there when estimates are given to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member examines the Standing Orders, he will realize that the committee can organize itself to deal with this matter quite fully and comprehensively, and that is the purpose of the estimates system and the system of standing committees. The purpose is to provide the House with an opportunity to examine their expenditures, their purposes, their objectives, and whether the programs are in accordance with government policy; otherwise, we ought to abandon the whole system of standing committees and estimate scrutiny.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the very serious lay-offs of workers in the Canadian electrical industry caused by an influx of foreign television sets and components, and in view of the importance of the brief presented this morning by representatives of electrical unions to some officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, can the minister advise why there was not a single cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary or member of the Liberal caucus in attendance? Further, can the minister assure this House that he will be prepared to meet with the delegation which is still in Ottawa immediately after question period?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think a very useful meeting lasting an hour and a half took place this morning between officials of my department and the delegation mentioned by the hon. member. I have been trying to arrange a meeting for this afternoon between myself, my colleagues and the
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).J
same group of representatives from the industry. If that can be done of course the meeting will take place.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House whether he has been in consultation with the Minister of Labour with a view to making sure that the Minister of Labour is also represented at this meeting because it involves layoffs and unemployment of thousands and thousands of Canadian workers at this time?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Labour has heard the representation of the hon. member.


RESTRICTED IMMIGRATION OF FOREIGN DOCTORS- POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL FEES FOR DOCTORS SERVING OUTLYING AREAS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which arises from his meeting with the provincial ministers of health at which time they came to the ridiculous decision to restrict the immigration of foreign doctors. Many of the outlying areas are presently served by just that type of doctor, and we cannot obtain Canadian doctors. Was there any agreement at that meeting to have the provincial authorities set up a special schedule of fees which might entice not only foreign doctors but also Canadian doctors to outlying areas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, his comment bears on the whole conference, and more particularly on the Ontario government which strongly recommended adopting a measure like this one. I need not remind the hon. member of the colour of the Ontario government.
With regard to immigration, we are not trying to suppress all immigration of foreign doctors to Canada; on the contrary, we are endeavouring to encourage their immigration to the areas and in the specialties where Canada needs them. As for their settling in various regions of Canada, this matter falls within provincial jurisdiction and the provinces are looking into it very carefully. Some provinces have already passed measure in this connection, but these have not always been as efficient as hoped for.


POSSIBLE TAX CONCESSIONS TO DOCTORS SERVING OUTLYING AREAS
Stanley James Korchinski: 1 have a supplementary question regarding federal responsibility in this matter. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare taken up with the Minister of Finance the question of possible tax concessions to doctors in those outlying northern areas in order to attract and retain them rather than to have the concentration of doctors in the larger, more convenient areas?
January 27, 1975


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not bring up this problem with the Minister of Finance, and I must admit to the hon. member that I do not feel his suggestion is one that should be retained.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. With a view to establishing whether or not improprieties or conflict of interest factors exist in regard to the construction of a swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government will make public the names of all donors, the amounts donated in each case and whether donors, reportedly including the Prime Minister himself, will be allowed to deduct the full amount of their donations for income tax purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a question by the hon. member on the order paper which will be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to intercede to the same effect. In addition, it is precisely the same question which had been posed in a previous session.


An hon. Member:: But not answered.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister refers to the fact that this is a question on the order paper. If history repeats itself and the government answers as quickly as they have answered other questions, we will never receive the answer, and I think it is a legitimate question to ask. I think that the government is avoiding and clouding this issue so that the Canadian people are not allowed to know what is going on. I think that this is improper, and I think that my question, with all due respect to the Acting Prime Minister, is very much in order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member asking his question. He has asked it; it will be answered in due course.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the answer of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to a question regarding the establishment of a
Oral Questions
major oil refinery in the lower mainland of British Columbia by the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation in which he said that there was some indication that the corporation is considering such an establishment, has the minister initiated, or will he immediately initiate a study to ensure the protection of the quality and quantity of the water in the Campbell and Nicomekl Rivers in that area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and look at the details mentioned by the hon. member. If there is an impact on the quality of water in terms of fisheries, obviously it would be a matter of great concern to me.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the many representations made to the minister expressing concern over the transfer of veterans' hospitals and the effect of reduced care to aging veterans, would the minister advise the House as to what action he has taken to investigate the increasing need of bed space or domiciliary care and the other needs of aging veterans?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is kept under very close observation by officials in my department working with hospitals, and the report that I have is that care is provided where required to all veterans in Canada.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the representations made contradict what the minister has said, I wonder if he would agree to make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity outlining the government's position, and whether he will table all correspondence over the past year to confirm the status of available bed space and the standard of care for veterans. Would he also refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to review the cabinet decision made in 1963 which has been affected by changing conditions?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first part of the question, I am prepared at any time to release a statement pertaining to our hospitals. With regard to the second portion of the question I would be glad to look into it and see what can be done or has been done.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, following on a question I put to the Minister of Labour on Friday afternoon I should like to know, since 75 per cent of all C.N.
28626-31 Vz

January 27, 1975
Oral Questions
freight and passenger services have been cut, and 100 per cent between Toronto and Montreal, if the minister will give us the current status of the walkout and whether any consideration has been given to the request of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for an extra 15 per cent?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my advice is that as a result of legal action being taken by the CNR, perhaps as well as the enlightened self-interest of the engineers themselves, many are returning to work. The St. Lawrence region is in full operation and a good deal of the prairie region is in full operation. I am told there are still some work stoppages and meetings are going on today. I am hopeful that the engineers, in their own best interests and the interests of all fellow railway workers, will return to work immediately.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, since I am not going to get an answer to the question. As of 60 minutes ago in the largest area in the St. Lawrence region, the Rideau area with headquarters in my home city of Belleville, there was not a single engineer reporting back to work. I am very anxious to have the minister look into the matter to see if he cannot get some of them back to work.


John Carr Munro: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker, but I am speaking from information received in the last two hours. I will check into it.


EFFECT OF RAILWAY ENGINEERS' STRIKE ON SHIPMENTS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALLEVIATE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the answer just given by the Minister of Labour I wonder if this minister could advise whether grain shipments are being adversely affected and if so, what method he is going to introduce to see that shipments of grain supplies do not suffer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that grain is moved by rail in the winter period-and there is a significant movement-it is of course affected in the same way as other traffic. The solution to the problem of moving it is the same as the solution to the problem generally.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that answer, but in light of the fact that the movement of grain is adversely affected I want to know what the alternatives are, and what the government's thinking is with respect to ensuring that our international reputation is not affected as it was by the position we took with respect to the grain handlers strike. All I want to know is what the alternatives are, and what the government's thinking is.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the only satisfactory alternative to avoiding a slowdown in the movement of grain is for those rail operations to commence again and continue
(Mr. Ellis.]
unimpaired. There is, of course, a relatively small volume of grain moved by rail to the east for export purposes, but the movement to the west is significant.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister if he can shed any light on the government's thinking and planning with respect to newspaper reports, particularly those which give advice and warnings from retired Vice-Admiral Harry Porter, of the intentions of the United States to build some 50 or 60 240,000 ton supertankers for use in the Arctic Archipelago through the Northwest Passage, so-called escorted by armed United States coastguard vessels with ice-breaking capability. Have we asked the United States government what their intentions are in this regard? Do we have a particular position at this time on this disturbing question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot throw any light on the question for my hon. friend today. I will take the question as notice.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is likely most appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance but the Minister of Justice should be involved. I should like to ask the minister if his department is aware of the fact that banks operating under federal charter in the various provinces are collecting a tax for the exchange of legal tender such as Olympic coins? If the minister is aware, what is he prepared to do about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of Finance or, indeed with the minister responsible for the coins.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because the time is fast approaching when farmers will be deciding what crops they should plant in 1975, can the minister advise whether his proposal made to cabinet regarding the
January 27, 1975

re-establishment of the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario has received favourable consideration?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, even if it did receive favourable consideration there is no way they would be able to plan on planting sugar beets this year, that is for sure. I hope I have not said anything that could be so construed.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise the House how long ago this proposal was made to cabinet?


Eugene Whelan: It was discussed a week ago, Mr. Speaker.


FERTILIZER-GOVERNMENT ACTION IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE SHORTAGE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that farmers will soon have to be making plans for crops in the new year, and in view of the widespread concern that last year's shortage of fertilizer supplies, especially those with a nitrogen base, will be repeated and perhaps aggravated in 1975, can the minister advise if he has any estimate of this year's shortage and what action, if any, his department is taking on behalf of farmers who rely on these fertilizers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we held meetings with the fertilizer industry and we have asked the farmers to make sure that they have not placed their orders in two or three places, as they did in the past. We have also asked farmers not to bootleg fertilizer across to the United States, as some of them were doing, in order to make sure that they do not cut short their neighbours' supplies. We think in most instances there will be ample supplies, but we do think that there is going to be some shortage of some of the nitrogen fertilizers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and refers to a news release from his department dated January 20 which discusses the west coast tanker traffic meeting held in Washington, D.C. I notice that the discussion centered around joint vessel management systems. I should like to ask whether there was any discussion regarding the requirement for those tankers to have double bottoms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether that technical question was discussed, but probably it was. I think I did make an answer on that subject in the House some weeks ago, but I will be happy to check on it and see whether that particular item was discussed.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


UNITED AIRCRAFT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO CHANGE IN OBLIGATIONS TO GOVERNMENT IN THREE AMENDMENTS OMITTED FROM TABLED DOCUMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services arising out of the United Aircraft documents that he tabled today. In a note to me, the minister said that all the documents pertaining to contracts between the Crown and United Aircraft have been provided, with the exception of three amendments to the documents which were not provided for reasons of commercial confidentiality. My question to the minister is twofold. First, could he inform the House of the dates of those amendments to the contracts and, secondly, could he assure the House that whatever else might have been in the amendments there were no provisions which exempted United Aircraft from any of its previous obligations with the federal government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The reply is yes in both cases, Mr. Speaker.


LACK OF GUIDELINES FOR PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES AND CONSERVATION OF GASOLINE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the government House leader arising out of the disclosure that, although the government is attempting to influence the decisions of individuals by changing its taxes with regard to conservation of energy, it has not yet adopted any measures or guidelines itself with regard to types of vehicles used. Is there any reason for the government imposing its wishes on the House and the public when, despite the lapse of a year, it has not been able to draw up guidelines governing its own conduct with regard to the purchase of vehicles and the conservation of energy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the explanation is really quite simple. The particular measures that have been taken in the tax laws are measures that are useful in this connection. What the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is considering is a much more comprehensive program which will include, of course, the measures that have already been taken in the tax laws. These are not in conflict.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Would it not sit better with the Canadian public and get a response if they were asked to accept certain measures relating to conservation and the kind of cars and boats they purchase, if the government for once attempted to set an example? It would seem to be a simple matter for the government to adopt some guidelines in this respect itself and make these public. Is there any difficulty in that?

Canada Business Corporations Act


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is quite right in believing that when he makes a statement it should be as comprehensive as possible. It should deal with the guidelines which might govern the conduct of individuals. It should deal with this government and other governments throughout the country. The government itself, of course, would have preferred if it had been possible to bring down such a statement a little earlier. However, the situation is extremely complicated, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition agrees that when the minister makes a statement it should be one that will be given widespread support.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before bringing the question period to a conclusion, may I take this opportunity to call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor among us who is in Canada to help celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the first landing of Icelandic settlers in Canada and also for discussions with our Prime Minister here, in Ottawa. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. members in extending to Mr. Hallgrimsson, Prime Minister of Iceland, our warmest welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-29, respecting Canadian business corporations, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill to amend the National Housing Act, I have the support of many colleagues on both sides of the House. I am very much aware that it will be 40 years in June since the first federal housing act was introduced in this House. In light of the present very comprehensive National Housing Act, the Dominion Housing Act of 1935 was perhaps not a very far reaching piece of legislation. It authorized the minister of Finance to join with a lending institution, or a local authority, to share in making loans for building new homes. It was significant, however, in another way: by introducing the Dominion Housing Act, the Government of Canada accepted for the first time a public responsibility and obligation for the way in which all Canadians were housed.
Since that time, of course, we have passed the National Housing Acts of 1938, 1944 and 1954, and more than a dozen amendments to the 1954 act, notably the amendments of 1973 which introduced the very successful Assisted Home Ownership Program, neighbourhood assistance, residential rehabilitation assistance, the new communities program, and expanded and improved a number of other existing programs.
I mention this historical background as a way of putting the bill we are discussing into its proper perspective. Some hon. members and others outside this House have been discussing these new measures as if they were the only instruments in the hands of the government for dealing with the country's housing problems as if they, by themselves, were to serve the needs of people of all incomes in all parts of the country. They are, in fact, only the latest extensions to a very broad piece of social legislation which has evolved over the years to meet the changing demands and expectations of Canadians. Hon. members will be pleased to learn that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has prepared a summary of its programs, which will be given to each member of this House and of the other place to enable them to obtain a better understanding of the comprehensive nature of the many programs which this House has passed for the benefit of Canadians.
I would like to speak first about the two sections of this bill which are most directly related to housing, that is, the proposals which offer contributions in support of private funds for financing home ownership, and the creation of housing for rental at moderate rates. These programs have purposes which could be described very generally in three ways-as social, financial and economic. As social housing programs, they are intended to help substantial numbers of Canadian families either to buy their own homes or to rent suitable accommodation at a cost they can afford. The privately funded Assistant Home Ownership Program and the privately funded rental housing program widen the range of choices which are available to Canadians to deal
January 27, 1975

with their housing needs. They are not a replacement for any existing program, but an extension of them. They do not replace the federal government's long-standing public housing program which for many people throughout the country represents the best solution to their problems.
They do not replace the federal government's non-profit housing program by which local non-profit organizations are helped to acquire or create rental housing to meet the needs of people in the community. They do not replace federal government programs of assistance to co-operative housing. They do not even replace the existing AHOP which during 1974, through direct CMHC loans and interest reducing grants, allowed some 20,000 Canadian families to become home owners. Clearly, this has been one of the most comprehensive housing programs entered into by the government of any country. They do not replace any of these housing programs but are added to them, increasing the options, multiplying the ways in which people can be helped.
At the same time, these two new programs for home ownership and housing rental are financial measures. As hon. members are aware, the government, through CMHC, invested some $450 million in public capital in AHOP in 1974. But even these very substantial funds, which had been increased from the initial commitment, ran out before the year ended. It became evident that if this program was to be expanded to meet the expectations of Canadian families, it would require a very considerable infusion of new capital. Taking into account the whole range of public capital requirements, it seemed the most efficient use of available resources would be to attract this capital from private sources. What we are doing, therefore, is making grants available under certain terms and conditions for families who can obtain an insured mortgage from an approved lender to buy a new, moderately priced house and who need some help to keep the monthly payments to a reasonable proportion of their income. We are putting up the money for the grant, up to $600 a year, but the capital is being provided by private lenders and will largely represent new money that would not otherwise be available for investment in moderately priced housing.
In a similar way, where the builder or owner of a rental housing project can obtain an insured mortgage from an approved lender, we will enter an agreement with him or her. If the project seems suitable, we will make a contribution to him or her-I must say that during International Women's Year-to help bridge the gap between his or her interest payments and the rate needed, on condition that he or she charges a reasonable rent to tenants which directly reflects the level of federal subsidy. During the term of the agreement, which would be a minimum of five years and might be extended to 15 years, they must pass along the benefit by accepting a fair and reasonable rent which would be arrived at on the advice of local CMHC officials and in light of local conditions and the quality of the accommodation.
I would like to remind members that in no circumstances under either of these programs would the federal government or its agency pay grants to banks, trust companies or other lending institutions. In one case the money goes to the family which buys the home, and in the other
National Housing Act
case it goes to the building owner on the condition that he enters an agreement about rents to be charged.
I have been very pleased to hear the reaction of builders in all parts of Canada who believe these two programs will give a very substantial impetus to housing production in 1975. If their expectations are borne out, it could mean the injection of $1 billion or more of new private sector capital into housing in Canada that would not otherwise be used to provide low and moderate priced housing for Canadians.
Finally, if I can make the distinction, the third purpose of these new housing programs would be economic. Hon. members are very much aware of the decline in housing production which has taken place in recent months due to a number of factors including the phenomenon of world wide inflation. We are all aware, also, that housing is a critical element in the national economy. A speeding up of housing production now would not only provide more Canadian families with shelter; it would have a wide ranging impact on employment in the housing industry, in the many industries that provide building materials and equipment, and on all those goods and services which families require when they establish a new home-stoves, refrigerators, furniture, carpets; the implications are almost endless. The effect of a billion new dollars invested in housing would be multiplied many times throughout the economy.
I would like to remind hon. members, however, of a point I have made often before, that housing is not just a commodity but a social need, and that housing investment should not be turned off and on for the sake of manipulating the economy. In the present circumstances, however, it is quite apparent that people's social needs and the health of the economy would be very well served by a massive stimulation of the residential construction industry.
In case there should be any doubt, however, let me emphasize that the first concern of this government is with the human dimension of housing, with our commitment to provide every Canadian with access to good housing in a safe and satisfying community environment, at a cost he can afford. While we are attacking high costs with financial and economic policy, we are equally concerned, at the same time, to help those people who are most vulnerable. The whole range of NHA social housing programs and programs aimed at the improvement of community life are continuing and, when it is warranted, will be expanded.
In that connection, of course, this bill also provides for a new form of assistance to non-profit housing projects. It would give CMHC the authority to acquire land and to lease it back at favourable rates to non-profit and co-operative housing corporations in order to help them reduce rents to their tenants. As I am sure hon. members are aware, CMHC now provides sponsors of non-profit housing with 100 per cent financing at beneficial rates of interest, an outright grant of 10 per cent of capital costs, and start-up funds of up tp $10,000 a project. Even with these subsidies, however, some non-profit groups in high-cost areas have had trouble providing accommodation at rates that are within the means of the people they want to help. This new land-lease provision will make the critical difference to many of these groups.

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
Finally, this bill offers some significant improvements in the federal sewage treatment assistance program which is very familiar to all hon. members and which has helped to build virtually all of the treatment plants and trunk sewers installed in Canada in recent years. These provisions are essentially the same as those introduced in the last parliament but not passed because of the intervention of the general election, so I need not elaborate on them at any length or on the results of that election.
First, they extend the program, including the 25 per cent loan forgiveness features, beyond March, 1975, the date on which it would have expired by statute. As a way of getting more serviced land on the market, increasing the supply and holding down prices, the act is amended to include federal contributions toward the cost of storm trunk sewers when they are needed to open up new residential areas. Storm trunk sewers are not included in the present act.
This bill will also correct an unfair situation by increasing the amount of assistance that is available to municipalities whose sewage works impose a very high per capita burden on the local taxpayers, either because of the small population or because of the difficult nature of the terrain. The bill also provides grants to cover half the costs of preparing regional sewerage plans. Municipalities which borrow capital for qualified sewage treatment projects from some source other than CMHC would still be eligible for grants and favourable loans, again tapping the private sector and using the best leverage possible to get the greatest impact for the taxpayers' dollar. Other amendments included in this bill, as hon. members will see, increase the statutory limits on loans which may be made or insured by CMHC under certain sections of the act, insured home owner loans from $19 billion to $25 billion, direct CMHC loans from $10 billion to $12 billion and guaranteed home improvement loans from $600 million to $650 million.
I have attempted to describe for hon. members the principles which are embodied in this legislation. If I might summarize these principles very briefly, they are these. First, by providing additional, optional kinds of assistance, to widen the choices available to Canadians about the kind of housing they will occupy and how they will occupy it as owners, tenants or under some form of co-operative tenure. Second, by combining federal government grants with private capital, this bill seeks to infuse a substantial amount of new financing into the production of housing of a kind and at a cost that suits the needs of Canadian families. Finally, while responding to people's prime need for good shelter in a secure environment, this bill, by increasing the effective demand for housing, will have a stimulating and regenerative effect throughout the whole economy.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel the country is urgently in need of this legislation and I commend it to the attention of all hon. members. While I would like to stress the word "urgent", this bill must have the serious consideration of this House and the committee. However, I hope all members will give it high priority, as it is essential to remove any uncertainty in the minds of those who need housing and the housing industry so that industry can get moving in what will be a difficult year because of
[Mr. Danson.J
over-all economic circumstances. While I welcome a most thorough investigation, I would also welcome expeditious passage of this legislation through its further stages.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on Bill C-46 to which the minister has been devoting considerable attention, both inside the House and outside, for some considerable time. On a number of occasions he has spoken glowingly and at length about the amendments to the National Housing Act. In fact, he has been speaking about them almost daily since last fall with ever expanding verbosity and euphoric enthusiasm. I might say to the minister that if verbal virtuosity were only matched by performance, we would have houses sprouting up like mushrooms. But words do not create houses; enthusiasm is no substitute for effectiveness when it comes to coping with a crisis- and that is what we are discussing here today, Mr. Speaker.
A few years ago it was recognized that there was a housing problem in Canada-government inaction permitted it to develop into an emergency situation, but what confronts us now is no longer a problem or an emergency situation; it is a crisis of major proportions. Anyone who doubts or discounts or dismisses this is propagating a dangerous delusion which will undermine the economic stability of the country. Although we will want to examine the bill in detail in committee and suggest some changes, we in this party have no quarrel with the amendments put forward this afternoon. Nevertheless, they do not tackle the root cause and what concerns me here is that the minister is putting these amendments forward as the solution to the housing crisis.
Whether deliberately or not, the minister has left the impression with the people of this country that all these restrictive programs apply to everyone else but the person himself. He has left the impression that large numbers of individuals are benefiting from these programs except for the unfortunate few who have been excluded. In reality, these unfortunate few are the great majority of Canadians whose housing needs are critical but who are not eligible for assistance under any of these programs. Given the minister's proclivity for touting these programs, why, for instance, has he not proudly recited the numbers who have benefited from the $500 grant for first-time purchases of new housing? The reason, I suggest, is that because of the limitations, limitations which exclude existing housing, it has not been successful. Again and again, expectations have been created which the legislation has failed to satisfy. This is what I mean by misleading impressions.
In principle, the amendments are acceptable-loans and grants for sewerage systems, assistance for rental construction, federal land-lease programs for non-profit and co-operative housing, extended assistance for home ownership; but the measures proposed by the government are typical of so much previous legislation introduced by Liberal governments. The legislation lacks any over-all view, any comprehensive approach or even any awareness of the magnitude of the national housing crisis.
Our party has long advocated greater participation in urban affairs. Urban affairs is the linchpin, the focal point
January 27, 1975

of every facet of Canadian life. Three-quarters of the population of Canada lives in urban centres as defined by Statistics Canada. Not only do our policies in urban affairs affect the quality of life of this large segment of the nation; they affect the whole community. Take land use policy as an example. How much more valuable agricultural land is to be reduced to asphalt? These policies affect transportation systems, energy consumption, the physical environment, the emotional environment, our feeling of self-fulfilment, our recreational opportunities; even the lifestyles open to us.
Life in our urban centres has changed drastically since the early 1950s with the surge of technical and scientific advancements. Yet 20 years later we are still groping around to adjust to the new environment created by these changes. The worst and the best results of these changes are concentrated in our cities. Our cities have undergone significant changes in outlook, character, quality of life, physical appearance, and, most important, in size. I refer not only to the size in numbers of people in urban centres, which is a reflection of both population growth and major migrations from rural to urban centres, but also to space: huge, sprawling cities are the trademark of the seventies.
As a result, a whole new pattern of living has evolved, changes in the social structure and regional fabric of our society and changes in the vertical and horizontal structure of this great country. Yet the policies and legislation of this government fail to recognize this fundamental change. The National Housing Act still reflects the needs of the 1940s and the 1950s. Surely the 1970s demand a radically different approach reflecting Canada's new societal structure and regional diversity.
The great benefit of the technical and scientific breakthrough of the fifties and sixties is that it gave us a far more potent resource than capital to develop our country. That resource is knowledge. We have the technology; we have the money. What we do not have-and this is where this government has failed-is the political commitment, the political will to come to grips with the real problem. The government has relied in the past and, if this bill is an indication, will obviously do so in the future, on a little salve on the rash while prescribing no cure for the disease.
For years this government has been enmeshed in constitutional curtains and has been reluctant to accept responsibility in the area of urban affairs; municipal affairs were the preserve of provincial governments, it said with a shrug. But we are not speaking of jurisdictional divisions here. We are talking about leadership, co-ordination, direction for the whole country. We are talking about housing in the context of a country in transition. We are talking about transportation and immigration. We are talking about the balanced use of our financial resources. We are talking about the quality of our environment. The federal government has the responsibility of developing a co-ordinated approach involving all these considerations but, sadly, there has been little recognition on the part of this government of the growing need for integrated policies to create an orderly urban environment.
For the first time in history, mankind has the means of substantially improving the general well-being of every member of its society. We are better prepared to deal with human problems than ever before, to establish a harmoni-
National Housing Act
ous balance in the life of the collectivity. We have the means of production. What we have failed to achieve is an equitable distribution of that production.
Housing is the cornerstone of a stable society. Inadequate shelter is fertile ground for the breeding and growth of most of our social problems. The housing industry is vital to the economy of the nation. Instability in the housing section of our economy has horizontal and vertical repercussions through the entire socio-economic system. Tenuous and direct results are felt on some sectors of the economy and untenuous, indirect results on still others. These repercussions create unemployment, social tension, financial strain, inflationary trends. The effects are like a nuclear explosion, some of them visible and violent but the fallout is extensive and wide ranging.
Adequate shelter is a must for all Canadians. The government is, in effect, employing public revenues to help bring housing within reach of some people in our society. However, it is not acting within any comprehensive and open policy framework. We have a long standing commitment in the areas of education and health of assuring universal access, so why not extend this to shelter? Should not the government begin to face the fact that shelter as well is an essential, a commodity that we must assure is within reach of our population generally? Or is it content simply to devise ad hoc schemes and use public revenues in this area without facing the basic policy question? We see it in this legislation. There is no philosophy and, therefore, no competent strategy.
While in the field of welfare the government says it is striving to rationalize a maze of programs, to unify programs around distinct goals, in housing policy this government is creating a maze that someone else, at some time in the future, will have to sort out. If we are going to begin using public revenues to assist people obtain shelter, let us proceed with a concrete policy. The government, for example, might consider a single program strategy such as set out by the Brooking Institute in its study "Setting National Priorities, the 1974 Budget". It outlines the concept of a shelter allowance. Using this approach, the government would decide just what level of a family's income should reasonably be devoted to providing shelter and, then, with a single program, not a multiplicity of programs, assist those families to make up the difference when their shelter cost is beyond the level considered reasonable. There are serious questions about the effect such a scheme might have on the price side, and the amount of assistance would have to be determined according to just how high a priority we put on public resources in this area. However, the government has a responsibility to devise some kind of policy which establishes a clear and universal policy objective and employs public funds in a competent and unified strategy.
This is the basis of my main objections to this bill. I do not object in principle to any measures that will alleviate a burden on any sector of this country. But while one sector benefits, another suffers, and this has been the traditional position of every policy or program this government has put forth on housing. Select or particular groups receive a crumb or a hand-out, while others are further burdened or neglected. This bill introduces or
2626

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
extends subsidies or grants for mortgages to certain groups, for builders of rental accommodation, for sewerage systems-acceptable, in so far as they go. But subsidies do not solve the problem. They may relieve the pressure momentarily on one sector of the population, but the real problems are high mortgage rates and the high cost of housing, and these problems are not being dealt with.
The reasons for the high cost of housing are evident: increased cost of serviced land, building materials and labour, and an acute shortage of units in a period of increasing demand. And yet with the extraordinarily high interest rates on mortgage money there has been a slump both in the building industry and the real estate market. Over 95 per cent of the wage earners in this country without a home cannot afford to buy one. Moreover, the vacancy rate in rental accommodation in our major urban centres is frightening, ranging from zero to under 2 per cent. Canadians are caught in an inescapable bind. Shortage of rental accommodation, and inflation, have driven up rents beyond the financial capacity of many families, yet prohibitive mortgage rates are preventing them from buying accommodation.
Also, the vice is tightening for the many trapped in this bind as we learn that there was a disastrous decline in urban housing starts during the last quarter of 1974, from 1973-well over 30 per cent-and a further decline predicted for 1975. What more incisive commentary could there be on the failure of current housing programs than the inadequacy of AHOP to meet the government's objectives? What better example of the panicky, reflex policy-making decisions of this government than their midstream switching of AHOP's original aims?
This program was introduced by the government in July, 1973, to assist low income groups to own their own home. But in September, 1974, the objective was switched from one of providing opportunities for social housing to that of a stimulus to housing construction. Henceforth, AHOP applied to new dwellings only. Did the government really think this shortsighted and limited measure, changing a program designed to aid home ownership to one of increasing housing construction, would work? Obviously, as the 30 per cent reduction in housing starts in the last quarter of 1974 shows, it had no effect.
Moreover, this sudden switch had serious consequences in another area where accommodation is a problem-that of rental units. Most new dwellings are well beyond the reach of those families eligible for AHOP assistance. Figures produced by CMHC show the average cost of a new house in most urban areas to be well beyond the ceilings set in the program, largely due to the land component cost. Yet if families found an existing dwelling they could afford, they were unable under the new regulations to get the assistance needed to finance it. Consequently, many were forced to stay in rental accommodation, aggravating the crisis in the shortage of this type of unit. The minister would do well to consider a change in this aspect of the program. Extended AHOP presented by the minister today is designed to attract more moneys for mortgages from the private lending sector. But we are still dealing with a subsidy program. Given the limited success of AHOP to date in resolving or even touching on the housing crisis, what expectation is there that this extension of a restric-

tive program will be any more effective? I greatly fear that the effectiveness of this new program will not be proportionate to the ballyhoo accorded it by the minister.
Subsidies are obviously not the solution. One step we on this side of the House have advocated for some time is to make a proportionate amount of municipal property taxes and mortgage interest payments deductible from the federal taxable income of home owners.
The bill before us does little to relieve the problems in housing-the high cost of materials, the high cost of labour, the high cost of money and the high cost of land. Time and time again our party has urged the government to deal with these economic and labour problems. They are not isolated. The main ingredient in all of them is inflation which, as every Canadian knows, is not being dealt with by this government. Housing and its related industries are significant factors in all these areas. Figures recently released by Statistics Canada, based on a new index including the price of land, show that the price of houses has increased by up to 80 per cent in three years in some major centres. Since the land component in housing was not previously included in calculating the consumer price index, these new figures mean that the consumer price index really should be higher by 2 per cent, so that the real inflation rate for 1974 would not be 12 per cent but 14 per cent.
The Economic Council of Canada, in a report representing 2 Vi years of growth entitled "Towards more Stable Growth in Construction", has pinpointed the importance of achieving stability in the over-all housing sector of the economy. In the words of the Economic Council:
More stable growth in housing would significantly retard further increases in housing costs.
The Economic Council goes on to state:
With increased stability in residential construction, more and better housing could be financially accessible to the poor and all participants in housing construction itself would probably benefit.
Yet over the past ten years, residential construction has been extremely volatile, resulting in a costly waste of men unemployed and materials unused, and an unnecessary spiralling increase in the cost of housing. According to the Economic Council, the Liberal government is largely to blame. A good part of the instability stems from the instability of government monetary policy in particular. It is time the federal government stopped using its investment in construction as a valve of the economy, stepping up construction like a lever and then abruptly cutting it off when inflation threatens. We need, and should have, a long-term, co-ordinated policy designed to ensure stable and continuous growth in housing supply. A coherent supply policy on housing would do more to fight inflation than all the "on again, off again" programs of the present government.
The government must publicly spell out its targets for long-term capital flows and must then gear its over-all fiscal and monetary policy to establish those targets. What we are talking about is a national investment policy. In such a policy, housing must play a prominent role-and we did not hear about that from the minister today.
January 27, 1975


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46 is another step in fulfilling the soft-shoe dance of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). When we review Bill C-46 with the other step of the $500 grant to first-time purchasers of new homes within defined price limits, it would be fair to say the minister has now earned the reputation of the "Fiddler on the Roof." The only thing that was missing this afternoon was the musical accompaniment of the executive members of CMHC sitting in the gallery.
Bill C-46 is another gimmick by which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) hope to solve the serious housing and unemployment problems in Canada. These gimmicks will not work in 1975. There is little hope of increasing housing starts, lowering interest rates and the cost of land and bringing down the high cost of housing. What is the present housing situation in Canada? Here it is, seen through the eyes of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs when he spoke to the Toronto Home Builders Association on December 3, 1974:
There are some hard facts we must face up to in meeting this challenge.
Almost 800,000 Canadian households spend more than 25 per cent of their gross income on shelter. Even more disturbing is the knowledge that 107,000 tenant families with incomes under $3,000 spend over 50 per cent of their incomes for shelter. These are hardly comforting statistics, nor is the fact that there are some 500,000 housing units in Canada requiring rehabilitation or replacement.
He went on to state:
The present shortage of suitable accommodation at affordable prices in Toronto and other cities across Canada is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the people who need housing in communities where the shortages exists. It is not acceptable to the federal, provincial or municipal governments and surely it is not acceptable to builders either.
Another paragraph reads:
I am particularly concerned about the shortage of apartments and other types of accommodation for rent. For this kind of housing, starts declined nearly 60 per cent in the first ten months of the year. Rents, on the whole, have not increased at nearly the rate of other costs, but the continuing vacancy rates of less than 2 per cent in major centres could produce pressures on rents that are unacceptable.
That is the housing situation as seen through the eyes of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Now we come to what CMHC has to say about housing. In its final report for the year it suggested that 1974 represented a 17 per cent decline in housing starts as compared to 1973. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there was a shortfall of 50,000 housing units in 1974 compared to 1973. Worse than that, this is the worst housing record since 1970. It is not a very impressive record for 1974 when we have the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto forecasting 198,000 starts, and the Conference Board of Canada forecasting 183,000 starts for 1975.
Seen through the eyes of the people of Canada, we have experienced and are continuing to experience the highest prices for homes, for land, for interest rates and for rents that Canadians have ever seen. Canada does not need a "Fiddler on the Roof." What we want is a policy to solve the housing crisis, and we need a minister that will implement such policy. When I look at Bill C-46, these are the solutions I see contained therein, and these are in keeping with the stated philosophy of the minister to give more
National Housing Act
"bang for the buck" to his friends in the building industry, the developers and financial institutions: solution No. 1 is payments in subsidies to private lenders; in other words, the banks, insurance companies, trust and loan companies, Caisses Populaire and credit unions who lend mortgage moneys to borrowers who qualify under AHOP. The program is confined to new construction and the grants of up to $600 a year may be given to help reduce the payment of principle, interest and taxes.
One might quite properly ask who qualifies: is it the low and middle income people in Canada? The answer is, absolutely not; the persons who qualify are those in the affluent, middle-class households. The minister has defined low income households as those with an income of between $8,000 and $12,000 per year. Do those families qualify under Bill C-46? Absolutely not. Do the 107,000 people in Canada who have incomes of less than $3,000, and pay 50 per cent of that income for rent, qualify? Absolutely not. Do the families in Vancouver and Toronto earning less than $19,000 qualify? Absolutely not. Do the people in Ottawa earning $18,000; in Halifax, $16,000; in Saint John, $15,000; in Montreal, $14,000, qualify under Bill C-46? Absolutely not.
If they have to buy a condominium-and that is about the only type of home that the minister likes to provide for people in Toronto, and more especially family households-they do not even qualify if they make $16,000 in Toronto, $14,000 in Vancouver, $13,000 in Ottawa, $10,000 in Montreal, $7,200 in Saint John and $13,000 in Halifax. With regard to their related incomes, none of the provisions under Bill C-46 apply to these people: they just do not qualify. Only the affluent, middle-income families qualify. I can only sum up by saying that Bill C-46 is socialism for the rich.
A second criticism with regard to the main thrust of Bill C-46 is that the measure of subsidies to private lenders is an inefficent use of scarce capital resources. At best, the grants will lower interest rates by IVi per cent to 2 per cent. This means that the present rate of 1034 per cent will be lowered to 8% per cent or 9 per cent. The minister is very fortunate, because only in the last few days the rate was dropped by CMHC from 1114 per cent to 10 34 per cent. This means that that slight drop will be quite insignificant to most purchasers of homes. If CMHC could borrow its money from the treasury at 9 per cent, and this will be the new rate at which they will borrow, and then apply those moneys to public housing, it would mean, with the subsidies which would apply, the interest rates would not be 834 per cent and 9 per cent but 7 per cent and 714 per cent. That would be a more effective use of this money for the low and moderate income people of this country. But no, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not want to help people in public housing; he wants to subsidize the private lenders. The result of subsidizing the private lenders will be higher interest rates and higher payments. That is the great contribution of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Nystrom:: Danson the darling.


An hon. Member:: Just filling in time, are you?
28626 - 32)4

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act


John Gilbert: I am just letting the minister digest that. I have great trust in the minister. He is a man of talent charm and concern, and what I am saying to him he will absorb. When he meets with those high-price officials who are sitting in the gallery, he will know what I have said in discussions with them. The minister proposes to lend money to municipalities and public housing agencies, and to reduce interest from the current rate of 10% per cent to 93/ per cent for public housing while giving to limited dividend builders 8 per cent or less and subsidizing private lenders. This is consistent with the minister's philosophy of "more bang for the buck" but it is pretty discouraging to persons wanting to buy a home at reasonable cost.
The third criticism of the main part of the minister's bill with regard to subsidies to private lenders under AHOP is that the government loses control over the quality of the housing when the mortgage funds are not under the control of the government. The United States paid subsidies to private lenders in 1968 and experienced a scandal in the quality of the homes that were built. We in Canada had the innovative housing program in 1971, and I would ask the minister and his officials to reread the Charney report which catalogues the poor quality of the homes which were built. I would ask the minister, also, to read the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development which in summary reported that the innovative housing program built smaller homes, on smaller lots, of much less quality. That was their definition of innovative housing.
The foregoing are three major criticisms with regard to the first thrust of the minister's bill. The minister's second solution is that he will pay subsidies to builders who build rental units under private, NHA insured loans to make the units available at reasonable rents. This is an aspect of the limited dividend sections of the National Housing Act. At present, CMHC grants builders 8 per cent mortgages with regard to the limited dividend provisions. What will the new rate be to those builders who now take the NHA private, insured loans? What interest rates will they be paying? What increase or decrease will the people experience with regard to rents?
Why should this minister give builders 8 per cent mortgages and charge municipalities and provincial housing agencies 103/b per cent to build public housing? It is more consistent with his philosophy of "more bang for the buck" and it is more consistent with his philosophy of socialism for the rich, but it is very disheartening to think that municipalities and provincial housing agencies have to pay 10% per cent to borrow money from CMHC to build public housing, and the minister lends at 8 per cent to private builders under the limited dividend provisions.
The third solution which the effervescent minister has to offer in Bill C-46 is that of land leasing for non-profit housing. CMHC will acquire and lease land to non-profit and co-operative housing organizations, including service clubs, churches, Legion branches, trade unions, and so on. It is true that at present these organizations have to contend with high land costs. The minister has attempted to solve that problem by allowing 100 per cent financing at a lower market interest rate. He has granted 10 per cent of the capital cost and provided for a start-up fund of $10,000. Now he says that CMHC will acquire land and will lease it

to these organizations. If I read the minister's statement correctly, this appears to be an alternative to the addition of the 10 per cent capital grant. If one buys land and leases it to an organization, the minister says he will not receive that 10 per cent capital grant. It is an alternative. If this is so, he is certainly playing the great shell game-"Now you see it, now you don't." At one time you see the 10 per cent capital grant, but if you acquire land under a CMHC lease you do not get that 10 per cent capital grant. I hope I am misreading what the minister has said, and I will be very interested in the answers he gives in committee.
The minister has not said what percentage of housing in Canada constitutes non-profit housing. Let me whisper the figure to you, Mr. Speaker. It is .5 per cent; one-half of 1 per cent. Public housing constitutes 1.9 per cent, and private housing represents the difference of 97.5 per cent. If anything, the minister should commit himself to increasing the non-profit housing stock in Canada. To have it at one-half of 1 per cent is a disgrace to the country. He should devote all his time and energies to developing a policy for non-profit housing so that homes and rents would be available at reasonable cost.
The minister offers a fourth solution to the problem of housing in Canada. He offers sewage treatment assistance to offset excessive costs. This is a step in the right direction, but will the moneys that will be applied to sewage treatment assistance be taken away from housing programs, more especially the CMHC budget, or will they be added? If they are taken away, that is certainly not solving the housing problem. If they are added, that is a different matter and the minister should be given credit. The Seddon report in 1970 estimated an expenditure of $200 million for 11 years to reach a minimum water quality level. Since 1970 much less than $200 million has been spent toward attaining that goal. Why are connector sewers not included in the legislation? Storm and sanitary sewers are included, but although connector sewers are a very important part of home construction they are not included.
Mr. Speaker, those are the four solutions the minister has provided in Bill C-46 concerning the serious housing crisis in Canada. We in this party are disappointed with the performance of the minister and the government in this regard. I should like to give full credit to the last speaker for the excellent presentation she made today. I thought it was a very illuminating and persuasive speech, and we look forward to her incisive contribution in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I come back to the position of the New Democratic Party on housing, and give the minister some friendly and free advice on how to solve the problem. I wish the minister would adopt the philosophy that has been announced many times across the country, that Canadians are entitled to decent, clean housing, at reasonable cost, as a basic human right. That is the philosophy I have heard previous ministers espouse. This minister says "more bang for the buck", which in crude terms means more money to the builders, to the developers
January 27, 1975

and to the finance companies to persuade them to increase the stock of housing. To say that I am a little disappointed is to put it mildly, Mr. Speaker.
What we need is a massive land assembly program with money provided for the servicing of land. That is just the first step. I will give the minister five or six more points to keep him alert. We need a target for home building in the private sector, the public sector and the non-profit sector. I should like to hear the minister say, "We want the private sector to build 'X' number of homes, we want the public housing sector to build 'X' number of homes and we want the non-profit sector to build 'X' number of homes." If the Minister would like me to give him the figures, I would be glad to do so. We need targets in the different areas of this country to fill present needs and to take care of the shortfall in housing.
We need a major thrust in public housing. How pitiful it is that only 1.9 per cent of all housing stock in Canada is public housing. It is disgraceful. We need an injection of money, and subsidies for the people who need public housing. We should try to attain even the minimum level in the United States where 5 per cent of housing stock is public housing. In England, the Scandinavian countries and most European countries, at least 30 per cent of all housing stock is public housing. We need a major thrust to non-profit housing, with adequate subsidies for the people who are participating in it.
Mr. Speaker, may I speak openly, and at the same time privately, to the minister? I understand that toward the end of the month he is to meet with certain officials in an effort to determine what subsidies should be paid to the non-profit sector. I have received representations from people in Toronto involved in co-operative housing, and they want-and the minister knows this-subsidies comparable to those given by the province of Ontario. I shall be watching to see what the minister does in this regard.
As the leader of my party has said time and time again, next we need mortgages at a reasonable rate of interest. This party has suggested 6 per cent. However, we have pointed out that not only interest rates have to be considered, but also the investment portfolio. The minister should be able to say that he will have so many billions of dollars available for housing in 1975, and that he is going to get it from the financial institutions and the private sector. He should point out to them that they have a social responsibility to allocate a percentage of their investment portfolios to meeting social housing needs in Canada. We want a reasonable rate of interest established; we do not want the minister paying subsidies to financial institutions and private builders.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A corporate Santa Claus.


John Gilbert: We want the subsidies to apply to the ordinary folk in Canada, people on moderate and low incomes. I am surprised that members of the Liberal Party would permit the minister and CMHC to get away with this. If they read the bill, they will be as annoyed as we are. Mr. Speaker, the final thing the minister should do is to set up a Crown building corporation. Why not?


Some hon. Members:: Why not?
National Housing Act


John Gilbert: Why not? "Pourquoi pas", for my French friends. When I see the lousy quality of homes built by private builders, I say it is about time we had a Crown building corporation to lead the way with quality building. It could use the innovative techniques discovered by the National Research Council and others to provide the best housing at the lowest possible cost. I am sure my Conservative friends agree that we need the best housing at the lowest possible cost. That is why we look with shame on Bill C-46. We hope the minister and CMHC officials will consider it again, and will also consider providing subsidies to moderate and low income people instead of to financial institutions and private builders in this country. Let us not have a "Fiddler on the Roof"; let us have a minister who is concerned about the housing needs of Canadians and acts accordingly.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much to be said about this bill after what has been said by the eloquent spokesman for my party, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). However, I want to make a few comments on Bill C-46.
I am delighted to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) present in the chamber, as we have pressed for assistance with the veterans housing program which is to be phased out on March 31 next. We were told that the new housing bill would more than adequately provide for veterans' needs. Nevertheless, I see nothing in the bill which will help veterans. I still feel that our veterans are entitled to adequate housing and all should be entitled to qualify. I hope something will come of our representations, although nothing has been done so far.
I commend the minister for the improvements in the bill. The $500 grant for first-time buyers of houses is not enough. I feel this provision should be enlarged to include existing homes as well as new homes. I know the minister thinks that the existing provision will encourage the building of new homes. Let me point out that if existing houses can be sold, this in itself would generate greater construction of new houses. By including existing homes, the measure would affect those who need assistance most-low income people known as the working poor.
The minister should also consider helping certain other people who now live in homes; for example, wives who are separated from their husbands. I received a letter from a distraught mother of two or three children whose husband had left her. She hoped to qualify for a house under AHOP. She applied in July, thinking her application would be approved, but received a letter from the minister's executive assistant today, I believe, stating that her application had not been approved. She is out of luck. She continues to pay $140 per month rent for a house which she could buy under AHOP for $47 or $57 a month including principal and interest. I hope this woman will become eligible and that assistance will be back-dated to July, although this legislation was not in effect then restricting AHOP to new housing.
The minister is to be commended for providing up to $600 a year in assistance for lowering interest payments of

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
those Canadians who qualify. Even so, many Canadians who are forced to buy houses must make staggering monthly payments. I myself was fortunate enough to build a home, with the help of Central Mortgage and Housing, at a time when interest charges could not be changed every five years. I still pay 6 per cent interest and am doing my best to keep up the payments so that I will continue to own my home.
This bill will provide assistance for the installation of sewerage treatment plants. This program will help that part of our country closest to my heart, rural Canada. When my colleagues talk about housing, I think of the distinguished and young president of CMHC whom I have had the privilege of meeting two or three times and of seeing in the gallery. I stress that rural Canada is every bit as important as the concrete jungle. I hope the corporation will continue to provide money for people who live in rural Canada and who may not be as affluent as their counterparts in the cities. I thought I would put a plug in for them, Mr. Speaker. It has been said that 75 per cent of our people live in the cities, in the great, sprawling urban centres-call them what you will. The 25 per cent who live in the other part of the country are finding it tough to get along and special assistance should be considered for them.
Hon. members may be aware that I participated for many years in a different form of government from the one in which we are now engaged, that is, in municipal government. For 30 years I was involved with the corporation of a small town. I still have a soft spot in my heart for municipal councils and I know their difficulties in collecting taxes which are necessary for the provision of services.
This brings to mind a suggestion which I made some years ago to the Ontario Association of Mayors and Reeves, a suggestion which has recently come to the federal government's attention. It is this: consideration should be given not only to those who are looking for houses but also to those who own their houses and are doing their best to hang on to them by carrying out renovations and paying municipal taxes. I have said before, and I say again, taxing a tax is unfair. If a person pays municipal tax, why in heaven's name should he also pay income tax on what he pays? This flies in the face of common sense. Apparently there is some reason for it. I am quite sure that some well-to-do people inside and outside this House pay municipal taxes ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 a year. But there are many people, including myself, who live in modest houses and pay taxes of $400 or $500 a year. If the government put a ceiling of $500, say, on the municipal tax which could be set against income tax, it would greatly help those who are paying income tax and cannot afford to pay too much by way of total taxes. Such a measure would bring relief to them and I think parliament should consider it.
As suggested in previous speeches in this House, I think we should allow for some mortgage interest to be deductible from tax. This would help those who want to buy a home, and would enable them to hang on to it. You hear of people buying homes and paying carrying charges ranging from $400 to $500 a month. That is just staggering and is absolutely ridiculous. I myself pay $98 a month on my mortgage. Originally, I believe my mortgage was for

$13,000-and now you can't buy much more than a double garage for that amount of money.
Something should be done to help the people in rural areas. The previous minister spoke in glowing terms of special housing for rural Canada and the native people. I would like to know what amount of money has been channelled into that area. Another important matter relates to the building restrictions in rural areas. It is impossible to get the approval of CMHC. They will not approve the lending of money unless there is a sewerage system. In a great many parts of Canada septic tanks are very adequate and I see no reason why there is not a special incentive to allow them.
I ask the minister to discuss this matter with the officials of CMHC to see whether something can be done to provide housing in rural areas. In these areas land is much cheaper. People in the Toronto area do not bat an eyelid when offered $20,000 for a lot you could probably jump across. However, lots are available in the rural parts of Canada. I speak with some authority about my constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka. In all fairness, a lot of the difficulty in getting houses built is not because of this minister; it is because of Queen's Park and other provincial governments. I am prepared to concede that.
The system should be speeded up to make lots available in small towns. I have stated on many occasions that a great many retired people live in cities such as Toronto and Montreal. Everything is fine when they are drawing big salaries, but when they are on pension it is difficult to live in these high tax areas. In a great many cases these people would welcome the opportunity of moving to an area where the climate is reasonable, where the way of life is not as fast and they can live a tranquil life. They will probably be happier and live a lot longer. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) agrees with me. I can think of a great many people in metropolitan Montreal who would be glad to shake the dust of that city from their feet and move to a rural area.
I concede that there should be more public housing. However, I say to the hon. member for Broadview that many municipalities have public housing programs. In my particular area the provincial government will provide assistance if asked; however, many municipal councils will not ask for it. I can think of a specific council in my area which says it does not want public housing; it will build its own homes. I think of a municipal official who is a contractor. I took a pretty dim view of his attitude in that case. A great many municipalities should be approaching Ontario Housing Corporation and CMHC. This would raise the percentage of public housing a great deal. I agree with the hon. member that we must provide a great deal more housing for the working poor, people on fixed incomes and pensioners. If we get some of these homes that are available, high cost homes in the cities will become available for people with growing families.
I commend you, Mr. Minister, for what you have done. I hope that you and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will not forget the veterans whose program is being phased out on March 31. They have had the biscuit. I was under the impression that something would be forthcoming; how-
January 27, 1975

ever, on checking with some members of my party I find there is nothing. I hope that during this session the act will be amended or in some other way consideration will be given to our veterans with regard to housing. Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to these people. I do not care when they want to build their houses; as long as they are alive, they should be entitled to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I remind hon. members that it is the practice to address a minister through the Chair. I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member. However, according to Beauchesne, the minister must be addressed through the Chair.


Stan Darling: My apologies, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-46 is another example of the band-aid legislation which has become this government's standard attempt to solve serious national problems. I can give examples of this. In the face of runaway inflation, the government has offered increased personal exemptions for income tax. At the same time, it has not done anything to curb immigration which adds to inflation in housing. It has not done anything to curb government expenditure which adds to inflation in all areas.
The government continued to increase the money supply, thereby ensuring a continuing spiral of inflation. Now we are faced with serious housing shortages across the nation from rental vacancy rates of near zero or even below zero. There was an example of a vacancy rate below zero in my constituency recently. There was a fire in a limited dividend project sponsored by this government. When the count was made after the fire, it was discovered that in the 23 suites affected there were over 30 families. Translated into an occupancy rate, that works out to a below zero rate of occupancy. I am getting away from the topic of vacancy rates which are near zero and soaring purchase prices of owned housing, whether of the single, detached variety or in the high-rise condominium towers. The government still refuses to take a fresh look at the basic causes of the housing problems facing this nation.
The government is offering the Assisted Home Ownership Program to home buyers but attaches such limits to it that only seven approvals were granted in Vancouver in September, 1974, and absolutely none in Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie, Edmonton and Victoria. The government's artificial ceilings placed on prices had little relationship to actual market prices. The government's latest effort is a $500 grant or gift of federal funds, but it will only be given to someone who has never owned a home and is buying a new house. He must move in during the 12 months ending October 31 next and the cost must not exceed certain limits established by the government's Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is so restrictive that to most needy people it will be a sad joke. That is the problem with this government; it designs programs so that the needy people, those it says it wants to help, cannot afford to take advantage of the programs.
The government says it wants to help Canadians buy houses. However, no aid is offered to the senior citizen who owns his or her house and just wants to stay there in the evening of life. The government offers no aid to these
National Housing Act
people. In fact, government policies make it more difficult for them to remain in their homes. But the government is seen to be helping people to acquire homes.
I have mentioned the basic problem in speeches before today, namely, government interference in the housing industry. I have cited examples of high-cost government housing, the need for money in lieu of shelter so that the individual or family can be free to choose their home. I quote from an editorial which appeared last September in the Vancouver Province:
-our housing difficulties, particularly in the rental field, compose a classic case of problem creation by government.
It continued:
We did not begin to experience real rental shortages in this country until the federal government removed the tax incentives that channelled a lot of private money into rental accommodation.
Today I have some new and not altogether expected support for my case. I refer to the November-December issue of "The Raised Roof", the official newsletter of the Canadian Organization of Public Housing Tenants. The first page is headlined, "The problem is not really housing". The lead editorial, which talks about themselves, contains the following statement;
The group has tried to show members of government, housing corporations and authorities that the problem in housing is not really housing, but the entire economic question, of which housing is merely one part.
I hardly think it is possible to put the problem in a more succinct way. I have often maintained that the needy should be given a housing allowance to do with as they wish. Not everyone wants to live in the same standard. Not everyone wants to live where the government says it should, that is, where the government puts its so-called public housing. In British Columbia, the department of housing issued a bulletin at the end of last year. Housing Minister Nicolson had this to say:
The department observed its first anniversary last Friday, November 15, and I can proudly say I am excited by the results it had accomplished in such a short period.
The bulletin indicated that the department had assisted in the creation of 2,259 units of social housing, 314 rental units, 163 senior citizens' rental units and a number of other types of housing. Nearly 15,000 units were under construction or in the planning stages. I should think this would be good news to those hon. members who sit to my left, but I happen to know a little about the British Columbia housing situation and I can state that tenants were dissatisfied when the government fixed rentals for 1975 at 10.6 per cent higher than 1974 rentals. Curiously enough, government-operated rental properties were exempted from this provision. Within the past few weeks the B.C. government has announced increases of 25 per cent in the rents of all its own rental units for 1975 and has promised further increases for 1976. It blames high operating costs for these increases.
I have long maintained that private enterprise can provide housing at lower cost than can the government. This brings up the whole topic of government operations as opposed to private operations, one which raises issues larger than can be dealt with in the course of the present debate. However, I can find support for the argument I am

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
presenting in statements by Mr. Robert Campeau, a noted developer in Ottawa for 25 years.


An hon. Member:: And Bill Teron.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Well, that other gentleman has a different position now. Mr. Campeau says that private enterprise should be given the responsibility for providing homes for Canadians. He recognizes that this is, indeed, a responsibility.
You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I am giving so much attention to rental housing. Most tenants would, I am sure, love to be home owners but the government does not help them to become so. In some areas, Montreal for example, 80 per cent of the population lives in rental housing. The province of Quebec introduced rent control in 1973 in an attempt to satisfy those Quebeckers who were tenants- some two-thirds of the population. However, even the tenants themselves reached the conclusion, ultimately, that rent control was a dismal failure.
The Quebec justice minister, Mr. Choquette, said recently, as reported in the press, that the people of Quebec faced either higher rents or the possibility of a housing crisis within a few years. Housing construction declined in 1974, he stated, and the presence of the rental control board encouraged developers to look elsewhere. We shall encounter this type of situation increasingly as the government steps in and interferes with the normal process of supply and demand, whether in the field of housing or in some other area. Such interference gums up the works and in the end it is the tenant, the purchaser or, inevitably, the taxpayer who pays.
I can show that the actions of the government, and even those of CMHC, have made things more difficult for home owners and would-be owners. Inflationary policies pursued by the government have brought about higher interest rates. Look at interest rates in 1936. The government was able to sell 3 per cent perpetual bonds. In times of inflation like the present, an investor cannot lend out his money at less than the inflation rate, which is around 10 per cent, plus a return on his investment. A few months ago the chairman of the Bank of Montreal said savings would have to yield 17 per cent per annum before the average taxpayer could get ahead of inflation which is running at an annual rate of 10 per cent.
Governments speak of profits made by speculators in housing and say land banks are necessary. Well, speculators will not make profits if there is no demand. The increased value of land only reflects the demand. For example, in Ottawa today houses are selling for less than they did last spring. Demand has fallen because of high interest costs, lack of mortgage funds and other reasons. What did the government decide to do? It decided to add to the existing demand for land a further component, that of government bidding. The federal agency would have to outbid all other potential buyers. In case anyone should think this is only a theoretical argument, I should like to read a clipping from an Ottawa newspaper of last November in which the opposition in the Ontario legislature is reported as attacking the government of Ontario on the ground that the Ontario Housing Commission was paying inflated prices for land and had been a major contributor to the high cost of suitable sites. One opposition member

of the legislature said it was a clear case of the province throwing away the taxpayers' money. Cases of this kind are bound to arise when the situation I have described is allowed to occur.
I can give further instances of actions by government which have the effect of increasing the cost of housing. Twenty years ago I built and moved into my first home. There was a gravel road in front of it, storm ditches, a septic tank and few other amenities. As time went by, CMHC decided that people should not be allowed to live in places which they themselves found to be satisfactory but, rather, that they whould be obliged to live in situations prescribed for them by the corporation. For example, all subdivisions were required to have pavements, curbs, street lights, underground wiring and storm and sanitary sewers before becoming eligible for loans.
I have already explained the way in which these costs are passed on to home buyers. But let me read, now, what Ottawa's Mr. Campeau wrote a year and a half ago while working to achieve a breakthrough in house construction costs. Discussing ways by which costs could be reduced, he had this to say:
First, services should be installed by the city and not by the developer who passes the cost on to the buyer. The municipality could borrow the money 2 to 2 'A per cent cheaper than the buyer gets when he takes out a mortgage.
The cost of servicing a typical lot is about $4,000. On a 10 per cent mortgage a buyer is borrowing $3,600 to pay for servicing his lot.
What he means is a 10 per cent down payment and a 90 per cent mortgage.
Two per cent interest on this money can mount up during a 40 year mortgage.
He went on to say that municipalities would take the initiative and service suitable land, it would reduce the scarcity of building lots and hold down land prices. He gave as an example the city of Montreal, where lots are a lot less expensive than here in Ottawa. A second move suggested by Mr. Campeau was a reduction in the number of agencies which must approve subdivision and other plans. He claimed that there were about 90 agencies and that it took about three years to get approval of a plan from all of these agencies.
This brings me to another factor in the high cost of housing, Madam Speaker. One of the often unseen causes of increase is the increase in government costs as a result of the bureaucracy which is required to run these various programs. Every department and every program has its own bureaucracy. Latest figures indicate that the total number of federal government employees is 443,000 as at December 31, 1973. That is over a year ago, and heaven only knows what the number is now. However, the percentage is probably the same and amounts to 4.6 per cent of the total labour force; the percentage has remained the same since 1968.
Those employed in these bureaucracies feel that they are doing a good job and that their employment is justified, though sometimes they wonder whether the job they are doing is absolutely necessary or even desirable from the country's point of view and from the point of view of the taxpayer. However, recently an official from one of
January 27, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	2633
these bureaucracies said before the public accounts committee that he felt an expenditure of $6 million a year to administer the Local Initiatives Program with an expenditure of approximately $90 million was an acceptable figure. Unfortunately, to the bureaucrats in Ottawa millions of dollars seem to lose their meaning or their value. To me, that a $90 million program requires a $6 million expenditure on administration is quite appalling. Percentagewise, it is something over 7 per cent, I think.
I should like to give another example of added costs attributable to Central Mortgage and Housing. This is the corporation that purports to help the people who need housing in Canada. Just last week the Vancouver Sun reported that Daon Development Limited had halted construction of a $14 million apartment complex in Burnaby- Burnaby is the municipality immediately east of Vancouver-until new Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations are clarified. According to the report, which I have before me, a spokesman said that yes, work had been stopped on Monday and that about 45 workmen had been laid off. The company has spent about $4 million on the project which will contain 381 suites. He said the problem concerns new CMHC regulations to be made public shortly and which likely will have an impact on the design of the project. To quote him, he said:
The project is at a stage now in which changes can be made if it is desirable to do so.
The fact that government regulations can hold up projects like this, throw men out of work and delay planned moves into such projects for goodness knows how long is ample evidence of the detrimental effect government intervention can have in this area. Obviously, the project was approved before it was commenced, and to change the rules in midstream and bring the project to a standstill certainly is reprehensible.
I am reminded of the recent definition, which I think came from the Globe and Mail-it was credited to that paper, anyway-of "capital punishment" which I think is somewhat applicable to the housing debate. The definition is as follows:
Capital punishment is when the government taxes you to get capital so that it can go into competition with you, and then taxes the profits on your business in order to pay its losses.
If you apply that definition to housing, I am certain the truth of it will be brought home to whomever wishes to look at it.
Last year the British Columbia Rental Housing Council in Vancouver, representing 1,600 owners of 100,000 rental units, wrote to the Premier of British Columbia and urged his government to help senior citizens and other tenants on fixed incomes. They were not asking for help for themselves, but for Canadians who need help to pay rent or otherwise afford housing costs. According to the B.C. Rental Housing Council, the establishment in 1973 of the provincial capital tax on corporate apartment owners was an unnecessary additional load upon tenants. We sometimes wonder where governments think that additional levies come from if they do not come from the individual taxpayer ultimately way down the line. The British Columbia government order regarding the split in heating oil prices keeps prices down to home owners but throws the extra cost on to all tenants. Of course, the govern-
National Housing Act
ment's thinking was that it would reimburse itself through the landlords, but we know where the landlords get their money-from the tenants.
The owners commented on the massive government housing projects in the United States, where 40 per cent of the projects are having financial difficulty and many are insolvent. In a September, 1974, article, the Vancouver Sun reported that United States public housing has been a disaster; there has been mismanagement, it has been fraught with controls, red tape and other bureaucratic devices.
In their letter to the premier, the owners commented that big public housing projects to offset the shortage are not the answer. In St. Louis, Missouri, a state-federal complex of 33 post-war buildings, eventually housing 10,000 welfare tenants and 2,000 others, was to be an example to the world of enlightened public housing, slum rehabilitation and non-discrimination. But the lowest income levels and those with the most social problems gradually drove out the others. Further deterioration, slum conditions and poor management grew out of control. Today the entire project is boarded up and slated for demolition, but the state cannot find the $500,000 needed to pay for the dynamite.
One might say that never in Canada can that happen, but let me refer hon. members to the Globe and Mail which just one month ago reported as follows:
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials have "high hopes" that the federal government's newest subsidy plan to ease Canada's housing crisis will attract developers back to its moribund limited dividend apartment construction program.
The program provides funds at special low interest rates in return for written agreements putting a ceiling on rents for 15 years. Most builders abandoned the program because inflationary cost increases have wiped out the small profit margin allowed. The article continues:
At the same time, an increasing number of developers, tied to existing 15-year rental agreements, have simply abandoned their apartment buildings, leaving them to be repossessed, improved and administered by CMHC. The alternative would be to operate the apartment buildings at a loss.
This situation exists in Canada and is not restricted to some places in the deep, dark United States. The Globe and Mail article continued in another vein referring to the flight of investors from rental housing, and suggested that "the investment flight began when Ottawa removed a provision allowing investors to write off capital cost allowances against other income." Apparently the effect of that was serious enough that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) saw fit to reintroduce, on a limited basis, that allowable write-off.
All these problems in the housing field can be related to a shortage of money in the hands of certain Canadians and, of course, a constantly eroding value of the dollar which is being ignored by the main benefactor of inflation, the government. Just last November, Britain told a NATO meeting that the very fabric of western democracy and the prized possessions of freedom and security were at risk if the evils of recession and inflation were not controlled. Again I would urge hon. members to realize that this is not something restricted to Britain or Canada. We have a

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
similar situation in the United States right now, and the warning of the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Greenspan, who said last November:
The federal government is responsible for much of the country's inflation .. . We must lower the rate of growth of unit money supply if we are going to return our economy to a more viable non-inflationary environment.
In talking about borrowing, he said:
-major source of pressure on the nation's money supply and price levels has been an acceleration of federal and federally sponsored borrowing.
Finally, he urged the government to reduce its borrowing so that more private savings could flow into productive investment in private sectors. Let me say just a word or two about what the minister himself said. He is credited with saying that the intent of his bill is aimed at increasing the supply and holding down the cost of housing in the low and medium-price range both for home ownership and for rental. He says that if we are really going to meet the demand, we must draw much more heavily on private capital. Of course, the minister cannot draw on that private capital by himself but needs the co-operation of his government. The government, in the past two successive budgets, has indicated it is not able or willing to control the economic situation in Canada so that private capital will be attracted to those areas to which certain government ministers wish it attracted.
It is interesting that at a conference sponsored by the International Real Estate Federation a year and a half ago, the representatives of all countries in attendance were unanimous in condemning control on rents except in exceptional circumstances. They suggested that rent controls created certain circumstances, the most important to me being an infringement of the right of property, preventing a person who has saved and invested in a building from attaining from that investment the just fruits of his labour. I think that is a very deep statement and certainly touches on the freedoms of every Canadian for the reason that if one so orders his affairs that he takes care of himself in his declining years, he is prevented from doing so by the actions of his government.
On the matter of financing for sewage treatment plants referred to by the minister, it is easy to agree that we should have these, but again the government's direction is wrong. These funds should be directed, without the attachment of those strings which are attached in the present direction of the act, to the local governments. Under Bill C-46 there are such complicating regulations set out one would really have difficulty following the trail of requirements, and the task of getting through the maze of bureaucratic decisions with so many levels of government involved will be extremely difficult.
Finally, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on this side of the House, perhaps with the exception of those of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). We agree part way down the line, but certainly we do not begin or end at the same spot. The moves the minister has proposed will help those that they touch, but I maintain as loudly as I can that this will still leave Canada's poor right where they are, out in the cold.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Transport-Use of transportation as weapon to achieve economic development-Possible effect on DREE program; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Proposed committee study of CIDA operations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Danson) that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will have the pleasure of saying when it is five o'clock. Madam Speaker, I just want to state that I sat here in utter disappointment listening to the opening speech of the minister responsible for housing, believing that as a member of the class of '68 he would have more innovation and more awareness of our problems and would bring before this House what the people of Canada need, namely, something meaningful, rather than this poor excuse, Bill C-46. I thought he would bring forward a major solution to the serious housing crisis which faces this country today.
May I now call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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, notices of motions and public bills.

January 27, 1975


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[English]	,

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act to provide incentives to young farmers to enter or to continue in the farm industry and, to this end, should consider providing such incentives as partial nonrepayment of loans where young farmers meet performance standards, a maximum 5% interest rate, deferred interest payments during an initial period, and open-end loans that will allow additional borrowing without refinancing charges.
He said: Madam Speaker, this afternoon in the brief time allotted me I should like to give the reasons why I feel the four proposals included in my motion should be included in the proposed amendments to the Farm Credit Act. This would dearly help the young farmer today who is faced with many problems in getting established in agriculture; it would help that young farmer to find his way through the difficulties of financing a farming operation. I realize that a government bill has been proposed to amend the Farm Credit Act, but the proposals I make are not covered by its amendments. I intend to bring these proposals again to the attention of the government when its proposed amendments are before the House for debate.
Agriculture is the cornerstone of our whole economic structure. Rural Canada has always played, and continues to play an extremely vital part in the Canadian economy. We must be sure that effective policies are developed to enable farmers to enjoy the same standards of living that other people in other businesses enjoy.
One policy would be to ensure that young people are provided with the incentives that would enable them to enter agriculture without the prospect of having to spend a lifetime encumbered with the financial burden of loans. At the present time we find that very little incentive is available to young farmers. We see no parallels between the incentives offered to individuals involved in industry and labour and those involved in farming. LIP offers incentives to labour, to provide new jobs, and OFY programs are involved in allowing young people to obtain jobs. We can mention DREE programs aiding industry to move into certain areas.
Really we are living in an age of incentives. All people, save those engaged in farming, share in these incentives. Surely the Canadian farmers deserve the same consideration that is being bestowed upon the other segments of our society. There should be incentives offered to young people to remain on the farm or to become actively engaged in farming.
There is some evidence that the number of young people borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation is increasing, and this is encouraging. However, serious difficulties are being faced by many young people who want to get started in farming. The most serious is the problem of producing an income from the farm to pay the interest charges on the large proportion of the capital investment
Farm Credit Act
that is necessary to make a start in farming today, to pay the costs of operation and other costs and to leave sufficient funds to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Young people in agriculture become so burdened with debts that they cannot equal the standard of living which many of their friends involved in industry, or in other forms of employment, enjoy.
There is a constant concern over the ever increasing cost of input. Federal agricultural officials have warned farmers to expect reduced profits in 1975. They are predicting that a large increase in farm operating expenses will offset the slight rise in revenues in the coming year. In 1974 gross farm income climbed nearly 26 per cent. When the $1 billion in increased operating costs is considered, net farm income increased only marginally. Beef and hog producers must cope with high feed grain prices and uncertain markets. Grain producers face escalating prices for sprays and fertilizers. The cost of producing forage crops is soaring as well.
The initial financial outlay for land and equipment has a discouraging effect on the new farmer. Land and building prices are constantly escalating, as well as labour costs, supplies and services. In 1973 the total farm input price index rose to 166.1 on a national basis from the 1972 level of 143.3. This represents the greatest annual increase ever experienced in farm input costs. I am certain that in the statistics for 1974 we will see a greater increase. However, the Canadian average farm input price index is somewhat deceiving. The value of our top agricultural land which produces most of our cereal, vegetable and fruit crops, has increased considerably more rapidly than that of submarginal land. This submarginal land is mostly used for forage and the production of livestock. Inflated land prices render it extremely difficult for a young farmer to commence operations.
There seem to be two main factors contributing to increased land values. There is a substantial demand for additional land by those individuals who are already involved in agriculture. These people are well established farmers or agricultural corporations; they can spread the cost of farming additional land over all the other land which they already own, and therefore thay can afford to pay the higher prices.
The other factor is the cost of land that is in close proximity to urban areas. Many individuals who purchase this land just wish to live in the country, or perhaps to retire in the country away from city life. These purchasers who buy this farm land as a security against inflation, or as a security in old age, simply raise the price of land. As a result, the real estate value of this land is above the young farmer's ability to purchase it. It is sad, because in many cases this land is near our cities. It is also sad that our cities and towns seem to be expanding on the best agricultural land in the country.
When the cost of land increases, the interest rate which is charged makes the purchase price exorbitant. In my own riding of Wetaskiwin, much of which lies within a 30 or 40 mile radius of Edmonton, we have a perfect example of inflated land prices. Only large corporations and well established farmers can afford to purchase the rich soil that lies in this area.

January 27, 1975
Farm Credit Act
Canada is one of the few countries in the world with the potential to produce more food. We should be developing this potential to its maximum. Everyone is aware of the growing international concern over the world food crisis, a concern which manifested itself in the recent Rome conference. The food crisis is a reality, and will continue to be so, given the over-population of the world and the decrease of agricultural land because of urbanization and people living on farm land.
We in Canada should be greatly concerned about having professional men involved in the production of food, people who will take advantage of the research that our Department of Agriculture is conducting. We all realize that in this country society works on incentives, and young people should be offered encouragement to enter agriculture and to maintain a certain level of expertise. I think that the government should consider the possibility of relaxing the repayment of loans where young farmers meet certain performance standards. Such standards could be established by the Department of Agriculture, and perhaps it could consider such factors as yield increase from time of purchase, or an efficiency increase in maintaining a yield over a certain period of years from time of purchase.
We have much agricultural expertise across the nation. All provinces hire professional people as district agriculturalists or as regional specialists. We in government should encourage the use of these professionals in order to help the young farmers to whom we are lending money. The guidance of professionals, coupled with the relaxing of loans, if farmers follow instructions, should be considered and perhaps provided for in the Farm Credit Act.
Another incentive that should be considered in assisting young farmers to develop a viable, efficient and economic farm enterprise is the policy of deferring interest payments during the initial period of the loan. If a young man wants to begin farming he is faced with the prospect of literally sinking himself into debt, debt that in all likelihood he will not be able to pay for the next 20, 30 or more years. Often the only way in which a farmer has been able to build up a viable enterprise has been by incurring debts and depriving himself and his family of many of the things that should be rightfully theirs in reward for their hard labour. In some cases by retirement age a farmer's position is not that bad if he has managed to survive the hard work over the years, but he has only attained this standard of living after he has reached retirement age.
We should institute a policy whereby the interest payments are deferred in the initial loan period. I feel we are justified in introducing some form of special credit facility for young farmers who want to become involved in this business. By deferring repayment of interest, the farmer could begin immediately to pay back the principal. Hence by the time interest payments were due, he would be paying reduced interest on his reduced capital. Certainly he would have to pay back the deferred interest but, in the long run, he would be much better off.
Let us take an example of a farmer who borrows $100,000. If his interest payments of, say 10 per cent were deferred over the first three years he would be able to

make repayments on the principal and perhaps get it down in three years to $60,000. This interest would have to be paid, but in the meantime he would have saved perhaps over $3,000 in interest payments because his capital would have been reduced substantially. What greater incentive could he have than if he could envisage being able to pay back a certain percentage of the principal, without interest.
The policy of deferred interest payments would be extremely beneficial when a young man initially contemplates entering farming and gauges the initial outlay he must make for equipment, services, etc. It is conceivable, however, that he may overlook something, and if we were able to defer interest he would be able to find the capital to meet that item.
The other thing that is a problem, is inflation. No farmer can predict costs next year or the year following. The toughest years are the first years, and I am sure a policy such as this would be most beneficial.
A farmer is as great a gambler as those people who go to Las Vegas. He is battling nature, and nature in unpredictable. Of course the farmer depends to a large extent on the elements for increased production from year to year. Many cases have been documented by the farm insurance programs where farmers have been hailed out year after year, or there have been periods of drought or excessive rainfall, rendering planting impossible. Any of these adversities can bankrupt a young farmer, but if his interest payments were deferred it would be easier for him to meet a minimal interest payment for one year, and grow more in the next year to meet the interest payment that was deferred.
Another policy that I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would look at is the establishment of maximum interest rates. Perhaps the rate that I suggested of 5 per cent is unrealistic in today's economy, but if the ceiling could be set at 6 per cent or 7 per cent for the period of a loan it would be helpful, and perhaps the young farmer could also take advantage of any lowering in the rates in that period. He would be able to plan ahead, knowing the amounts he would have to pay. At the present time interest rates fluctuate with the prime rate of the Bank of Canada.
The last amendment I would propose is an open end loan. Open end loans allowing additional borrowing without refinancing charges would be of great benefit to young farmers. For instance, if a farmer could convince his Farm Credit Corporation of the merit of increasing his acreage, a further loan could be negotiated within the original loan transaction. In other words, the original loan would simply be increased without all the red tape, legal fees and disbursements involved in a new loan transaction. Such a policy would result in a significant saving to the farmer. He could use that saving to upgrade agricultural production, particularly production on his newly acquired land or perhaps to pay for his newly acquired equipment.
The government should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act to provide the afore-mentioned incentives to young farmers to enable them to enter or continue in the farm industry. Young farmers must be encouraged to remain on the farm and to expand their operations. We must remember that they comprise one of the best consumer groups that we have in Canada. They
January 27, 1975

purchase machinery, food and clothing for their families, and commodities for their farms, and they increase the demand for consumer goods. In turn more jobs are created in the industrial urban centres.
One has only to read a newspaper or listen to the radio to realize that social difficulties are rapidly increasing in towns and cities. Crime, unemployment, poverty and pollution are heightening in our metropolitan areas. We must reduce the flow of people from rural parts of the country to urban areas until we can develop effective methods of coping with the concentration of population in urban centres.
There is something very fundamental, human, decent and economic about a viable rural community. We must encourage young people who wish to remain in rural areas to do so, by offering them proper incentives-perhaps some of those I have talked about today. We must not promote the present trend toward mass rural exodus and increasing urbanization, but must offer solutions to the would-be farmer and to the present farmer who may well be forced to leave his land and move to the city because his financial obligation is too high for him to meet.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) on introducing such an important motion. As a matter of fact, he urges the government to amend very significantly the Farm Credit Act, so as to encourage farmers' children and other young people who are now living in cities and who are fond of farming to take up farming and ensure the survival of this important industry which is facing very serious problems, at least in my province.
It is a fact that farming has always known hard times. It is an industry which requires extensive knowledge and investments and where markets and incomes are not always reliable. Because of the whims of trade, farmers sometimes obtain reasonable prices for their products, but at other times they do not.
Recently, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture reported on the agricultural situation in the province of Quebec. It is not all that wonderful; In his report, the minister deplores the fact that while consumer prices have increased 18 per cent in 1974, the farmers' income had declined by 15 to 20 per cent.
In reading this report, one understands better the grounds for demonstrations that occurred in the fall of 1974, when farmers who wanted to show the seriousness of the situation wantonly destroyed good many animals in various areas of the province of Quebec. They wanted to make governments aware of their predicament and on the other hand to make consumers feel that farmers did not receive adequate returns for their products and that the industry was on the brink.
The government of Quebec has taken action and introduced certain measures to ensure farmers that they will survive a few months. However, that policy cannot ensure stability in agriculture nor can it help young people start up a career in agriculture where they could have possibilities and chances of succeeding. It is up to the federal government, for its part, to do its share and to modify the
Farm Credit Act
Farm Credit Act and grant loans on very reasonable terms.
Madam Speaker, I am very willing to support the motions put forth by the previous speaker suggesting certain amendments that would likely help the young people in their undertaking during the first years of operation. But they must also be assured steady income. Currently, the beef market is quite disheartening. Farmers rear purebred animals and are forced to sacrifice young calves at absolutely ridiculous prices. They do not even recover what artificial insemination cost them to get this offspring. Such is the present situation.
So Parliament has a very great responsibility in the area of agriculture and we must ease the task of those courageous people who in spite of difficulties still keep on doing their work in that field.
I worked for a good many years in agriculture. I am on good grounds. I have no exclusivity of knowledge, but I raised a family on a farm and I have experienced periods of progress, development and also depression. I could then realize how courageous and optimistic one has to be to keep on nevertheless. I am still optimistic today. I suggest to young people that there still is a future in agriculture, because I really think that population and governments are sensitive enough to take positive and quick steps in order to make sure that it will be possible for youth to live off agriculture and that those already established can keep on farming.
Madam Speaker, surely the government can do something in that area. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced improvements to the dairy policy. I had the opportunity, at lunch time, in the parliamentary restaurant, to talk with the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I thanked him on behalf of the farmers of my constituency for the improvement made in that area, and I took the liberty to ask him whether it would be possible to do something for cattle breeders who are going through many difficulties.
At the present time, courses are given in farming, training or retraining courses to allow those already on the farm to acquire new knowledge, to upgrade their education for better bookkeeping.
There is another important factor in agriculture. One cannot farm blindly. We have seen what happens in this regard during the debates of the special committee on egg marketing in October, November and December.
I therefore submit to the attention of the authorities this very special case, in order to convince the farmers, the producers, that there is still hope that the provinces and the federal government will do their part. Thus, we can still hope for the survival of this important Canadian industry, agriculture.
Madam Speaker, I also say to the young that while banking on the assistance of the governments, one must always do one's share. First of all, one must be convinced that work remains and will always remain an important element of success. I know days are very long on the farm, that holidays are also very few. There would be danger in changing that because it is not easy to entrust the care of

January 27, 1975
Farm Credit Act
one's herds to just anyone, to people without experience. It will become increasingly difficult to find experienced people because the young, having witnessed the difficulties of their elders, those who spent years on the farm, are reluctant to go into farming.
We have been in a position to realize-the committee members at the very least-how difficult and important accountancy is in that field. In comparing data and production costs with producers' income at the time, we were not surprised to see that many producers were suffering quite heavy losses and that there was a possibility that, sinking deeper into debt and being unable to make both ends meet, some producers would simply have to give up production.
This would be painful for consumers because if it is true that some economists have always maintained that prices were determined by supply and demand, if at a given time supply falls far short of demand, prices are going to increase but this will not insure more production and people will have to pay more.
We are living in a society quite well organized in many ways. Marketing is the sole defect in our economic organization. A few years ago we passed a legislation over which much ink has been spilt in Canada, namely Bill C-176. I for one entertained great hopes over it as I thought it would enable producers to organize themselves for marketing.
Of course, we had an experience that did not give the expected results and that seems to discourage the other producers in other sectors of the agriculture industry. But I would also like to say that we must not throw in the towel. The fight must go on. If there are changes to be made to that legislation, as I am convinced there are, amendments must be brought in. The necessary representations must be made to the government in due course so it will take its responsibilities, especially in the area of imports and exports.
We witnessed that the main problem that egg producers encountered was massive imports. That led to the destruction of eggs as reported by the press and also to the inquiry we have which hopefully will give results if the recommendations that were made are implemented.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I support wholeheartedly the motion and I urge the Minister of Agriculture (M. Whelan) to ask his advisors, those who are responsible for drafting legislation and amendments, to consider very seriously the motion which covers only some ten lines but which is very substantive in truly grappling with the real problem because it deals with interest rates.
It asks that interest rates for young farmers be lowered as much as possible because, in agriculture as in other areas, high interest rates are a cancer for this country in any industry. How can people be expected to be able to commit themselves for years to come with interest rates of 8, 10, 12 and 14 percent, particularly when they must borrow from the private sector to get organized and purchase farm machinery when the ceiling set by legislation does not allow them to go any further?

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask most emphatically the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues to change the legislation at the earliest so our young who still feel strongly about and want to go into farming can do so with a chance of success.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise, this afternoon, on this motion.
I might remind the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) that in his remarks he mentioned several points. We know how the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) cares about this industry in general. I think that the remarks just made by the hon. member for Bellechasse are in line with what the Minister of Agriculture did in Canada and this shows us how the government of Canada cares about all agricultural problems in our country.
This afternoon, we have before us a motion asking the government to:
... consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act to provide incentives to young farmers to enter or to continue in the farm industry and, to this end, should consider providing such incentives as partial non-repayment of loans where young farmers meet performance standards, a maximum 5% interest rate, deferred interest payment during an initial period, and open-end loans that will allow additional borrowing without refinancing charges.
Madam Speaker, I wish to give my two colleagues who preceded me some information to show them how the Minister of Agriculture is concerned about problems in agriculture and also all his contributions to the farm credit system. In the light of such information these people might realize that there were tremendous improvements in the farm credit area.
For some time, agricultural and other groups of society have been expressing great concern about the barriers that young people wishing to operate a farm must overcome. The minister often expressed a great desire to facilitate credit access to young farmers and often requested us to make suggestions about the best way to achieve it.
He has received a great number of suggestions from farmers, farm organizations, and members from the Farm Credit Corporation, all of whom have a first hand knowledge of the situation. The increase in the farmers' average age, as shown by the data of the agriculture census, would be one of the reasons of that concern. According to these data, the Canadian farmers' estimated average age has gone from 45.9 to 47.2 during the 20-year period from 1951 to 1971. It should be noted, however, at the time of the agriculture census the farmers' age took into account the age of one farmer only per farm.
As you know, an ever increasing number of farms are now being operated by the father and one or several of his sons. Nevertheless, the survey takes into account the age of only one of them, generally the father's. Furthermore, the data cover all farms, whether commercial or non-commercial. Consequently, many retired farmers who live in a country home, as well as several part-time farmers are included. That is why great care must be taken when using the data of the agriculture census not to draw specific conclusions concerning the age of farmers.
January 27, 1975

The percentage of loans to young farmers, since the Farm Credit Corporation was established in 1959, has been steadily increasing. For instance, during fiscal year 1962/ 63, about 30 per cent of those loans went to farmers under 35. During fiscal year 1970/71, approximately 35 per cent of those loans went to people in the same age bracket. In December 1974, the percentage was almost 53 per cent. Nevertheless more qualified youth had to be urged to become involved in that business. Such is obviously the aim of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, which was read for the first time in the House on November 1, 1974.
Concerning the incentive measures provided under Notice of Motion No. 12 with respect to young farmers, it should be noted that under the Farm Credit Act and regulations, the payment of interest and principal on loans under that act can already be deferred. Apart from those formal provisions, the Farm Credit Corporation is allowed to differ the payments of any borrower and does so when it is in the best interests of the borrower, in order to help him manage or improve his farm.
The minister has been frequently advised to authorize the granting of mortgages "of indefinite amount" to enable farmers to borrow additional funds at no additional cost. Unfortunately, mortgages are governed by provincial jurisdiction only, and no provincial legislation mentions any mortgage "of indefinite amount" whatsoever. As a consequence, any mortgage lender who wants to have a real estate security for his loan has to search title deeds every time he loans funds against the security of such real estate to determine whether there has been no other charge on the property since the original mortgage was registered.
Under the present Farm Credit Act, the corporation may only make loans upon the security of a first mortgage on farm loan, or on farm loans and chattels. Consequently, a person who borrows from the corporation and who wants to get additional funds must refinance his original loan and agree to have a new mortgage for the total amount of the original loan which has not been refunded and on the new funds he is borrowing.
The aim of one of the provisions of Bill C-34 is to authorize the Farm Credit Corporation to secure its loans with mortgages other than the first one. Farmers who already have a loan secured by a first mortgage on their land on good terms will be able to keep this first mortgage, while giving the security required for the loan from the corporation with a second mortgage or other. The borrower would then pay for the fees of the judicial representative for the new funds only. The other costs attributable to the loan would also be less important.
The interest rate to pay is a very important factor, which is to be taken into account each time young people borrow money to become farmers. However, in recent years, the capacity to get sufficient loans on terms which meet the needs of the new farmers has been a more important factor still. The problem was especially acute because of rapidly increasing farm prices and overall investment needed to establish a worthwhile farming operation. There is also another major problem facing young people, that of finding money for the down pay-
Farm Credit Act
ment on a farm. The proposed amendments to Bill C-34 will increase the total amount available to qualifying young people interested in a career in farming. The maximum amount will reach $150,000. Further, amendments will allow them to borrow an increased proportion of the total cost of assets required to operate a farm.
Under the act as it now stands, loans totalling more than 75 per cent of the producing value of land and chattels may be granted in the only case where, in the corporation's opinion, there is assurance that the farm will be operated with a superior degree of efficiency. The amount of the loan may then reach 90 per cent of the productive value. Amendments proposed in Bill C-34 will allow young farmers to be loaned up to 90 per cent of the producing value of lands and chattels, provided the applicant has sufficient experience and capability to convince the corporation he can successfully operate the farm.
Due to the rapid increase in farm land prices over the last few years, the productive value established by the appraisal of farm land as provided by the act has on numerous occasions, and for various reasons, been considerably less that the purchase price. For instance, the value of lands is often inflated by city dwellers trying to buy farm lands, or well-established farmers wishing to expand their operation, at prices higher than starting farmers can afford. Often, young farmers could repay loans exceeding the 90 per cent limit of producing value of assets, as now provided, by reason of their capability and experience, and often also because of other reasons, as their parents' help or outside revenues. The amendments proposed in bill C-34 will give the corporation authority to make loans exceeding 90 per cent of the producing value of lands and chattels. Qualified young people will thus have a much better opportunity to compete for land against established farmers.
The continuous increase in land and real estate prices has caused higher costs for establishing a profitable farming business. A ceiling of $100,000 may be sufficient to meet credit needs and it may allow established farmers who have substantial assets to develop their business. However, young farmers with limited resources may need more credit to develop a sufficiently large farm. This is why it is proposed to increase to $150,000 the maximum amount of loans for farmers under 35.
Even though at first glance low interest rates and conditional grants seem to offer an attractive and interesting solution for young farmers, when land prices are subjected to strong upward pressures, it seems that such concessions could prove ineffective to help young people to develop a solid business. In practice, conditional grants and subsidized interest rates are very often reflected in land prices, which means that land prices are inflated to such a point that the stiffer cost annuls the benefits provided by the concessions.
Another amendment will allow young people to establish themselves gradually on a farm. This provision will be very "helpful and could have much more tangible effects than the concessions concerning reimbursement or interest rates. Loans can now be granted only to those whose main business is or will be farming when the loan is granted. However, it is very difficult to go into farming in one stage. Many young people realize that it is impossible

January 27, 1975
Farm Credit Act
to purchase sufficient land to develop a profitable farm if they do not receive a lot of help from their family or elsewhere. Others succeed in buying the land but must wait a long time before purchasing the required animals and machines and having a business which produces sufficient revenue to support their family, cover operating costs and reimburse loans.
That is why we are proposing an entirely new Part to the Farm Credit Act so as to provide loans to young people who wish to settle down gradually on a farm. That part of the act would permit loans equal to those made available to other young farmers. However, it would allow the farmer a five-year maximum period in order to help him to set up a farm that could produce the required income. During that five-year period, those young people could keep a regular employment outside the farm to make up for the small income from the farm. Before getting a loan, young applicants should prove that they are willing to engage in farming as their main occupation and submit a plan showing how they intend to reach such a goal, namely to settle down within five years on a viable farm as a full-time farmer.
The measures proposed in Bill C-34 greatly extend the assistance that can be made available to young people through the Farm Credit Act. They also give a much greater responsibility to the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation who will have to be still more careful and see that the program is well administered. It would be unfair to encourage young people to invest their limited assets in a farm without making sure that they have a fair chance of success. They would be in danger of losing not only their small assets but also an invaluable amount of time by trying to overcome too great difficulties in a period of their life when they could work towards an easier goal. We believe that if those changes are well administered, they will provide young people with the required qualifications much better possibilities than in the past for the establishment of sound agricultural enterprises.
Madam Speaker, considering those particulars, farm credit as it is now and with the proposed changes can surely be a solution to all the problems that my colleagues already dealt with.


Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity of speaking to this motion. I should like to put on the record some statistics relating to operations under the Farm Credit Act.
In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, 9,041 loans were approved under the Farm Credit Act, an increase of 3,475 over the preceding year. The total amount approved increased from $183.3 million in 1972-73 to over $400 million. As noted in the chairman's report, this was the highest total approved since the implementation of the act. Although there was some variation between regions'in the growth of lending activity, the increase was very substantial in all regions.
The $400.7 million approved during the year included $307.8 million for the various purposes set out in the table on page 10 of the annual report. The balance of $92.9
(Mr. Corriveau.]
million was used to repay the amount which remained outstanding on loans made previously to the same borrowers. The latter amount was incorporated into the new loans when the borrowers obtained additional funds to expand or further develop their farm businesses. [Translation]
During the fiscal year, 7,906 loans have been approved under Part II of the act. Those loans, which are secured by a mortgage on rural lands, amounted to $337,510,000 or 84.2 per cent of the total outlay. Loans granted under Part III of the act are reserved for farmers under 45 years of age. They are secured only by a mortgage on rural lands or by a mortgage on rural lands and a bailment. All told 1,135 of those loans, amounting to $63,148,000, have been granted. On an average, the amount of those loans went up from $35,173 in 1972-73 to $44,316 in 1973-74.

As shown in the table on page 10 of the anuual report, the predominant purpose for which new loan funds were used was to finance the transfer of land. The percentage shown under "new units" refers to funds used to transfer complete units to new owner-operators. The funds for "additional land" were used for the purchase of land that generally would be farmed in conjunction with other land. In many instances, however, such additional land was purchased by a young farmer and provided the basis for his establishment in farming, with some arrangements made with other members of the family, such as a father or brothers, for the use of machinery and exchange of labour.
(Translation]
About the size of farms which have been granted credit under the act, you must note that about 70 per cent of all those loans have been granted to farms whose total assets were under $150,000. A little less than 7 per cent of those loans have been granted to farms whose total assets amounted to $250,000 or more. The latter group included many farms owned and run by two families or more.
This report indicates that the number of young farmers who have been granted loans under the act during the last fiscal year has considerably increased. The number of loans granted to farmers under 25 went up from 12.4 per cent in 1972/73 to 15.6 in 1973/74. During the same period, the number of loans granted to farmers under 35 went up from about 41 per cent to almost 46 per cent. However, it is important to note that the number of young farmers who were granted credit went up from 2,072 in 1972/73 to 3,777, which means an increase of more than 82 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
January 27, 1975


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr.t Danson that Bill C-46 to amend the National Housing Act^ be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Madam Speaker, when the business of the House was interrupted at five o'clock I was discussing with the minister, through you, what I thought of his bill, and how disappointed I was, knowing that the minister comes from an urban area, that he had shown such a lack of imagination, innovation and creativity.
The other day I read an article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator written by Mr. Guy Demarino. He was concerned, as indicated by the headline, with "A palace at cottage prices". He was asking the minister at that time if perhaps it was time to take another approach to the whole housing program inasmuch as Canadian people were expecting more in terms of standard housing. Let me quote from the article which states:
He concedes that he likes 'the Canadian dream.' A single, four-bedroom, two-bathroom, plus garage and recreation room, fully serviced house on a well treed lot. But those standards are too high, he said, in a recent interview and added: "We can't continue to afford the dream."
What I am stating is that the minister has indicated that Canadians cannot afford the dream, but by Bill C-46 he continues to allow them to dream. He knows the cost of housing is beyond the reach of that vast majority of Canadians who need affordable housing. We are not talking about the affluent who can afford homes valued at $60,000 or $110,000; we are talking about those who need accommodation. Yet knowing that the dream cannot be fulfilled the minister comes to this House with Bill C-46 that perpetuates this dream.
This is a sorry state of affairs so far as the vast majority of Canadians is concerned. They not only want housing, they need accommodation in order to offset the present environmental malaise. Like the Trudeau government, housing costs are running out of control in this country. The Trudeau government, by its lack of policy and direction, and by its excuses instead of making effective a new deal to lower prices including the cost of land, is primarily responsible for creating the housing problems we face today. In spite of the fact that the lack of housing is one of the most pressing problems facing the majority of Canadians, the federal government has done little toward reducing the cost or providing adequate shelter at prices which those who need shelter can afford.
Among other things this legislation is designed to solicit private capital investment to come into federal housing programs. In the current inflationary context the proposals contained in the legislation will do little toward alleviating the ever increasing costs of obtaining and maintaining a home. It is becoming increasingly more evident that government programs designed to assist home ownership are doomed to failure in the context of
National Housing Act
the over-all federal economic strategy. I should like to give you some examples of this.
Let me refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 18, 1975. At that time the minister was involved in pursuing Arab oil money for the financing of housing. In his wisdom he indicated that one of the better programs he had introduced earlier, the mortgage financing bill, had failed. Perhaps I should not go that far, but let me read from this article in the January 18 issue of the Globe and Mail as follows:
A Government mortgage financing bill creating mortgage investment corporations was approved 18 months ago. But Mr. Danson said he feels not enough of them have been set up.
Only six mortgage investment corporations have been licensed to create pools of mortgage money under the legislation, Finance Department sources say. Only one of these companies now is operating.
I hope that company is in Hamilton. This goes to show that the minister has avoided the most important issue, and that is that the economic climate will not allow his housing programs to be successful. I suggest they are all facing failure. The minister has conveniently forgotten increases in the cost of available land, increases in the cost of labour, and increases in the cost of building material, all of which have risen to astronomical heights in the last few years. All of these things bring into serious doubt the effectiveness of any housing program in the absence of any inflationary policy under federal initiative. That is my main point.
There can be no success in respect of any of the minister's programs for housing until such time as this contingency plan we have heard so much about is produced, providing leadership in the government's effort to wrestle inflation to the ground. What does the minister say about the Canadian economic climate?
The minister thinks this bill of his is going to attract money from the private sector. I want to refer to the Globe and Mail again, that newspaper which tells nothing but the truth, which is able to discern facts and offer solutions, and quote ministers correctly. I would just state that the minister was reported in this same article as saying that:
There are other funds around the world that are looking for a country with a good economy and a good track record and Canada becomes a feasible place, . . .
The minister must be kidding when he says something like that because he knows the economic climate created and perpetuated by the government has been disastrous for the housing industry. In short it has suffered.
Let me give the minister some facts. I am also interested in the minister's stating how great AHOP is and what his housing programs are doing in terms of bringing housing to people at a reasonable cost, yet the latest issue of Infomat, a weekly Statistics Canada bulletin, shows that there is something wrong in this country. This is contrary to what the minister states because the housing starts have not been there. One of the paragraphs which is certainly very significant, and which has been mentioned by other members, states:
For the first eleven months of 1974 housing starts in urban centres totalled 160,079 units, down 17.6% from January-November 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He did not say that, but he led the Canadian people to believe that. Where has he been?


An hon. Member:: He was in Hawaii.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He should have stayed there. He may have learned something there in terms of housing. They do not have any sellers there, I understand, but that is another good thing.
Why do we not start pursuing some innovations around here? All people want is a house, and I have heard people talk about basic houses; in other words, give them the shell and allow them to have the opportunity to put the paint on, to build a garage, to add to it by themselves. This is of course calls for much consultation with the provinces and with the municipalities. Give them the basic needs. Has the minister thought about that?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The program is already in effect; shell housing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As far as I am concerned it is not in effect because my latest information reveals that cities are now looking at this matter with some interest. I hope that it is in effect, but if it is in effect I wish the minister would tell me where these particular housing innovations are.


An hon. Member:: Come on Barney, tell us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish he would tell us when he next makes a statement. I am very concerned, and I want to let the minister know, that the climate is not conducive for housing starts.
I want to refer him to the Hamilton area. Of course I must involve Hamilton because obviously we have people there who have a need for homes. I want to read from page

29	of Statistics Canada's "Housing Starts and Completions", which shows how disastrous things are in this country in terms of the housing industry. For the year 1973, January to November, in the Greater Hamilton metropolitan area there were 8,253 starts. For 1974 to date there have been 4,913 starts. Where has the minister been, and what is he doing?
Under the heading "Under Construction", up to November of 1973 there were 8,237. That is in the greater Hamilton metropolitan area. When we get into the numbers under construction in 1974 we only have 5,824. What is the minister doing? Where is that freshness that the minister brought to the House of Commons in 1968? We are members of the same class, Madam Speaker, a fresh class with fresh ideas. We want to approach the problems of this nation with uniqueness, innovation and creativity. Has the minister lost all that since he has been elevated to such great heights? Surely not.
All of this has led the Hamilton Spectator to register its concern in lead editorial dated January 22 under the heading "Not Enough Houses". Of course the minister is not acquainted with that. This is what the Hamilton Spectator says:
Sharp increases in prices and in lending rates killed off the housebuilding boom of 1973. Demand for low and medium-priced housing rose but supply was limited as rising costs moved much of 1974's new house production into the high-price categories, beyond the reach of low and middle-income families.
And again I quote:
And a housing situation that forces families into overcrowded high rise towers, by leaving them no alternatives, that puts ownership of a private house beyond the average family's means cannot be accepted as socially responsible, not in a huge country lavishly endowed with the resources and the skills to produce housing on an epic scale.
I quote again:
Canada is approaching the point at which a forceful national effort is needed to produce new low and medium priced housing on a massive scale, an effort paralleling the wartime housing program of more than
30	years ago. The point may have been reached already.
Is the minister aware of that, Madam Speaker?
The CMHC 1974 statistics tell the story in the bluntest terms-we're producing less housing although we need more. The federal government seems blissfully indifferent. Its housing policies would benefit a country with no serious shortages, not a nation with a widening gap between supply and demand for one of humanity's first needs.
Where has the minister been, Madam Speaker? What is he doing?
Because of the absence of an anti-inflationary policy the people of Canada will suffer as far as housing is concerned. It has been their practice to treat one inflation-induced problem in isolation from the others, when what is needed is an over-all anti-inflation policy highlighted by federal guidelines and directives. Until such a policy is forthcoming the housing market will continue to suffer. There is no doubt about that.
I understand that in a speech today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has indicated that he has come to the conclusion that the call for higher wages and salaries is the cause of inflation. That is a flip flop. Now they are blaming labour. I remember the days when they used to blame high unemployment. They used to blame the senior
January 27, 1975

citizens, and the youths of the country for getting into the work force. They blamed the work force, Madam Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They blamed the Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They blamed the Tories, they blamed everybody, but they never blamed themselves. The Minister of Finance is looking for a scapegoat again, and who does he pick on this time? The trade unions. Then he expects Joe Morris to sit with him in an effort to reach some sort of consensus on how to fight wages and profits. Someone asked me this afternoon what I thought about that, and I said that if I were Joe Morris and the Minister of Finance came to me, I would shut the door in his face.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Was that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? Why would he want to get in on this? Shame on him! He has a tremendous job-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He has a tremendous job to do. He had better stick to agriculture, eggs and beef and turkeys, and things like that. They mean something also.


Eugene Whelan: I will tell you one thing: I know as much about labour as you do, judging from what you were saying just now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister keeps on trying, but he has not done anything yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad to see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is talking about consumers' rights for a change. That is what we missed. I have a feeling the Minister of Agriculture has been shafted, if you will excuse the expression, Madam Speaker.
As I said, until such a policy has been formulated the housing market will continue to suffer. I want to bring another statistic before you, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear a lonely voice in the backwoods over there, one of the new members who has not had an opportunity to speak. All he has to do is see the Whip- talk to the Whip, be a good boy, and do his job of looking after his constituents. If he shows some responsibility around here maybe he will get an opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Madam Speaker, I was going to point out vividly that if we do not attack inflation we are going to be in trouble. As I understand it, if we have a 12 per cent static rate of inflation for the next ten years, a 1974 one dollar purchase will cost $3.12 in 1984. If that formula comes about, a home that is now worth $60,000 will be
National Housing Act
worth $185,000 in 1984. I see somebody over there yawning because he thinks this is a joke.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Don't sell your house, Barney.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The rapid increase in the cost of housing has occurred because the government will not face one of the most serious crises this country has ever seen, and that is two figure inflation. Even at a 6 per cent rate of inflation, over the next ten years the price of that same home would reach $100,000. By 1984 it will take $3.12 to buy what one dollar will buy today, and only the very affluent will be able to be involved with the minister's housing program.
I want to bring up another problem with respect to this bill. I hope I have pointed out vividly that there will be no solution to the housing problems until the government wrestles inflation to the ground. My second point is that, as I understand it, the general intent of this bill is to increase the supply and hold down the cost of housing in the low and medium price range, both for ownership and renting. The minister contends that if we are to meet the demands we must draw more heavily on private capital. But is the demand coming from those who need the homes? Is it coming from the 25 to 34 year olds, those who are indicated as in the house buying age group, a group that is increasing in numbers year after year?
The CMHC annual report for 1973 states that the house buying age in Canada is generally accepted to be those people in the 25 to 34 age bracket. The following CMHC projections of the number of persons in this age group indicate that, without proper guidelines, the housing situation in Canada will get worse before it gets better: the number of persons of house buying age in 1956 was 820,000; in 1961, 941,000; in 1966, 1,016,000; in 1971, 1,217,000; the 1976 estimate is 1,707,000 and the 1981 estimate is 2,202,000.
What does this mean, Madam Speaker? Considering the criteria set under AHOP or any of the other programs, surely the minister does not expect that these people are going to be in a position to buy a home. There is no way they can. I am frustrated when young couples in my constituency, who are making $18,000 a year, come to me and say they cannot buy a home. The program which the government has introduced is not practical in terms of their need because they do not fit into the criteria. What kind of nonsense is this?


An hon. Member:: Tell them to run for parliament!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A communique issued by the Canadian Council on Social Development states:
Urban Affairs Minister Barney Danson's recent announcement of federal subsidies to private lenders, under the assisted home ownership and rental entrepreneur programs, as well as Finance Minister Turner's November 18 budget, reveal a new and lamentable shift in federal housing policy, according to Serge Carreau, of the Housing Committee of the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Mr. Carreau called on Canadians today to oppose this shift in federal housing policy which he termed a dangerous precedent and one which will primarily benefit relatively affluent families rather than those most in need.
The housing committee opposes subsidizing the activities of private mortgage lenders for the following reasons:

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
1. The specific proposal outlined by Mr. Danson December 11, contrary to his assertion, will primarily benefit rather affluent middle income families. Houses built for the maximum price which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation currently permits for its Assisted Home Ownership Program will not be available to households earning less than $19,000 in Vancouver and Toronto .. .
I might add, Madam Speaker, that for Hamilton it is $18,000, as it is for Ottawa.
It goes on to say that permits will not be available to those earning $16,000 in Halifax, $15,000 in Saint John and $14,000 in Montreal, unless those people spend more than 25 per cent of their income on housing. Even condominium units will not be available to those households earning less than $14,000 in Vancouver, $16,000 in Toronto, $13,000 in Ottawa and $10,000 in Montreal.
What kind of monstrosity is Bill C-46, Madam Speaker? As I said before, the minister has been given the chance to introduce a worthwhile program. Instead, he is trying to introduce a dubious ad hoc approach and pass it off as a major solution to the housing crisis in Canada. The people will not buy it. They expected something more imaginative from the minister.
All the same we cannot vote against the bill because it is a step in the right direction, although it is a miserably short step. The minister knows how serious this problem is. He has ability, has been called brilliant, and is concerned. I hope he will discuss it at the earliest opportunity with the Minister of Finance-I do not know how long he will be around here-and tell him that a housing program cannot be successful unless that minister co-operates in dealing with inflation. If the Minister of Finance fails in that, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will not succeed, and the government will answer to the people sooner or later. I hope it is sooner rather than later.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few remarks about housing in the Northwest Territories. Better still, I want to talk about housing in the Northwest Territories and tell it "like it is".
Let me make clear that the housing situation in the Northwest Territories is not just bad; it is terrible. If I were Prime Minister of this country and knew of the housing situation in the Northwest Territories, I would say, "Mr. Minister, the housing situation in the Northwest Territories is so bad that that area is a disaster area. Do something about it!"
I seems to me that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Territorial Housing Corporation of the Northwest Territories lack any policy for solving the housing difficulties of my part of the country, and therein lies the problem. On the other hand, one can say that there is a policy of sorts at work in our northern parts, a policy of segregation, a policy of engineered, budgeted and carried out segregation. One section of the community lives in good homes. Those people enjoy thermostatically controlled heat, running hot and cold water, and they can take a shower and do their laundry when they want. On the other hand the people in the native community do not enjoy these necessities of life.
Water in a home is important, not only for the running of the home but for the maintenance of good health. Many

of us in the south take water in our homes for granted. In the north the authorities seem to have embarked on a policy of encouraging planned ghettos. Some hon. members have been up north and lived in these conditions for a few days. They know that government employees live in one section of town and northern, native people in another.
I will not mention too many figures. Let me mention some, however, concerning Frobisher Bay. I suggest that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) should hop in an aircraft and visit that community for a few hours, and he would know what I am talking about.
In Frobisher Bay 70 per cent of the population is native. The Innuit live in 35 per cent of the housing, and it is housing of poor standard. As against that, 30 per cent of the population is made up of government employees, federal and territorial. They live in 65 per cent of the housing, and it is the best housing available in Frobisher Bay. You will see something like this in other communities of the Northwest Territories. That is what I mean when I say that the authorities are pursuing a policy of planned, engineered and budgeted segregation which is being carried out in that region. This is a blot on the record of the government.
Conditions in many native homes are so bad that they are terrible. In two election campaigns I went from door to door, and some of the conditions I saw you would not believe. I came to a home in Cambridge Bay and spoke to a woman who was mother of five children. Her husband was at work, and she said, "Look at my children; they have skin sores on their faces." I do not like seeing conditions like that; neither do other hon. members. We do not want families to live under such conditions.
In some of these houses you must melt snow and ice on an electric burner if you want water to wash your floors or bathe your children. Melting snow and ice on a four-burner electric appliance if you want water is not the way to maintain good health. As against this we have government employees in our area who can have a shower in the morning and another at night without any difficulty. These are the conditions of which I am speaking.
Conditions under which native peoples live are degrading. For example, in some cases more than one family live in a two-bedroom house. The social costs of these conditions are extremely high. The housing shortage and poor housing conditions contribute to bad health. Because children live in overcrowded conditions they cannot sleep, and drop out of school.
Overcrowding leads to mental illness, to family quarrels, and to husbands preferring to go to the local pub after work instead of to an overcrowded home. That is why I say conditions in many parts of the Northwest Territories are disastrous, and the government should look into them.
What are we to do? First, you have to look at these problems in northern terms and consider solutions appropriate to northern conditions. The climate of the Northwest Territories is severe. It gets very cold up there. One would think that after 100 years of government good housing policies would be evident in the territories, but they are not. We do not have them. That is why I say that it is important to consider the housing problem of the
January 27, 1975

north in northern terms, and the government, be it federal or territorial, must listen to the people of the north. They know the problem and they know the solution.
It has often been suggested that log houses should be built in certain parts of the territories. We have big stands of timber all along the Mackenzie Valley and there are great possibilities for the building of log houses in the Great Slave Lake area. We can transport logs to northern communities where they are not available. I have looked at many log houses which were built in northern communities back in the 1920s and 1930s. They are still being lived in today. They are in almost as good a condition as when they were built in the 1920's or 1930's.
Log homes for the Mackenzie district is the answer for many of those communities. They fit in very well. The cost of maintenance is very low compared to a frame house. These homes last. They are very easy to heat compared with the frame houses being shipped to that part of the country. There is certainly plenty of need for this type of housing. The material and labour are available, and the cost is low.
In northern terms it is only common sense to look at log homes as a partial solution to the housing problem, at least in the western Arctic. In addition to utilizing local material and labour they would fill a local need.
I wish to deal with another program being carried out at this time. This government waits until it can let a contract for 50 or 60 houses before having them built in the south by southern contractors, and shipped to the north. Sometimes embarrassing things happen, such as the walls being unloaded in one community and the roofs in another. This has happened more than once. If we carry on with this program we will continue to have this sort of problem.
Local contractors do not have a chance to bid because these are large contractors. I feel the northern contractor should be given every opportunity to build in communities where there is a need for five, ten or 15 homes. In addition to utilizing local labour, the money for these programs would benefit the north.
I feel that is one of the most important suggestions that has been made with regard to housing. It has been suggested many times, but has never really been looked at seriously. The minister responsible for housing should take another look at this. He can see that the Territorial Housing Corporation and CMHC both seem to be lacking a policy.
There is a section in the National Housing Act which the Native Council of Canada would like to see implemented. I am referring to Section 40 which allows native people to participate in acquiring their own housing through CMHC. The section requires the signing of a federal-provincial territorial agreement. The effect of the agreement is that the costs are shared 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial or territorial. In the ten months since the announcement was made by the former minister on March 10, there has been some action, but not enough. Agreements have not been signed with the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This is something else that has been asked for by the Native Council of Canada.
National Housing Act
I have tried to give some idea of the conditions in which we live in the Northwest Territories. I have made some suggestions as to what can be done. The most important, I believe, is that we get answers to these problems. Northerners should be listened to very carefully. Help us with some resources. Give us a policy on which to operate and we will do the rest. If it is necessary to disregard the Territorial Housing Corporation and have CMHC action, that is what we have to do. The sooner the government acts, the better. These are all the comments I will make at this time.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is no longer in the chamber as I wish to reply to a few of the points he so ably expressed. He may not have expressed them accurately, but certainly very well.
The hon. member stated that the federal government can be thanked for the high price of land and the high cost of construction. If the hon. member had been a bit more straightforward, he would have stated that in certain provinces the high cost of land is due to a lack of foresight. The lack of serviced lots is perhaps one of the reasons why the high cost of land is a fact of Canadian life. I think this is true in the province of Ontario as well as the province of British Columbia.
A lack of planning by the British Columbia provincial government, as well as the land freeze, have cut down the amount of available land. The land freeze act has increased the value of existing lots by two or three times. I cannot see where the policy of the federal government has any bearing on the acts of the provinces.
I wish I had the freedom of movement of the hon. member for Hamilton West, quoting from newspapers and criticizing the problems we face in a very difficult economy. The economy is very difficult regardless of what political party is in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: If people think the problems being faced in Canada are not being faced throughout the world, they are deluding themselves. The only thing is that we in Canada have solved our problems better than other countries.
The hon. member for Hamilton West suggested that the cure-all for the housing situation in Canada is to cut down inflation, wrestle it to the ground.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right.


Hugh Alan Anderson: There's the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thought you were sleeping when I was speaking.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I would like to state that I am, of course, in agreement with the hon. member. I also favour motherhood and apple pie and am against inflation. I notice the hon. member did not suggest that wage and price controls are the answer to inflation.
As we are discussing Bill C-46 perhaps it might be good to go over some of the terrible clauses which members

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
opposite are against. One is approving National Housing Act lenders, insuring Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Loans and increasing the amount of all loans from $19 billion to $25 billion. I really do not see what is the diabolical part of that provision. I think most members would agree that increasing the amount available in CMHC mortgages by such a substantial amount is worthy of support. The aggregate amount of the loans available for direct lending activities is to be increased from $10 billion to $12 billion, an increase of 20 per cent-


An hon. Member:: That only takes care of inflation.


Hugh Alan Anderson: If the hon. member does not think this is a correct step to take, I am sure the minister would be prepared to decrease the amount available for mortgages.
Bill C-46 provides for further assistance to municipalities in connection with sewage treatment and also for the opening up of sanitary trunk services in new residential areas. Service along these lines has been provided in the past, but not in respect of trunk sewers. These are now to be included. Perhaps the opposition does not agree with this part of the bill. For my part I believe that any move to increase money available to municipalities is a step in the right direction.
It is my firm belief that housing is not just a federal responsibility but that it demands co-operation among all three levels of government. Those who think the federal government acting alone will ever be able to solve the problems of housing are completely erroneous.
Provision for land-leasing in respect of non-profit housing is also included in the bill. The legislation gives CMHC authority to acquire such land at favourable rates. The current program provides sponsors with 100 per cent financing and an outright grant of 10 per cent of capital cost, with a starter fund of up to $10,000 per project. Again this is one of the features of the bill designed to make it easier to acquire land for construction purposes.
The subject of privately-funded low rental housing is also dealt with, and I do not think any hon. member would disagree with what the government is seeking to do in this field. Perhaps the part of the bill which will prove the widest benefit is that dealing with AHOP. The House is probably aware that in 1974 approximately $450 million was provided under the AHOP program by the federal government. If I am not mistaken this represented approximately 22,000 housing starts. There are optimistic hopes that up to $1 billion or more will be provided by the private sector. We shall furnish up to $600 a year for assistance to people who would not normally be able to get mortgages because they could not afford to pay the 11 or 11V* per cent. I think it will be found that the extent of the AHOP program of 1974 will be doubled or trebled as a result of the introduction of private capital with the assistance of the federal government, though there is no way of being certain at this point.
Some experts have stated that as much as $2 billion may be made available through the private sector; it certainly appears it will be higher than the $450 million invested in 1974, in which case the government will have extra money

to devote to other fields since there would be no need to set aside such large sums for the program.
These are just a few of the provisions contained in Bill C-46. I have heard no criticism from the opposition except on the lines that we are adopting a band-aid approach toward dealing with housing. As you will recall, Madam Speaker, the budget of November, 1974, contained numerous other measures dealing with housing. The bill before us, however, relates to specific areas and so far, though I have hard a good deal of talk about inflation and other subjects tonight, I have heard no valid criticism of these specific proposals we have before us. Bill C-46 is a good bill and I hope it will obtain a speedy passage.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-46 and follow up on some very accurate comments from the Minister for Urban Affairs. (Mr. Danson).
I listened very carefully this afternoon to the comments made by the minister. He showed that Bill C-46 would result in the improvement of housing conditions for Canadians across the country. He also mentioned, in a rather elaborate way, the amounts of dollars that will be affected to the implementation of what is contained in the bill. It would involve billions of dollars!
When I was young, Madam Speaker, I heard about hundreds of dollars and that used to amaze me. A little later, as I grew up, I heard about thousands of dollars and I found that fantastic. And when I became an adult, and I heard about millions of dollars, I found it fabulous. Now that I have become a member of Parliament, that I represent a number of people in this House, I hear about billions and I find it extraordinary.
The bill we are now studying deals with billions of dollars to try and provide Canadians with better housing conditions. I congratulate the minister for explaining so clearly the fundamentals of this bill. I wish every family in my country would dwell in a housing which would be their own, but if they cannot own their home, they should at least be able to rent it, to rent a decent housing with services reflecting our country's capacities.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to drastically alter the National Housing Act. If I remember well what the minister said, the first National Housing Act in Canada was passed by our Parliament in 1935. In 1935, Canada was undergoing a crisis, they said it was a depression. At that time, that word depression did not make much sense to me. I remember hearing my mother, when we were ill, saying that perhaps we were feverish. We had a fever and that was an abnormal situation. But I could not make out the meaning of an economic depression. That was what caught my attention: what is an economic depression? It is an abnormal situation, where healthy people who can work, are available and able to produce things which the population needs to meet everyone's needs, but cannot do so because of that abnormal situation.
I remember Mr. Mackenzie King, who was the leader of the opposition in 1935, explaining what an economic crisis
January 27, 1975

was. I was struck by his words. He said it was an abnormal situation, when in a country like Canada, people, despite all their goodwill, cannot manage to set up a normal organization that would allow each Canadian to eat his fill, to have decent accommodation, to move about normally in a well organized democratic country. Because there is not enough money circulating to allow all Canadians to lead a normal life, there is a depression. I remember what that means, I remember 1935.
At that time, like today, people spoke of slums. I remember especially those of my city, Quebec City, close to my home, in the Saint-Sauveur district. That is where the poor, the have-nots, the underpaid workers lived. In the Saint-Sauveur district, there were slums. The government of the day was willing to legislate in an attempt to improve the living conditions of the working family living in the slum areas of Quebec City, Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. And so, in this parliament, an act was passed known as the National Housing Act. Later on, that act was amended on various occasions. During the war, it was also revised allowing the Canadian parliament to intervene in the field of housing in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities in order to give all Canadians the possibility of decent housing. This afternoon, when he made his speech on that topic, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) gave us a brief history of it.
Madam Speaker, in this country, because of a climate characterized by several rather cold months, we need housing that can resist the rigors of our climate. It costs much more, to build in Canada than in Miami, for instance.
I have worked for a number of years in the building trade. Although this may come as a surprise to some of my hon. colleagues, I know a thing or two about this trade. I know the difference between a common nail and a finishing nail. I know also the difference between rough material and finished material, because I have used both on construction sites.
In 1975, everybody knows that a great many things are necessary to provide a family with lodging which, although comfortable, will permit savings on fuel oil, a product which is likely to become a rarity by 1980, 1981 or 1982. Such lodgings must be as leakproof as possible. They require insulation. They require good external walls. To save on fuel, they must be built as airtight as possible to prevent the cold from getting in. It is one of the prerequisites. And it costs money.
As I stated in my opening remarks, building comfortable and pleasant lodgings in Canada costs lots of money. All these things must be paid for by tenants or landlords. Madam Speaker, we are now going though an extremely difficult situation in the housing industry in Canada. I shall refer more particularly to my area, namely Mont-magny, where construction is slow and where we witness housing conflicts. Permits are required for this and for that. In the end, we discover that the permits are there to prevent people from working. This is the simple reason. These are permits to prevent those who have guts from building in such and such area of Canada houses in which families could live comfortably, in a logical way and according to the opportunities of 1975.
National Housing Act
[DOT] <2110)
Madam Speaker, I have here figures on construction and I can talk about it because I know what is going on. Those young people have guts and do all they can to sell their work, erect houses and buildings that will be used by Canadians. There are now conflicts in the construction field for all kinds of reasons and despite the goodwill of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, we witness a deplorable slowdown in that area and I do not think Bill C-46 will improve the situation.
I understand that dollars are needed. I found that out a long time ago, but I also realize that goodwill, harmony and understanding are needed to attain goals in any area.
Madam Speaker, I remember that in 1973 in this House, in committee, we worked intelligently and conscientiously to pass Bill C-133. It was passed by the House on June 15, 1973. Under this bill, agreements had to be signed with the various provincial governments to implement the provisions of the act and obtain the desired results. In the province of Quebec, the agreement under Bill C-133 was signed only on September 12, 1974, after more than 15 months of negotiations, conflicts about the constitution and constitutional problems. There are conflicts about jurisdiction while people wait, problems fester, the situation worsens; only later do we realize that time has been lost.
Madam Speaker, I am very serious. I believe it is bad for Canadian families to see a spectacle which is unworthy of true Canadians, of true responsible parliamentarians. In my opinion, when people have been elected democratically, when they have received the confidence of the people, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, they should be intelligent enough to meet, understand each other and realize that they have responsibilities in their respective jurisdiction; they should come intelligently to a common understanding to solve problems as soon and as efficiently as possible.
Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the attention of the Minister for Urban Affairs on a section of Bill C-133, which is contained in a booklet published by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to inform all Canadians about the benefits of all the acts and amendements passed by Parliament, administered by the CMHC and capable of providing answers in such or such a field.
Madam Speaker, one must live in an area like the one in which I lived to be able to understand and convey the message I want to pass on tonight; people are aware that legislation exists, that there are possibilities and advantages for them and their families allowing them to improve their houses, buy a new one, rehabilitate neighbourhoods, develop a place where they would like to settle and live but low or middle income people do not have the financial capacity to meet the requirements of that legislation.
In view of what the minister said on the basis of the information the minister gave this afternoon I would like to ask that we stop and carefully consider this serious peoblem of prohibitive interest rates that are real usury. People are being ruined by rent and interest charges beyond basic common sense. Indeed, the supreme authority-Parliament-which is responsible for our monetary

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
system must absolutely put an end to those unreasonable rates.
If it could be understood once and for all that a monetary system in a country is not an instrument to allow the privileged few to make profits, if it could be understood once and for all that a monetary system in a country is an instrument to measure the value of things, services, and also allow for the exchange of those services and those things between people, I think a giant step would have been made towards the solution of our problems.
Madam Speaker, our monetary system is ruining the French-Canadian people. Banking institutions are legally allowed to mint the nation's credit and in exchange for that work charge interests at rates beyond basic common sense. So, as long as there is no decision to set that area straight municipalities will find it impossible to take advantage of the legislation we pass in this Parliament. I know what I am talking about. For 30 years I was treasurer of a municipality. The problem of the administration was related to financing projects they had in mind on account of high interest rates.
Bill C-133, that I defended with all my energy, gave municipalities and cities the power to improve housing districts with the federal contribution, with the Canadian taxpayers' money, but returned in the taxpayers' pockets through our municipalities. This is a wonderful legislation, but our municipalities do not have the necessary funds to benefit from it and they must refer to the provincial government. It is the province that decides in final analysis whether such a ward of such a municipality or city may benefit from the federal legislation that we passed in Parliament.
Well, Madam Speaker, the purpose of my remarks is to draw the attention of the minister and the Cabinet to the serious financing problem in the public sector; it is a problem that stifles the greatest devotion and the greatest energies, because no one can pay three times instead of just once.
Madam Speaker, take as an example the case of a young man of 25. He is married and wants to own his own house. To own one's house in a country like ours means a lot, because when a man owns his own house it is as if he held a share of his country. Well, what does a country mean? It means a land that one wants to defend at all price. People who love their homeland will make every effort to defend it. But when the country burdens us until age 100 before we can own a house, sooner or later one forgets the homeland and feels ready to listen to and accept any outside theory that will fulfill one's expectations.
With the present financing system, whether it be the Quebec Housing Corporation or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the married couple with one or two children cannot even try to really own a house. Today, with a house costing $30,000 and the corresponding burden, they will not live long enough to see the day when they truly own their house. The system deprives our youth of any hopes. Despite fine speeches and fine bills, figures speak for themselves. Let us take the trouble to consider what a $30,000 loan at 10, 11 or 12 per cent interest, will represent for a young man after 30 years of monthly payments. Providing of course he is not ill and can work

every day. If problems arise, if he is momentarily unemployed, creditors will still require payments. And if he cannot face up to his obligations, the debitor will say: "Take the house, take the whole thing and do whatever you want with it". We will then have another Canadian ready to accept any ideology, because he will have an axe to grind, he will have been deprived of his most natural ambitions.
Madam Speaker, I want to close by asking the government and all my colleagues to study together, to reflect upon bur financial system, our mode of financing the public sector. Then, when we have reflected and studied our system sufficiently, system which does not serve us but exploits us, I believe we will decide once and for all to help each other and work together to ensure that the monetary system of our country becomes the servant of all Canadians instead of being an instrument for profit in the hands of those who control and exploit the people to their own ends.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the first piece of legislation that this new Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) has brought before this House. It is perhaps the first opportunity that I have had since he was elevated to that position to congratulate him on assuming that post with all its responsibilities, and I would like to do so without reservation.
I want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if enthusiasm, joy in work, and those other characteristics of his will solve the housing problem in Canada then, with respect to this minister, the solution lies in his hands. I regret to say, however, that it is going to take much more than his enthusiasm, and it is going to take much more than the joy that he has for work, and more than his friendliness and his openness to solve a problem that has been facing Canadians for a long period of time.
I read an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal which set the parameters for the program. That editorial is entitled "The Next Housing Crisis", and it reads:
Governments are far too late trying to do something about the high price of housing in Canada. But there is still time to prevent things from getting much, much worse. Figures in the Central Mortgage and Housing annual report show how much worse the problems could become.
Just look at the numbers of households in Canada headed by persons 25 to 34 years of age, charted at five-year intervals: 1956, 820,000; 1961, 941,000; 1966, 1,016,000; 1971, 1,217,000; 1976 (estimated), 1,707,000; 1981 (estimated), 2,202,000.
That article discussed "The Next Housing Crisis", and it was written not yesterday, but almost a year ago, April 2, 1974. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, that the next housing crisis is upon us. The next housing crisis of which this editorial spoke is upon us, and the tragedy of it all is that although we are faced with that crisis, this piece of legislation, acceptable as it is, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), can be described as nothing more than a sticking plaster for the problems facing this country. It may be a reflection of something with respect to this
January 27, 1975

government. It is a suspicion that I have held for some time.
I believe that in the long run the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, and the department responsible for urban affairs are probably the most important departments with respect to the fundamental development of the economy of this country and meeting the basic needs of the citizens of this country.
We have in this day and age, a Department of Finance which is recognized as having its feet firmly in the ministerial hierarchy, and a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with his feet planted firmly in the administrative hierarchy of this country. Yet one of the most important departments in the Canadian ministry, the ministry respecting urban affairs, which deals with housing and transportation, land development and the relationship between the provinces, is nothing more than a conduit pipe between an independent commission or corporation like CMHC and this parliament. I think this minister deserves much more.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think the people of Canada deserve much more, and I think the people of Canada would welcome something that we have advocated for a long time. They would welcome a real frontal attack on the problems facing urban Canada. The first step is not band-aid legislation. The first step is not even appointing a good minister. The first step is to create a full time ministry charged with the responsibility for all those agencies which deal with urban problems facing Canada.
I heard the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) just a few moments ago say that the federal government has no responsibility for the high price of land. He said it was the lack of serviced lots, the high cost of lumber, the excesses of the provinces that were responsible for all of this. He said that the federal government had no responsibility at all, and I suggest to the hon. member that in saying that he insulted the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In fact the minister, by the programs he is trying to bring forward-and he is trying to bring them forward despite the difficulties he is having within the ranks of government-is saying to the people of Canada that the federal government does have a responsibility in all of those fields.
When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni cops out with respect to the economic situation and inflation in this country, as he did in his speech, by saying that the responsibility lay somewhere outside of Canada, in some area over which Canada had no control, then he is mocking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). The Minister of Finance has rejected an incomes policy, and a number of other time-honoured policies, and is going to certain elements in this country seeking some kind of consensus to control inflation. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Because there is- there must be-an acceptance of responsibility by the government of the part it must play in fighting inflation which is the root cause of the difficulty facing Canadians today in terms of housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Housing Act


Walter David Baker: Whatever acceptance of responsibility there has been for this great problem, the methods proposed for fighting it thus far have not worked. That is why we have asked the Minister of Finance and other ministers of the government, including the leader of this government, what they intend to do about inflation. If it is consensus they want how are they going about it, who are they meeting, and what results are they obtaining? The value of this approach to fighting inflation is indicated by the lack of answers in this House to those very important questions.
The problem of providing housing for Canadians, housing in some variety, is wrapped up with the problem of inflation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the failure of the government to act, the construction industry in this country is grinding to a halt and Canadians are suffering because of it. The will has gone out of the construction business, and it cannot meet this challenge which the minister would like to extend to it.
As long as this government acts that way, and as long as backbenchers say the blame lies somewhere else or the responsibility lies somewhere else, that will always be the case. This industry will suffer, and the crisis outlined in the editorial I quoted will be magnified. The children in those 1,700,000 households in this country which are headed by people between the ages of 25 and 34 are going to be denied what is a basic right in Canada, in my respectful submission, and that is the right to adequate housing and a variety of housing.
I say to the minister that what his policy has done, added to the other policies of the government, is to embark this country on a course in respect of housing which is changing the face of the nation. This government has said to Canadians that they can no longer hope to have a single family home. That is out of reach of all but a very small percentage of the population. Even if they use the $500 federal grant program it is unrealistic, and a home is still out of the reach of a growing number of Canadians. That is the matter we have to face in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, and that is the problem that is going to be with us for a number of years.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was going to wrestle inflation to the ground, and the Minister of Finance is going to ratchet inflation to the ground, as he puts it. The record speaks for itself from the time the wrestling match began and ended and in the ratcheting that has now begun. The policies for dealing with inflation which affect the whole of the housing industry, as they affect everything else, are such that Canadians are faced with social change in this and other fields.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has said this party will support the bill because it is a step up. The minister has not said what the government will do, although the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said they were optimistic that it would do something. The people of Canada have been living on hopes for housing for the last ten years. Those hopes have not been fulfilled, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni knows it.


An hon. Member:: What are your alternatives?


Walter David Baker: I will come to my alternatives. How far will it go? What income range will be
2650

January 27, 1975
National Housing Act
covered? There is nothing to guarantee Canadians any particular position there. How many new units, beyond optimistic hopes, will this produce, and what kind of new units are they going to be? How many are going to be single family housing, row housing, garden homes, condominiums or rental apartments? How many are going to be homes for senior citizens, and how many are going to be homes for veterans?
I sat in this House and heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) argue that we should forget the provisions of the Veterans Land Act because there was going ^o be a whole new program of housing for veterans. I did not buy that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure a number of other hon. members did not buy it either. I look at this first housing bill of this minister and ask: where is the legislation to help veterans as promised by the Minister for Veterans Affairs? It is not in this bill.
I read the mail I get each day and the thing that concerns me-I know it does not concern the hon. member who just interrupted and I am not surprised at that-but it concerns me that whether this House is sitting or not, each day I get a letter, or several letters from people who cannot manage to live in the housing which they have. Their housing problems are not being met by this government's programs, and from what they tell me they will not be helped by this bill. I get letters from senior citizens in municipalities where there is no senior citizen housing, and I ask myself what can be done for these people? I know the hon. member does not particularly care.


An hon. Member:: Speak to your friend Bill Davis.


Walter David Baker: They ask how we can help them. I look in the legislation to see if there is anything that will help with housing for senior citizens, and I see nothing.
We will support the legislation, but we are not very hopeful of the results in the long run. My friend over there said I should speak to Bill Davis. I should like to put on the record something that occurred long before the present minister took office with respect to this government and the government of Mr. William Davis.
My provincial colleague in the riding of Carleton is the Honourable Sidney Handleman, who was recently honoured by returning to the front bench in Queen's Park. Before he took ill, when he was minister of housing in the province-he occupied this portfolio for only a short time before he became ill-he wrote a letter to the minister's predecessor volunteering the co-operation of the provincial department of housing in integrating programs of the province with programs put forward by the then minister of state for urban affairs. That happened before the federal election.
Knowing of the ego trips of the former minister, he said he would give him and the government of Canada full credit if it participated. He said many federal and provincial programs parallel one another, overlap one another, and that this is a great waste of public money, public enterprise and public energy. He wrote his letter before the election, but there was never a reply accepting his most reasonable proposition. I do not know why. The

reason may have something to do with the circumstances of the time, or with the attitude of the then minister. But that is what happened. The provincial government of Ontario wanted to co-operate with the federal department.
In the past the federal government has suffered from what I call "federal-provincial jitters." I hope this will not happen under the present minister. I do not think we have tested the waters, so to speak. We do not know the exact jurisdiction of the federal government in this field, and the extent to which the federal government can show leadership in the field of housing and use its tremendous financial assets.
The government has not tested its ability to acquire land or its legal power to take a large parcel of land and develop it, not for sale in lots, but as lots which it can lease in perpetuity, so that people can lease land in perpetuity. After all, all Canadians may not want to own a piece of land; they merely want the right to use it for purposes of shelter. They want a home on that land. I do not think we have really tested the constitutional powers of the government of Canada in this field. The people of Canada are not interested in fine legal arguments about the jurisdiction of the government of Canada and the province of Ontario or any other province. They want to know where the houses are to be built. If the houses are built the people of Canada will give the minister credit, and so will I.
I do not know whether Central Mortgage and Housing or the ministry has carried out studies relating to the government's legal position in owning or leasing. I daresay that there is as much power to own land for the development of housing as there is to own land for the development of airports, but the legal aspects of this matter have not been tested. Again, policies of different government departments have not been co-ordinated.
On the one hand the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has introduced legislation which he hopes will lower the price of houses. On the other hand the Minister of Finance went only half-way in removing the silly, iniquitous and outdated sales tax on building materials, when he could have removed the tax entirely when presenting the budget. Even so, the Minister of Finance is not certain if any tax saving will be passed on to the purchasers of building materials. We know how much it costs to administer any tax program, but I submit that it costs as much to collect a 6 per cent building material tax as it does to collect an 11 per cent building material tax. I wonder why the government does not abolish that tax entirely.
An hon. member opposite asked what we, in our party, would do in the field of housing. I have touched on the importance of directing federal moneys wisely in the field of housing, and on the importance of consolidating and integrating provincial and federal housing policies and plans. Most of these plans are good and basically sound. Often federal and provincial plans could complement each other and could benefit from what I call a cross-fertilization. All the same, we must consider how important is the sales tax of building materials to total federal government revenues.
We must also look hard at the possibility of providing tax relief for the purchaser of a property, the ultimate owner. To help him carry it, we must consider giving income tax relief with respect to municipal taxes. I know
January 27, 1975

this may be administratively difficult, but governments have been known to solve administrative problems. Why should we not allow a person to deduct from income part, at least, of the money paid for mortgage interest, or part of the money paid as municipal taxes? We could grant that type of relief to those who rent. We do not need demonstration projects.
Before the last federal election the government announced a $100 million demonstration program. You know, the housing industry of Canada, associations of home owners, tenants-associations of all kinds, all groups in this country-will tell you that we need housing in this country. We do not need $100 million demonstration programs.
I wondered about the sincerity of the government when it announced the $100 million demonstration program, the high point of which was to be the development of a second Habitat in the riding of the then minister responsible for urban affairs. I wondered about the good faith of the government; more than that, I wondered about its good sense. That $100 million-and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned some interesting programs- could be the foundation to the sorts of programs this minister is trying to establish.
Let me touch on something touched on by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). He spoke about the majority of people in Canada living in urban centres, of more and more people being packed into smaller and smaller areas of land. I know big cities are important, but people living in them are encountering increasing difficulties. I wish the government would take a hard and constructive look at programs of decentralization and diversification so that people could be induced to live in small communities surrounding our larger cities. In this way they might enjoy a better life style than is possible in congested cities.
Wishing for this to happen will not make it happen. You cannot wish for congested urban areas to stop growing, because growth in this country will not stop. It must take place somewhere. We must, somehow, rationalize urban growth. Growth must be balanced against the necessity for preserving agricultural land. We should look beyond congested cities and consider establishing small communities surrounding our cities. If such a scheme is to work, and the minister talked about this earlier, it is necessary to do more than assemble serviced land, more than develop sewage and water systems. If this scheme is to work we must make sure that people who live in such communities can get to and from their places of work easily.
Over the long term, this is going to mean a very strong commitment to inter-urban transit in this country. It seems an incongruous thing that at a time when we are trying to conserve fuel and the government is planning on bringing forward a conservation policy with respect of fuel, the railroads are raising their fares. This will discourage traffic on those railroads. If traffic were diverted to the railroads it would save fossil fuels in this country.
It is in those areas that this minister must direct his energy and the policies of the government should be directed. Rather than simply writing statutes, promulgat-
National Housing Act
ing regulations, and issuing press releases and lovely orange and white coloured documents, the government should be starting on a concerted program.
There is a great difference between the statement of what the policy is in the drafting of a bill and the putting of that bill into action. There are many questions we are going to have to answer over the next few years. The measure of our answers to those questions will be the measure of what our society will be.
I want to return to what I said at the beginning. Nothing can be done in terms of the great problems that face us, whether provincially, municipally or federally, unless there is a commitment by this government, provincial governments and municipal governments to examine every program to see whether it is necessary today or whether it can be delayed for one, five or ten years without hurting the social fabric of the country. This may well involve a tremendous amount of planning. We must determine whether each of these programs is necessary. Out of this searching review of all government programs we must establish a set of priorities. If the development of housing is one of those, then some other programs will have to follow behind.
The government was given a mandate on July 8, 1974. I wish it had been otherwise, but I do not begrudge it a mandate. However, I ask it to use the mandate to look at all its programs and encourage other governments to look at theirs. I ask it to use its mandate to establish priorities in this country so that the questions of food and housing, the basic questions of this nation, can be faced in a way whereby the people of this country can have confidence that something will be done. They must have confidence that if money is put into those programs, something will be done. One of the most important programs must be housing and the development of serviced land. That is the challenge of this minister and this government. It is a challenge which, I am sorry to say, this legislation does not meet.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-46 because in the area I represent many jobs are unfilled due to the lack of housing. This condition has prevailed for some time.
If the government is really concerned about doing something with regard to the rate of unemployment in Canada, it will give areas of poor housing some consideration. There is potential employment. It should promote housing projects in the northern part of Canada.
Houses are being built on many Indian reserves in Canada, as well as in many small remote communities. However, in my opinion they are not being built to the standard for which they are being used. The houses now being built are designed for forced air and indoor plumbing systems. The people in these homes find that, after heating their wash water and other water used in the everyday keeping of a home, condensation builds up on the inside of the houses. It is much colder in northern Canada than in this part of the country. When these houses have a large build-up of condensation, there is rotting around the floor joists. It is necessary to carry out extensive repairs within five years of the completion of the house.
28626-33V4

January 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
The people who live in these houses claim that older type homes such as log homes were far more substantial. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) mention this. When I mentioned it previously in the House, I was subject to some criticism. I do not think many members realize how comfortable a log house can be. May I call it ten o'oclock, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is there someone on the government side who can tell us what we will be on tomorrow?


Mr. Lefebvre:: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, we will be back on the tax bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was in fact stating government policy when he made an announcement in Halifax to the effect that henceforth transportation will be a weapon to achieve economic development. I asked the right hon. member if that very commendable statement was government policy, and would he give us some of the details. I commend the right hon. gentleman for at least indicating that the minister's statement did have his approval.
This evening I wish to state some of the reasons why I am sorry the Prime Minister did not say that in fact it was government policy. So far the government has not shown that it uses transportation as any aid whatsoever to regional or economic development. The present nonsensical patchwork of rates and general policy actually keeps our region from capitalizing on a geographic advantage that it has. Even with the advent of container technology which gives the Atlantic region at least one plus factor, policies are weighted in favour of the central provinces.
I hope the spokesman for the government will at least give us an assurance this evening that the Minister of Transport was enunciating government policy and that the minister responsible for DREE is actively engaged with the present Minister of Transport, he being the former one, in a joint approach to using the transportation

factor as a component of DREE in connection with regional development.
Selective subsidies may not be the answer but more rational rate structures certainly are, and better co-ordination of existing carriers will help. The CN and CP, for example, could certainly do something to help transportation in this country. In the Atlantic region, where the EAR is almost an anachronism with the CNR surrounding it, the situation should be looked into. Improved technology would help, as would increased participation from other government agencies.
We in the maritimes want something more than vague promises and platitudes. We were given enough assurances during the last election campaign that there are great things in store in the field of transport. However, instead of imaginative management of transport we got mismanagement. At one time I would have suggested that the CDC might be utilized as a means of helping regional development by providing some expertise in transportation. But after noting its record since it was virtually presented with Polymer at bargain basement rates, and seeing it buy 914 million shares of Texas Gulf, losing nearly $40 million on paper so far on the deal, I have concluded it would be best to leave the CDC out of it.
Since transportation is vital to the economy it is interesting to observe that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has evolved a better approach. He recognizes the need for greater flexibility, for more decentralization, for increased interdepartmental and intergovernmental co-operation.
While DREE has still a long way to go it is only fair to say it is making progress under the present minister. I wish we could say the same for transport, but no one is able to do so particularly when the situation is getting worse and worse, and when the minister says it is even worse than we believe it to be. Apparently the railways will not supply cost data in such detail as to be useful to the government in assessing their operations. At long last legislation to deal with this point has been introduced-it was introduced some time ago in Bill C-48, if I remember correctly. But what a waste of time this entails. It is nothing less than a national disgrace.
I hope the Prime Minister will do what many members have requested him to do, that is, revamp and redefine the disposition of power in the department. It is all very well to decentralize the main components, such as pilotage authorities and the National Harbours Board so as to free them from undue political interference. That is a worthy object. It is quite another matter to place important components of the system in a position where they appear not to be subject to effective government control. Yet this is what is happening. This is what is preventing our coming to grips with transportation questions in this country.
Meanwhile the Chairman of the CTC and the Minister of Transport, each avoiding responsibility, pass the buck between them. For example, in Halifax a few days ago the Minister of Transport denied a request by the Atlantic provinces to refrain from lifting the freeze on freight rates. He said at that time: "I do not fix rates; the CTC fixes them. The final decision does not belong to me."
January 27, 1975

Again for the record I would like to bring to the attention of the minister subsection (1) of section 64 of the National Transportation Act, which provides:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the commission, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the commission and upon all parties.
So the minister, as a federal cabinet minister, together with his colleagues and the Governor in Council, and so on, have the final decision.
Also for the record I bring once more to the attention of the minister, as I have in the past, section 50 of the National Transportation Act, a very short section, which provides as follows:
The Governor in Council may at any time refer to the Commission for a report, or other action, any question, matter or thing arising, or required to be done, under the Railway Act, or the Special Act, or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, and the Commission shall without delay comply with the requirements of such reference.
The minister has considerable authority at the present time, but is curiously reluctant to use it.
In conclusion I say to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker: give us in this House some leadership in coping with our transportation problems, and negotiate some new tariff agreements or other agreements to protect those parts of the country that are being crippled and held to ransom by the present outmoded transportation policy.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that time does not permit me to answer adequately all of the charges and points raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) but I will try to stick to the main point that he made in his earlier question. The answer very simply, I suppose, is yes, transportation will be used as an instrument in support of regional economic and social development.
I am sure that if the hon. member would think for a moment or two of some of the legislation now in effect in the maritime provinces, he will agree that the fact is that the government has been doing just that for some time. I can cite the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the Atlantic Freight Rates Assistance Act, through which the government has contributed over $70 million in the past three years alone to subsidize not only those who ship via rail but also those who use truckers to move goods at reasonable rates within the Atlantic region, and to allow Atlantic region shippers to compete in the central Canada market. That has been going on, as I say, for some time.
It is my information that only last April the government increased both truck and rail subsidies paid under this legislation, in some cases up to 50 per cent, on a range of agricultural, manufactured and processed products. In addition, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build ports, airport and highway facilities to help develop not only the Atlantic region about which the hon. member is rightly concerned but other parts of Canada as well.
Adjournment Debate
The fact that the Atlantic region is now experiencing a net in-migration population pattern attests, I think, to the success of the programs of DREE and the Ministry of Transport. This is not to say that the department is yet satisfied as such. As we develop our new policy we are in constant communication with all the ministers from the Atlantic provinces, as well as the ministers from the western provinces, Ontario and Quebec, to try to get a clear and concise understanding of their priorities so they can hopefully be considered and incorporated as part of our over-all transportation planning. The Atlantic provinces are making a significant contribution in this respect, as indeed are other ministers from various parts of Canada. It is certainly the intention of the government to use transportation to ensure the continued development of a strong and viable Atlantic region.
As far as the role of DREE in this area is concerned, the two departments have worked closely together in the past and I can assure the House they will continue to do so in the future.
In closing, very briefly I can only repeat what my minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), told ministers responsible for transportation in Halifax a couple of weeks ago, namely, that if any industries there can show the government that they are in serious jeopardy as a result of freight rate increases, then we will find some way of specifically helping those particular industries.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF CIDA OPERATIONS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the Canadian International Development Agency? That is the question increasing numbers of Canadians are asking in the light of at least 15 newspaper articles in the last month that have been critical of CIDA's operations. The current series in the Ottawa Journal raises questions that demand answers if the credibility of Canada's international assistance is not to be jeopardized.
By citing examples of misdirected aid, of rushing to spend $117 million to protect next year's budget, of low staff morale because of maladroit management practices, the Journal series casts doubt on the very integrity of CIDA. At the very least it makes us doubt that Canadians are getting good value for the nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars budgeted for CIDA.
In the Commons today I sought a special parliamentary review of CIDA to provide us with the answers we must have at this critical moment in the world. Others in my party have also sought a special inquiry, but the government responds by saying that we can ask questions about CIDA when next year's estimates are being considered by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The situation is too serious to hand it over to routine proceedings that are totally inadequate to the review necessary. Let me state emphatically that it is not a witchhunt I am proposing. I speak as a friend, not an enemy of CIDA's. It is precisely

Adjournment Debate
because I support that concept and programs of Canada's international assistance that I must have the assurance; indeed my responsibilities as a member of parliament demand that I have this assurance that the operation of CIDA is proper and beneficial.
As a member of parliament I receive lots of objections from constituents about the increasing amounts of foreign aid. These complaints understandably increase when raging inflation and increasing unemployment are dislocating the domestic economy and causing hardship at home.
I am willing to continue standing up for CIDA and international assistance, but I do not want the rug pulled out from under me by revelations of mismanagement that cast reflections not only on CIDA but on my defence of CIDA. If there is not mismanagement why has the president of CIDA refused to release a management study done by an outside consulting firm?
I am stating bluntly that we had better start hearing the facts about CIDA from the source itself, rather than depending on newspaper accounts, or there is bound to be a blowup from all this pressure. Many Canadians are resentful that we seem to be helping countries now able to take care of themselves. I have been puzzled by conflicting statements by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and by the president of CIDA on the future of Canadian aid programs to oil rich countries.
We need to know if the direct capital assistance of $84 million to Algeria, Nigeria and Indonesia will be phased out, since these countries are now oil producers. We need to know if CIDA intends to loan $10 million to Cuba at the maximum concessionality, that is no interest and repayment over 50 years starting in the 10th year. Why is a communist country getting such a break? We need to know how CIDA's programs are related to the export branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I have cited these examples of questions to show where a special inquiry should start. It is not isolated cases of bad judgment that should concern us as much as whether CIDA has the capacity to meet new challenges brought on by the "global emergency" of which the U.N. Secretary General warns us. The Special U.N. conferences last year on raw resources, population and food all had a common denominator; the interlocking relationship of the global problems of mass poverty, famine, population growth, the arms race, and unequal distribution of energy.
These conferences have helped us to see that the fundamental issue in the world is the inequalities between the rich minority and the poor majority. We are slowly learning that a billion people in the oil poor countries are suffering hunger and malnutrition; 20 per cent of the world's population consumes 75 per cent of the energy and resources, and developing countries pay more on debt servicing than they get in aid.
These are profound facts calling for openness and flexibility by the developed nations. The developing nations are on an irreversible march toward economic liberation. The key to peace is thus found in closing the rich-poor gap. Foreign aid programs are simply inadequate to this enlarged task.
Therefore the inquiry I seek would investigate not only the operation and the value of CIDA programs, but would relate them to our policies affecting the United Nations, trade and monetary reform, so that we would have an over-all, consistent policy by Canada toward the developing world. When I raised these points in the Commons last Thursday, during a debate on new tariffs affecting developing nations, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said he agreed with me.
It is not only an opposition MP who should be calling for this comprehensive review. We ought to hear this call from the government, from the non-governmental organizations that have so much at stake in government policies, from the churches, education and community leaders who want our country to do the right thing in a world where new demands for justice require more than the charity of the rich. We ought to hear this call from the president of CIDA himself, for no one in Canada knows better than he that in a suffering world it is intolerable to have the good name of CIDA under a cloud.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that any review the hon. member would be part of, and any criticism he would have of CIDA would be of a positive nature to improve the organization, therefore helping it and the government to have a better program of international development. The minister in his answer this afternoon never expressed any doubt about that, and we hope that that is what hon. members opposite have in mind.
The minister answered the hon. member's question this afternoon by saying that in a matter of four or five weeks the estimates of CIDA, as with all estimates of the government, will be referred to standing committees.
I certainly agree with the hon. member that any criticisms which are brought up in newspaper articles or by hon. members should be answered. The question is whether these criticisms and these questions justify a special parliamentary inquiry. A special parliamentary inquiry takes the time of a committee. This particular committee will be sitting in any case in a matter of a few weeks, as I just said. There are many items which should be brought before this and other committees. Some of the hon. member's colleagues, for example, are requesting a reference of NORAD to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I have been a party to discussions leading up to that, and I hope it will be referred by the House very shortly.
We believe that in this case the committee can wait until the first weeks of March when all estimates of the government will be referred. At that time the hon. member, as well as others, and the public through the media can raise questions, and all these questions hopefully will be answered in a satisfactory manner. I can only repeat the minister's answer of this afternoon that we do not believe that a special inquiry in this instance is necessary or justifiable, and that the House can wait until referral of the estimates in March.
January 27, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m

Tuesday January 28, 1975