1975-12-05

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, and I am sorry to disturb him. My question is with regard to the answers or nonanswers given to me yesterday by the Prime Minister. Even though I accept with some difficulty his statement that he has less knowledge of the facts in connection with Sky Shops and related matters than the average member of the public does, which seems to be the inference he created yesterday, I should like to ask him if he has had any discussions with Senator Giguere with respect to the Senator's interest in and activities on behalf of companies doing business with the government. In saying this I emphasize that I am not dealing with the question of criminal investigation, I am dealing with the question of public morality and ethics. Has the Prime Minister had any discussion with the Senator?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to the Senator in years, I would say. I did understand that he made an offer to his colleagues in the Senate to answer any questions they might have and to testify before a committee that they might set up on conflict of interest or on any other matters. That satisfied me as being an indication that the Senator would be open on this particular aspect of conflict of interest which the Senate is presently in the midst of studying. As the hon. member knows, the government submitted a report on conflict of interest which, after a very long and agonizing process through the House, has gone to the other place.


SUGGESTED REVIEW OF GUIDELINES BY PRIME MINISTER
Gerald William Baldwin: I sympathize with the Prime Minister in his use of the word "agonizing". I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he has had a chance to read and review the guidelines in question of which the Minister of Justice indicated he was the initiator or the father, and under the circumstances is he considering withdrawing those guidelines and issuing new ones which will have the effect of ratifying, confirming and adopting as a model the facts which have been brought out and made public in connection with the matter of Sky Shops and related incidents.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be interested in re-reading the guidelines if the hon. member would indicate what particular section he thinks the Senator has infringed.
X10)


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest the Prime Minister would do well over the weekend to refresh his memory and read guidelines numbers 1, 2 and 3.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You don't know the answer?


Gerald William Baldwin: He would find them very interesting reading.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. It is in regard to the lease currently held at Dorval by Kebec Restaurants. In view of the fact that this company has had a monopoly on this lease for more than ten years at very advantageous rates, could the minister assure the House that when this lease is up for renewal in February it will be put out for open tender, in keeping with stated departmental policy?


Mr. Chretien:: That was approved in 1962.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If there is no Acting Minister of Transport, I will ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to arrange to table in this House a copy of the lease agreement between the Department of Transport and Kebec Restaurants which the minister indicated yesterday assured this company it would continue to enjoy these exclusive rights at Dorval for almost 15 years without any competitive tendering. Perhaps it could also be explained why Kebec Restaurants, whose president says it is now making a handsome profit on its operations at Dorval, currently is paying no higher a percentage to the government than was originally-as the President of the Treasury Board said-set in 1960.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly bring this to the attention of the minister. As the hon. member says, it will mean going back a number of years. This was a lease which originally was granted by the Diefenbaker government, and the terms of it were approved under the Diefenbaker government.

December 5, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Well changed since.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was the origin of this apparently very sinister giving of a contract.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBILITY BOARD HAS POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS CONTRAVENING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in reply to a question I put to the Minister of Justice with regard to the inconsistency of principle which has been decided upon by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board in terms of reaching decisions with severity now and more leniently later, as he stated two days ago in a speech and repeated yesterday, the Minister of Justice said that the law we passed on Wednesday in this chamber, Bill C-73, gave that kind of power to the Anti-Inflation Board. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is his view that the authority given to the Anti-Inflation Board is such that it is possible for it to make decisions which contravene the principle of the rule of law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I suspected and stated in the House yesterday, Mr. Pepin was misquoted. He was contacted yesterday, and he said that he had been very badly misquoted.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, heard Mr. Pepin's correction, at least as it was reported again in the news last night, and if I remember correctly, his words were to the effect that once again his rulings or the board's rulings, in interpreting the anti-inflation legislation, would be less severe further down the road, as he hoped at that time inflation would ease up. If that is the case, it seems to me that he is simply using different words from those attributed to him earlier, namely that the law as it now exists will be applied less severely to groups which come before the board in two, three or four months hence than it will be to those groups which come before it now. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed that the Minister of Finance contacted Mr. Pepin, and Mr. Pepin said he had been misquoted. So if the hon. member is now saying that he heard a second quote, it is probably a second misquote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT VIEW ON CONSISTENCY OF BOARD RULINGS
John Edward Broadbent: My final question will not deal with what Mr. Pepin is alleged to have said or not to have said. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to state government policy on this matter. Is it the view of the government that the Anti-Inflation Board must rule in a consistent fashion for the whole period for which that legislation is operative in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well yes, Mr. Speaker. The board is certainly expected to rule in a very even-handed manner but as the hon. member knows, in matters of administrative law you do have to look at the particular case and it does happen that administrative law is made up of a series of judgments in particular cases. I have no way of predicting what the Anti-Inflation Board will judge in particular cases, but I am confident it will judge within its mandate and within the terms of the law and regulations.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On October 24, 1975, the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada submitted to the committee an excellent and extremely important brief on trade and custom duties concerning the very serious circumstances of this Canadian industry. My question is this: can the minister advise the House whether, following the submission of this brief, he will soon announce strong and concrete measures to prevent most shoe manufacturers in Canada from going under, as is the case in my own riding where employers have had to lay off 75 per cent of their staff including some with over 30 years' experience in this important industry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I would be pleased to bring that question to his attention. I know he will be back early next week. At the present time he is leading a very important trade delegation to France.


Mr. Fairweather:: Has he seen the President?


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-DATE OF COMPLETION AND ESTIMATED COST-ESTIMATED THROUGHPUT AND POSSIBILITY OF MAKING DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will put my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister inform the House when the interprovincial pipeline extension to Montreal will be completed in light of the recently announced delay, and can he inform the House what this extension is now estimated to cost?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke to the president of the Interprovincial Pipeline Company he told me that he expected oil to be moving through that pipeline by May 1, 1976. I recognize, as does the Leader of the Opposi-
December 5, 1975

tion, that there have been difficulties with respect to construction as a result of weather and other conditions and it is possible there may be a delay. If there is a hard frost, however, I understand that construction will proceed throughout the winter months.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the second part of my question about the present estimated cost upon completion. Perhaps when he answers that he could indicate how much oil it is now contemplated will be going through that extension on a daily basis when it is completed in light of the revision of our oil reserves and export policies, that sort of thing. Does the government now estimate it will have to begin making deficiency payments with repect to this pipeline right off the bat?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to get the figures the Leader of the Opposition is asking for on the increased costs that may be associated with any delay but I have not got them at present. As to the throughput of the line, I expect there will be 250,000 barrels a day moving through that line before the end of next year.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice. Having regard to the exceptional manner in which the crime probe in the city of Montreal has operated and received national approbation, can the Prime Minister tell the House why, in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the part of certain individuals who did not want to give evidence before that commission, the government of Canada joined with those alleged Mafia and unsavoury characters in arguing that the probe was not within the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple matter of the law. If the hon. member looks at the BNA Act he will find that criminal law comes within federal jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister not think that the Supreme Court of Canada was aware of that elementary law to which he alluded? Did he not think they possessed the intelligence to understand that? Why, then, did the government of Canada throw its weight behind these alleged thugs in order to set aside the probe so beneficial to the revelation of wrongdoing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the jurisdiction of the government of Canada is thought to be infringed by any provincial action or legislation-


John George Diefenbaker: Aha!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Aha!


Mr. Hees:: It's Friday morning.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it is the current practice of the government of Canada to step in, to defend that aspect of its jurisdiction, and this has nothing to do with who happens to be under suspicion. We are not of that category of people who believe, as the hon. member presumably does, that it is the duty of the police to inform the press of the investigation they are conducting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, was this done because the government feared that some revelations might bring out certain things the government did not want to have released?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps possible that during the tenure of the right hon. gentleman as Prime Minister something would have been discovered, but we are not afraid.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. You prevented the court from acting. That was cowardly. You would not find anything during my period to indicate wrongdoing.


REASON IMPORTS OF AUTOMATIVE PARTS FROM UNITED STATES GREATER THAN CANADIAN EXPORTS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a hard act to follow. My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence-he is in France on an important mission-may I address the question to the acting minister, who was the minister responsible when these things happened. Why is it that during the first nine months of this year Canada increased its exports of automotive parts to the United States by only 10 per cent, when the economy of that country was recovering rapidly, while, at the same time, the United States was able to increase its exports of the same products to this country by twice that amount when the economy of our country was flat?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has not looked at the statistics. If he had been watching the situation he would have realized that the United States automobile market was a lot flatter than the Canadian market.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is a complete misstatement, because the American economy has been recovering rapidly, particularly the automotive sector, as the minister knows. I ask, as I once headed this distinguished department, what has happened to this once great department which used to pride itself on being the greatest salesman in the world but now seems to have lost its touch.

December 5, 1975
Oral Questions


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is it exact that with his well known charisma he has now succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the Minister of the Environment and bringing her into the labyrinth of communications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all ministers are very interested in the communications problem and, as I had the opportunity of stating to the press yesterday, several backbenchers could do an excellent job as ministers of communications.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Prime Minister advise the House today whether the appointment has already been agreed upon by the Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that until the Governor General has sworn in a new minister, it is not customary to disclose the name of this minister.


PUBLISHING
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious adverse effect present legislation, Bill C-58, will have on the value of stocks held by 600 Canadian citizens in Reader's Digest (Canada), will the government take action to protect their equity which amounts to about 32 per cent of the ownership of the company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize; the import of the question escaped me. I will take notice of it and try to answer, unless the hon. member wants to ask the question again.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister did not get the import of my question, may I repeat it. In view of the serious adverse effect of his present legislation, Bill C-58, upon the value of stocks held by 600 Canadian citizens in Reader's Digest (Canada), will his government take any action to protect their equity which amounts to about 32 per cent of the ownership? Three years ago, this stock was worth $32.50 on the market. This morning it is worth $7.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in order to even consider the question, one would have to know to what the serious adverse effect is due. I have no means of knowing what is

going to happen to Reader's Digest or to any other magazine in Canada. If I were playing the stock market, I would take my own chances.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the congenial Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continuing difficulties of cow-calf operators, which the minister knows are very serious, can he tell us whether he has the Christmas spirit and can guarantee that he expects the federal cow-calf stabilization program to be in effect in this country after the new year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I ask Scrooge whether he has secured agreement in principle between the provinces and the federal government on the broad details of such a program. If not, can he tell us whether any of the provinces are opposed to such a program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have an ongoing committee of federal and provincial officials discussing this which will be discussed further at the Outlook Conference. There will be a full ministerial meeting on December 17 to discuss all the possibilities of stabilization and what kind of program we should be developing. We hope to develop a program for beef producers for the calendar year January 1 to December 31, 1976, some time in the future.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My question is addressed to the House leader. A month ago the Minister of Finance indicated to the House that he planned to introduce legislation to impose export taxes on all export companies. He promised to have this in before Christmas. Will this be coming in before Christmas?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under discussion. It is the intention to introduce some resolutions along these lines before the House adjourns for the Christmas break.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the lucid and articulate Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. It
December 5, 1975

concerns the recent heavy raids by the Israeli air force which resulted in the killing of many women and children in Palestinian refugee camps in the sovereign state of Lebanon. Can the minister advise if the Canadian government shares the concern expressed in Washington and at the Vatican inter alia as to this destructive attack on civilians and, if so, has such concern been expressed to the Israeli ambassador to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. gentleman, I am sure we all deplore this terrible tragedy, regardless of the circumstances or of the provocation. It has not been necessary for us to express any view on this matter in the United Nations because it has come before the Security Council of which we are not a member. However, I can assure the hon. member that the government deplores actions of this kind, regardless of their origin or of their motivation, and hopes this cycle of violence that has now escalated to these heights will soon be at an end.
* *
*
Oral Questions MANPOWER


MINISTER'S ESTIMATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1976-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Two nights ago the minister, on the Program "Reflection", indicated that his personal estimation of unemployment in the year 1976 is 7 per cent. I wish to ask the minister whether, in reaching that estimation, he took into account the impact of the anti-inflation legislation.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was a personal observation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As I said, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated two nights ago it was his personal estimation that the unemployment rate for the year 1976 would be 7 per cent. I now ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the minister with regard to this or, if not, whether he will tell us what in his judgment will be the unemployment rate for 1976. I know there is some rapport between those who sit on the front bench.


SCIENCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Some time ago, a Montreal daily confirmed the existence of a report prepared for the Science Council of Canada by Mr. Eric Bourdeau, engineer-economist, on all the circumstances that surrounded the launching of the James Bay project. As this report has now been completed, can the minister tell us whether it will be made public and, if so, when?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter and ask the Science Council of Canada whether it will publish a report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
make personal estimates. I read the figures from Statistics Canada and statements about the possible trend of the economy from various sources.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister, I think conveniently, neglected to answer the main part of my question, that is, whether he agrees with the estimate given by the Minister of Manpower. I would think the Minister of Manpower has provided some input in this connection.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we attempt to remedy such evils as unemployment, we do it in various ways. The budget is the most obvious way in which we act. Of course, when we impose budgetary measures to expand the fiscal and monetary framework we make assumptions as to what unemployment would be had we not acted in certain ways and these assumptions, to the extent they are important in reaching decisions, can usually be assessed from the budget itself.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Do you agree with the minister or not?


An hon. Member:: Irrelevant.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I have, like many others, followed the evolution of the James Bay project, and as I feel that the report can in no way be very flattering for the Quebec government, in view of the lack of preliminary surveys, and also in the interest of all Quebecers, I ask the minister whether he will recommend to the cabinet that the report be published for the information of Quebec residents?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about the matter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, primarily for purposes of clarification, arising out of an answer he gave to the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-
9758

December 5, 1975
Oral Questions
ville. I think the minister indicated, if I understood him correctly, that there would be no stabilization program aimed at assisting cow-calf producers in January, 1976. Could the minister clarify this answer in the light of his statement of November 26, which can be found on page 9462, of Hansard in which the minister indicated that he and his deputy minister and their provincial counterparts would be meeting to work out a proper program to start, I think, in January, 1976. Has the minister changed his mind? Is anything going on? Or does he intend to allow the situation to deteriorate to the extent that the cow-calf producers will all go broke?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading something which I do not have in front of me at the present time. I do not believe I specifically said anything about a cow-calf program on November 26. I said we were working on a program which we were going to develop for the calendar year from January 1 to the end of December, 1976. It doesn't have to start on January 1. The announcement can be made at any time, for example, in the middle of the year. Meetings are still taking place. There are ongoing meetings between provincial deputy ministers, my deputy minister and officials in my department, trying to work out suitable programs. If we can decide on a proper program for beef producers I hope it will be announced as soon as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the minister saying he is not considering a specific cow-calf program under the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act? Yes or no.


Eugene Whelan: There is nothing in the act that specifically says there has to be a program for cow-calf operators. The reference is to cattle and the hon. member knows that we follow the act and we have not changed it. And we are not going to change it until we can work out a proper program, because there has been too much disunity among beef producers in the country about what they want done and what they do not want done. Not all the provinces are unanimous about what should or should not be done.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I simply ask the minister, is the answer yes or no? From the language he used I take it the answer is no, and that he is not considering a program for the cow-calf producers of this country.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we have considered a cow-calf program in the hope some kind of program beneficial to cow-calf producers or beef producers in total can be worked out. That is what we want, if it can be a national program. Of course, it must be done with the co-operation of the provinces and the producers.


PERIOD TO BE COVERED BY COW-CALF STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister referred to January, 1976 as the starting date and then said he did not know whether he could make the announcement as soon as that. Regardless of when the announcement is made, can he assure the House that if such a program comes into effect, it will be retroactive to the beginning of the year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, some of the programs we have are sometimes not announced until the end of the crop year. I have met with producers, as recently as yesterday, who suggested we do not announce stabilization programs until the crop year ends. But we have a formula already worked out for them. They were of the opinion it might have an effect on their market. I said that if we did have a program it would be for the calendar year, January, 1976 to the end of December, 1976.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Following the wish expressed by International Olympic Committee Chairman Lord Killanin that provincial and federal authorities in Canada join their efforts to ensure that the facilities for the Olympic Games in Montreal be ready in time, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he would agree to meet the Quebec authorities to determine what joint action could be taken to guarantee the success of the games, because failure to hold them could tarnish the image of our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the international chairman's statement. If he had proposals to put to the government of Canada, I suppose he would know to reach this government. As regards the rest of the question, we have not received from the government of Quebec any request for a meeting on that particular subject.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. In the light of allegations by CUPW that Post Office officials conspired with local union leaders in Toronto and other places to undermine the collective bargaining process, will the Postmaster General tell the House if the Deputy Postmaster General or anyone else released details of the government's offer to anyone other than the union negotiating team, and if an investigation into the allegation is proposed?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: I think any investigation should be made by CUPW and their own local officials rather than by the Post Office, in connection with any contact we may or may not have had with members of the CUPW other than the negotiating team. I am not aware of any direct contact at all with any president of any local of CUPW.
December 5, 1975


ENVIRONNENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: In view of the statement of the Minister of the Environment in the House that the request for funds for the Fraser Valley flood control program is before Treasury Board, and in view of the urgency of the request because of current and potential further spring flooding in the Fraser Valley, could the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that priority will be given to making a decision on the request before it. Could the minister advise us when a decision might be forthcoming? Has this request been dealt with and, if not, will the minister assure the House that priority will be given in making a decision and will he advise us when such a decision might be forthcoming.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course, if we were faced with an urgent problem and the Minister of the Environment asked me to examine a recommendation with my colleagues of the Treasury Board, I would do so as soon as possible. Naturally, I would like the hon. member to note at the same time that he might perhaps inform the leader of the opposition that he calls on the government to spend a little more money.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Because of the fact that earlier this week the Minister of Justice was unable or perhaps unwilling to confirm the minister's own statement suggesting that new legislation is being considered for security reasons for the Olympics for the purpose of replacing the War Measures Act, in the absence of the Minister of Justice could the Solicitor General advise this House whether or not such legislation is in fact being drafted and, if so, for what purpose and when can we expect it to be introduced.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that legislation is under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. It is my understanding that some of it is being drafted but I cannot give the hon. member further details.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and hopefully a short supplementary for the Minister of
Oral Questions
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he agreed to meet with the residents of the St. Lawrence islands parks region to discuss their many objections to the government's park expansion plan and when and can he guarantee there will be no expropriation of private property.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the book. Sometime next week, I believe on Thursday or Friday, I will be meeting representatives of the region. The question of expropriation presumably will be discussed. I have already said we hope there will be no expropriation, but if there is it will be in very limited key areas. We hope we will be able to get whatever properties are required on a voluntary basis. To date, some 20 people have come forward and offered their properties.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House the reason an official of Parks Canada, Mr. Chris-takus stated publicly to the residents in the area at a public meeting that the minister had conferred with his provincial counterpart before this expansion plan was announced because subsequently at least two provincial cabinet ministers have denied that any such meetings took place. Could the minister tell us if, indeed, he did confer with his provincial counterpart.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check back. I do not think I did, but I believe there were discussions at the official level concerning the park.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can he comment on recent reports that self-employed businessmen may be able to get around the pay increase guidelines by lending themselves money out of the company treasury at low interest rates and generous pay-back provisions. Is this something to which the government would object and, if so, can he say whether the government intends to plug this particular loophole?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the first I have heard of it, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance and find out if there are regulations to prevent this happening.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY MAY PERMIT INCREASES IN INCOME GREATER THAN GUIDELINES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is generally acknowledged that as an economy begins to come out of a recession, productivity as we measure it, begins to go up. Mr. Donald Edwards, director general of the compensation branch of the Anti-Inflation Board has indicated that the board might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?
29956-651^
December 5, 1975

Oral Questions


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister inquire whether the government's productivity increases would permit increased compensation of up to $5,000 which is more than the guidelines suggest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, increased compensation to whom and under what circumstances? I am afraid the hon. member would need to ask the question at more length or submit it in writing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has now reversed the position it took on November 24 in its letter to the Anti-Inflation Board and has in fact rolled back the price of Grade A large eggs on the basis of a decline in the price of feed, I ask the minister if he is now prepared to direct, or as a result of his meeting with the Farm Products Marketing Council he is directing, the council to examine the whole cost of production formula of the agency and is he satisfied that the cost of production formula is in order.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to find out for himself he can do so very easily by talking to any member of the council. We have a full-time officer who just watches the price formula they are using. The fact that eggs have been reduced one cent a dozen is the result of following the formula. They could reduce it further in another month if the cost input warrants that much of a change. I am satisfied that when they increased the price of eggs one cent a dozen for grade A large this was warranted. We are continually watching it. I said to the hon. member the other day I was going to meet with the Farm Products Marketing Council and he tried to say I misled the House. I did meet with them. I told them my concern and the concern of the members of the House of Commons about what was going on and they assured me they were following the formula and that their person was checking. I did not receive a written reply but I received a phone call telling me they were satisfied and also that their price would be rolled back one cent a dozen because of the information they were provided by the feed industry in Canada and as a result of their double checking with the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and so on, which they do constantly every day of the week.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if we can take from his answer that the price of eggs has been rolled back as a consequence of discernible changes in the price of feed grain or if in fact the price of eggs has been rolled back as a consequence of the protest levelled at CEMA over the recent price increases by the Anti-Inflation Board.


Eugene Whelan: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The price was rolled back because they are following the formula as they are supposed to and because we are watching them.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister advise the House whether or not there will be a certification program in place by December 31 to provide that his department will not have to continue the collection of the ten cents per gallon excise tax on that portion which ultimately has to be refunded to the several eligible groups in Canada.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the regulations are now in the final stage of preparation and would expect to be able to announce them soon. There is an interdepartmental committee working on this. Whether they will reach all the individuals the hon. member would like I do not know at this time.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether this certification program will be in place by the end of this year so that another taxation year will not be involved.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not expect by the end of this year, Mr. Speaker.
Hs *	*


MANPOWER
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has his department conducted an inquiry into the whole question of the extent and effect of the apparently high proportion of persons teaching in Canadian universities who are not, or are not trying to become, Canadian citizens.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this whole area is under very intensive review now. I do not think it will be long before we will be announcing a federal position. As the hon. member will appreciate this is very much a matter under provincial jurisdiction and we will make our decision after consultation with the provinces.

December 5, 1975


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for unemployment insurance.
Considering that several UIC officers act in a disgraceful manner towards claimants, for example by making them sign statements and then forcing them to make payments over a long period, and considering that some people must pay up to $20 a letter to a physician to get their benefits, which is an acquired right, can the minister tell this House whether he intends to establish more humane guidelines for the implementation of this legislation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Commission employees, with very few exceptions, have been acting totally under the provisions of the Act and not in an inhumane or shameful fashion. I resent the criticism and allegations about them. With regard to the monitoring of unemployment insurance benefit payments, I believe it is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the plan. The practice of signing statements through the benefit control process was discontinued three or four months ago and those details have been explained before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. In so far as other activities are concerned, if the hon. member has any specific instances, I would be glad to look into them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is aware of a report by the Environmental Protection Service stating that effluent from the operations of the Sydney steel plant into the Sydney harbour contains more than 100 times the level of pollutants allowable under U.S. standards. May I ask the minister if she is in receipt of a resolution from the Sydney city council making seven recommendations pertaining to the Sydney epidemiological study and, if so, is she prepared to accede to the request of the city council?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received and I do not have before me the resolutions of the Sydney Health Board, but I know that for some time they have been preoccupied by the problem of air pollution in that region. My officials have met with them in order to reassess the situation in Sydney. We have underway an epidemiological study involving the federal Department of National Health and Welfare and my own department, by which we are trying to establish whether there is a health hazard resulting from the air
Oral Questions
pollution. Once we get that report we will want to act to the extent the present legislation will allow us. We must first prove there is damage to health. However, with the recent passage of the Contaminants Act, and under other pieces of legislation and if I am able to come to grips with the problem of the provincial and federal jurisdictions, all levels of government should try to do something to solve that problem which is a very important one.


HOUSING
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has to do with a question I asked him on December 1 to which the minister answered that he would agree to look into the circumstances surrounding rent increases which have been proposed on federally controlled low income housing units in the national capital area. Has he had an opportunity to make that investigation, and could he make a statement to the House in response to my question?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I asked for information on this, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have the answer yet. Regrettably, I have been away in the last few days. It might be in my papers but I would rather give a comprehensive report.


Walter David Baker: During the course of that exchange I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would look into the position of CMHC in terms of federally financed low income housing units as an element of the control program, and the minister undertook to give an answer. Would he be kind enough to speak to his colleague to see whether he would be prepared also to give an answer specifically with respect to low income housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into both these questions.


GOVERNMENT VIEW OF QUEBEC HYDRO RULING THAT HUSBANDS AND WIVES HAVE SEPARATE QUARTERS ON CAMPSITE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the concern which the federal government should have for the general physical and mental wellbeing of Canadians, and in view of the widely accepted desire of Canadians to preserve the integrity of the family unit, does the government condone the action on the Quebec hydro site where husbands and wives are required to sleep in separate dwellings and, if it does not, what action is being taken?

December 5, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the government has asked all Canadians to exercise restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In the case of this particular restraint, the Quebec government is going further than the federal government is prepared to do.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that during the recent postal strike a number of post offices did not receive strike ballots and a number of casual workers who were union members did not receive ballots? Does be know what number or what percentage of union people were not given the right to vote in the past strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, casuals are not members of the union but parttime workers are; they are in another category. I do not know how many were disenfranchised and frankly, if I may suggest it, I am not particularly interested. What I am interested in is the fact that they are all back at work and that from here on in we can have an active official post office and that the rank and file make certain that the collective agreement is respected by management and vice versa. In this way we will try to get around to delivering mail on time as we should.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR STRIKE VOTES
Arnold John Malone: I think we all appreciate very much that they are back to work. Since one of the post offices which was not given the right to vote was a fairly large one from a community of about
5,000	people and I believe there were others, are criteria being set down by the government which would establish what constitutes an acceptable strike vote, so that unions cannot have the votes go in their own favour?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In the
short run those union members who were disenfranchised accidentally or intentionally have proper recourse under their constitution to stand up and be counted and to demand that the national executive tell them why they were accidentally or intentionally denied the right to vote. If they learn to exercise their rights under their own constitution, then the whole labour movement will not be tarnished unfairly by the actions of a very irresponsible few.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Has the minister or the acting minister conveyed directly to the ambassador of Israel the views that the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed today on the air raid on Lebanon in which many civilians were killed and, if not, will he do so?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to convey these views. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is out of town and I know he has not done so. I shall bring to the attention of the ambassador the statement that I made in the House of Commons today.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary-if I may interrupt the whip for a minute-remind the Minister of Finance of his assurances to me made a week ago that he would be able, in the House or otherwise, to make available the model agreements which the government of Canada has put before the provinces with respect to the implementation of the anti-inflation bill? This assurance was given by the minister a week ago. I cannot understand why it takes so long to carry out his commitment that these model agreements would be tabled in the House or otherwise made available to us.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will answer by tabling the documents asked by the leader of the opposition as soon as he is back in this House. The first was available; the second was at the drafting stage. As soon as they are ready, we will be able to table them before the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, correspondence between myself

December 5, 1975

and the Premier of Saskatchewan concerning federal development assistance to the province.


INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies of the report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission, established pursuant to part V of the Canada Labour Code, to inquire into the grain handling industry in the Vancouver port area.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-419, entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (off-track betting)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, my main, essential and urgent purpose in introducing this bill for the third time since 1967 is to provide the province of Quebec, without any disbursement on the part of the federal government, therefore from the taxpayers of the ten provinces, a new source of income to finance the deficit of the Olympics. Moreover, the bill would strike a severe blow to the Canadian and international underworld by removing the illegality of off-track betting. Finally, all provinces could benefit, if they so wished, of such an amendment to the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that after I left the House yesterday, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said he intended to raise a question of privilege because he said I had misled the House. I wish to say, as briefly as I can, that in my answer to the hon. member I did not promise to give him any information. However, whenever I have promised hon. members that we would check our records, we have followed it up as quickly as possible. In all instances we have done this. But I cannot report upon something until it has been determined. I did say to the hon. member yesterday that I would inform him, and that anything we were doing was public information, as far as I was concerned.
I did meet with the National Farm Products Marketing Council on Tuesday, November 25, and I did ask the council to report back to me after its consideration of the change in egg prices. Although I have not received a written reply from the council, I am pleased to report to the House that the review officers of the council, who automatically monitor the cost-price factor formula,
Industrial Inquiry Commission advised me by telephone that they were satisfied a price increase was justified for some time prior to its actual implementation, but following the pricing formula they use, this price can fluctuate either up or down. As was pointed out earlier today in the House, the price of eggs is down one cent a dozen as of this morning. That is because of input costs, and that formula is being followed properly.
The formula is available for anyone to scrutinize at any time. It is stricter than we are imposing on anybody else under the anti-inflation program, and has been in force since last July. I do not know if the hon. member meant to do what he did, but he has created an incorrect impression by the very fact that he is reported in the press today as saying that "Whelan misled the House". As far as I am concerned, if there is anything I am not guilty of, it is of trying to mislead the House on anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: If there is anything going for this minister just a little bit, it is that he is trying to do his damndest to be honest about everything he does.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister has used the guise of a question of privilege to bootleg a statement into the House which should have been made on motions.


Mr. Blais:: What did you do yesterday?


James Aloysius McGrath: I merely want to say that the record speaks for itself. On November 25 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) what he was doing about the complaint which had been raised by the Anti-Inflation Board with respect to increases in the price of eggs by CEMA which, in the opinion of the board, could not be justified in light of decreases in the price of feed gain. The minister replied on November 25 as follows:
I am meeting with the Farm Products Marketing Council later this day to discuss that matter.
That was on November 25. Yesterday, in reply to the question I raised, the minister said he was meeting with them and that the meeting was a continuing thing. All I want to show is that the minister made the statement on November 25, that he was meeting with them, and surely it should not have taken him ten days to discuss this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) raised, as has been appropriately put a disagreement, under the guise of a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indicated yesterday his intention to raise a similar kind of question of privilege. In any case, I am sure both hon. members will recognize at once that the matter is one of dispute and disagreement between them and does not fall within the classic definition of a question of privilege.

December 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,149, 3,303, 3,468, 3,483, 3,499, 3,518, 3,567, 3,571, 3,572 and 3,590.


CRIMINALS CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER WHO HAVE COMMITTED ANOTHER MURDER
Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	How many criminals convicted of capital murder have committed another murder during the years (a) 1930-40 (b) 1941-50 (c) 1951-60 (d) 1961-70 (e) 1971-75?
2.	In each case was the second offence committed (a) during escape (b) on parole (c) upon completion of sentence (d) others?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) None; (b) one, executed in 1944; (c) None; (d) one, second murder (two counts) committed in U.S.A., commuted; (e) None.
2.	(a) None; (b) Yes-1(b); (c) None; (d) Yes-1(d) second murder committed after escape from British Columbia Penitentiary.


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PANARCTIC OIL
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandanavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Certain Canadian newspapers published, during the week of October 20, 1975 to October 24, 1975, articles referring to discoveries of oil on Cameron Island by Panarctic Oils, Ltd. of Calgary. These articles made cursory mention of the problems of transporting crude oil from this most remote location to refineries in developed areas and included a brief reference to preliminary discussions between Panarctic and Scandinavian shipbuilders for the supply of suitable vessels.
2.	The Canadian Government is an equity participant in Panarctic Oils Ltd. holding 45% of the issued and outstanding common shares. No preferred shares are outstanding.
3.	The Advisory Committee on Industrial Benefits from Natural Resource Development will meet with executives of Panarctic Oils Ltd. in the very near future to discuss the implications of the oil discovery and related topics including the issues surrounding the transportation of crude oil to refineries. Conclusions have not been reached concern-

ing the implications of purchasing tankers from shipyards not located in Canada because the required process of analysis and consultation, of which the aforementioned meeting will be a part, has not been completed. But, as the work proceeds, the welfare of the Canadian economy will be the basic consideration.


BELL CANADA
Mr. Foster: 1.	Does the Canadian Transport Commission monitor the undertakings which telephone utilities, such as Bell Canada, give when they apply for rate increases to ensure that these undertakings are carried out and, if so, how is this monitoring carried out?
2.	Can a subscriber or a municipality, on behalf of the ratepayers, cause an enquiry or hearing to be held, or other action taken, where they feel that Bell Canada has not carried out the instructions of the Canadian Transport Commission to improve service in a specific area?
3.	Under what circumstances will the Canadian Transport Commission hold hearings in localities outside Ottawa?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Applications from telephone utilities, such as Bell Canada, for approval of increases in rates and charges are not predicated upon undertakings but upon revenue needs and the justness and reasonableness of rates required to meet them. For example, the construction program forecast by the applicant is one of the elements to be considered in relation to revenue needs, but such forecast does not constitute an undertaking.
2.	The Telecommunication Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission does not give instructions with respect to service improvements in specific areas but the Commission uses its good offices to deal with specific problems as they arise.
3.	All committees of the Commission hold hearings outside Ottawa from time to time; the matter is within the discretion of the Commission and would depend upon the circumstances of each specific case.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOAN APPLICATIONS- CONSTITUENCY OF SASKATOON
Mr. Hnatyshyn: How many applications were received from the Constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar for loans under the Farm Credit Act for the year 1974 and the first six months of 1975 (a) how many were approved (b) what amount was involved (c) what percentage of loans were or are in default?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, for Rural Municipalities 315, 316, 344, 345, 347, 373, 376, 403, 404, 405, 406, 434, 436 and 466, which closely approximate the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar, the answer is as follows:
(a)	(b)	(OAppli- cations	Approvals Amount	Per cent of Loans in DefaultNumber	$	1974-75	145	145	6,646,300	4.81975-76	117	111	7,022,900	6.4
(to September 30, 1975)
December 5, 1975


PUBLIC UTILITIES INCOME TAX TRANSFER ACT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to submit telephone companies to the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act?
2.	Did any province ask for such a transfer and, if so, which ones?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: 1.
The government does not intend to submit telephone companies to the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
2. None of the provinces has asked for such a transfer.


MILLHAVEN PENITENTIARY-INCIDENT ON NOVEMBER 3, 1975
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did any form of uprising or trouble occur at Millhaven Penitentiary on Monday, November 3, 1975 and, if so, what are the details including the (a) use of tear gas in the Segregation Wing (b) reasons for the suspension of Mr. Earl Oliver, a twenty year correctional officer in charge at the time?
2.	Was there a threatened walk-out of the staff to take place at midnight Tuesday, November 4, 1975, as a result of Mr. Oliver's suspension or any other aspects of the situation and, if so, what are the details?
3.	Did the day staff on Wednesday, November 5, 1975, show up for duty in its entirety and, if not (a) for what reasons (b) were the food and exercise areas the only areas available to the inmates?
4.	Has the government disclosed any details of this incident and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Yes. A number of inmates in the segregation area of the Millhaven Institution created a disturbance by yelling and by kicking and banging cell doors. Tear gas was used in order to subdue to inmates. Mr. Oliver authorized the use of tear gas in order to pacify the rebelling inmates. Mr. Oliver was suspended from duty for non-conforming to institutional standing orders in the use of gas. Disciplinary charges have been laid against Mr. Oliver and will be dealt with in accordance with normal procedures.
2.	No. However, there was a withdrawal of overtime services by the custodial staff.
3.	The regular scheduled staff members reported for duty on November 5, 1975. However, due to the withdrawal of overtime services, it was impossible to man all posts. All institutional areas were available to inmates except the industrial workshops.
4.	General factual information relating to this incident was provided on a regional and national basis upon request by the media.


ARCTIC AIR FACILITIES PROGRAM
Mr. Murta: 1.	(a) What is the Arctic air facilities programme (b) are the monies in the programme to be used solely to upgrade existing Arctic airstrips (c) how large is its funding and will the amount be increased in the future (d) how long is its duration and will the programme be extended?
2.	What criteria were used in choosing which airstrips would be upgraded?
3.	Have the airstrips at Grise Fiord and Arctic Bay received any aid from the programme, and (a) if so (i) how much (ii) for what purpose (b) if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) The
Arctic Air Facilities Program is a multi-year program being implemented by Transport Canada to enable the operation of regular, reliable air services to communities in the North, particularly those which are dependent on the air mode for regular transportation services, (b) The monies in the program are being used both to upgrade existing Arctic airstrips and to construct new airstrips and other transportation facilities, (c) In the first year of the program (1974/75), the expenditures totalled $5,630,000. The annual amount now exceeds $10 million and expenditures in subsequent years will depend on the availability of financial and human resources, (d) The program will continue until the airstips meet the minimum standards required to enable the operation of regular, reliable air services.
2.	All airstrips serving communities with a population of 100 or more and with no other means of regular transportation will be upgraded to the minimum standard required to enable the operation of regular, reliable air transportation services.
3.	Grise Fiord and Arctic Bay-No upgrading of these airstrips has yet been undertaken under the program. Due to the nature of the terrain surrounding the airstrips, projects have not yet been identified which would improve the regularity and reliability of air services to these communities. This matter is under study, and should improvements be identified which would enable the safe operation of regular air service, they would be considered on a high priority basis. However, with respect to Arctic Bay, it is currently planned that this community will eventually be connected by road to the new airport under construction at Strathcona Sound.


GROSS REVENUE OF SKY SHOP EXPORTS LTD.
Mr. MacKay: For each year since 1964 (a) what were the gross revenues of the duty-free shop at Dorval Airport operated by Sky Shop Exports Limited as reported to the government (b) how much revenue accrued to the government from this operation under the terms and conditions of Sky Shops' lease with the Department of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: For the
fiscal years ending March 31, the company's gross revenue and rent paid are as follows:
	Gross Revenue	Rent
1965	$ 29,336	$15,000 (1)1966	66,556	15,000 (1)1967	218,650	15,000 (1)1968	692,303	23,5631969	905,931	44,0151970	1,170,067	58,5041971	1,371,002	68,4511972	2,036,870	101,8431973	3,308,860	297,0731974	4,316,609	388,4991975	5,134,891	434,825
(1) guaranteed annual minimum.
Under the terms of its lease, Sky Shops pays the greater of:
(1)	a percentage of its gross revenue, or
(2)	a guaranteed annual minimum.
9766

December 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


MEMBERS OF FARM CREDIT APPEALS BOARD, ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Marshall: What are the names and address of members of the Farm Credit Appeals Board in the Atlantic Region?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: Jones, Charles, RR 1, Charlottetown, Queens County, PEI; Yeo, Charles, St. Eleanor's, Prince County, PEI; Mackenzie, Wilbert, Vernon River, Queens County, PEI; Bridges, Sidney, Sheffield, Sunbury County, NB; Hannington, Albert G, RR 1, Dorchester Crossing, Westmorland County, NB; Ouellette, Leo, RR 2, Grand Falls, Victoria County, NB; Fisher, Garnet, Shinimicas, Cumberland County, NS; Woodman, Gordon, Grand Pre, Kings County, NS; Rhodenizer, Robert, RR 1, Barss Corner, Lunenburg County, NS.


BUDGET CUTBACK OF $4 MILLION FOR VIP PROTECTIONS
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,170, could the Solicitor General advise which VIP groups or individuals will not be protected because of the budget cutback of $4 million for VIP protections?


William Warren Allmand: Nil.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 3577 standing in my name. It is a question about which we had some discussions a matter of months ago before it was entered on the order paper. Although I appreciate the fact that it is a long question and will require quite a lengthy reply, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary can give some indication as to when the government will be prepared to answer it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at this time. I will provide it for the hon. member by Monday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs) that Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long, but I think it is necessary to point out that this legislation, like a lot of other legislation that is brought into the House, will not do much to solve the problem it is supposed to solve. I mentioned last night that we would have a much better housing system if we had originally established CMHC as an agency to build one class of house for those who cannot raise money in any other way. If over the years we had had a revolving fund, the payments made to CMHC would have been available to be reinvested. I am thinking about the system we follow with regard to the banks. We keep reserves in relation to the amount of lending which can take place somewhere in the range of one to eight: for every $1 deposited, the banks lend $8. It seems to me that this system could be followed with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation if we used the payments as a revolving fund rather than coming back to parliament every few months for a change in policy and a new direction.
Mr. Speaker, we are not building houses in Canada. We have a surplus of lumber and a surplus of building materials. There is a very high rate of unemployment in the construction industry. Despite this, a large number of Canadians are looking for houses that they can afford. Maybe Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be buying land themselves. We should be establishing federal municipalities, if necessary, and constructing housing for Canadians.
I am always amazed at how quickly this government hides behind the constitution and the responsibility of the provinces. But when it came to the anti-inflation legislation, they did not bother about the constitution at all but decided the provinces could go along with them or stay out. They should be doing that with housing. We work out all kinds of arrangements with the provinces, and most citizens are not even aware that the federal government is involved; they think the schemes are provincial but are financed by the federal government through CMHC.
For some time, veterans' housing was separate. Recently, when the Veterans Land Act was ended, we were told that veterans would have special privileges under the national housing scheme. Only two veterans have taken advantage of the special arrangements, and approximately 50 have taken advantage of the AHOP program. The veterans obvi-
December 5, 1975

ously do not believe they are receiving preferential treatment from the national housing authority.
The government has participated with the provinces in a very cheap housing program-HOME. I should like to know where the inspectors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are when it comes to maintaining the high standards of the corporation. I know of housing built under the program where you could not only look outside the house from inside, but from outside you could see inside without looking through the doors or windows. In my opinion, that kind of housing should be condemned. It does not meet any standard of construction; it cannot be heated properly and will not last very long.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation sets reasonable standards and if a contractor wants his house inspected it is done, but it is not easy for an individual who may have to wait as long as a month. Even banks have a great deal of trouble. I am always getting calls from them about their difficulties. In my area, however, I do not see any difficulty for the big contractors in getting inspectors to come in. They play footsy with each other. I can tell you of some terrible housing that is built and of disasters where large corporations are involved. Hedman is a good example. A major construction company in Timmins is building houses that should never be approved because they are unsafe in several respects.
There are many houses in Ottawa, where large corporations are involved, below the standards of Central Mortgage and Housing. In my opinion the head of Central Mortgage and Housing has built some houses that are dangerous and detrimental to the housing industry. Houses with aluminium wiring are potential death traps: in Ottawa, seven or eight fires have been directly attributed to it. I remember an instance last spring where the wiring was responsible for the death of a young girl. It should have been known that that type of wiring was causing considerable difficulty.
Central Mortgage and Housing is also approving trailers. One person I spoke to who lives in a trailer told me that you can feel along the wall and find it warm when the aluminium wiring gets hot. But people buying houses with aluminum wiring are not warned of the danger. I spoke to a government official who indicated that they had not been able to prove that aluminium wiring was unsatisfactory. When I asked if he would live in a house with aluminium wiring, he said, "Certainly not; it is dangerous." So it is not dangerous from a scientific point of view, and it is not dangerous according to the regulations the minister has put out, but it is dangerous for anyone who knows anything about it.
Housing standards are not enforced and in many cases we have agreed with the provinces to build substandard housing. My last point is that this minister is worse than any of the others we have had when it comes to changing the regulations and the subsidies for housing. In fact, only the real estate people can keep up to him. They are the only ones who can advise buyers and builders of all the advantages. Even the banks are having trouble in training their employees to understand the advantages of the current program, because it will be in effect only a few months before it is changed again. Any program that changes as often as the housing program cannot be good
National Housing Act
because most Canadians cannot take advantage of even the small advantages offered.
We are bribing the industry with subsidies. We are carrying on a policy of subsidizing the corporate bums, the large corporations that are building housing in this country. The result is that mostly expensive housing and shopping centres are being built because they bring greater returns. Other departments of governments are also to blame because the government ends up renting out accommodation that it cannot use. Mr. Speaker, Central Mortgage and Housing should not be providing assistance for building office space and shopping centres when in many cases there is a surplus of that kind of accommodation.
In parliament we are all aware that Parkinson's law is the guiding law of government. You build it, you create it, and you will use it. We have certainly done that in Ottawa and Hull with regard to office space. We have spent a great deal of money to provide unnecessary accommodation which obviously will have to be filled simply because it is there. This is lousy legislation, Mr. Speaker. The minister should sit down for a while instead of gadding about the country making speeches: he should look at some of the studies done in the past five or six years, none of which has been given any consideration, because every time a problem develops a new study is dreamed up.
There is a great need in this country for low-cost housing. If the minister considers the problem he will realize that to a large extent the banks subsidize the building of the low-cost housing that we need. If we are to meet our goals in housing we may have to control the banking industry, perhaps even nationalize it, to make sure that money is available for low-cost housing. That is where the need exists. The need is not so great in the case of middle-incomer earners. We need more housing for the poor and the banks must provide the money at low interest rates.
Finally, I suggest that when borrowers repay money to Central Mortgage and Housing the government should leave it there; in other words, the corporation should be empowered to lend again to other borrowers. This business of the government making available every so often a few hundred million dollars for housing is nothing but a gimmick. With every new program the ground rules are changed and people become confused. Would it not be better to let Central Mortgage and Housing retain repaid funds and lend them again? Instead of introducing new programs every so often, the government ought to embark on a long-range program of which people can be aware. Canadians should know today what will be available later in housing programs. The government ought to consider the Hellyer report and produce a white paper showing its long-range plans for housing.
The government must change its approach to housing. You cannot treat houses as you treat cars. People are being encouraged to buy cars before the end of the year because the Ontario government removed the sales tax on them until the year-end. They will reimpose it next year. Consequently, people are being pressured to buy cars. Buy now and save, they are told.
The minister tried to do much the same thing with housing. The house buyer who bought before a certain time
29956 -6614

December 5, 1975
National Housing Act
was to get a federal grant of $500. If he delayed buying, he would lose the grant. That is not the way to go about it. I suggest, therefore, that there is something wrong with the government's housing program. The government should explain to the average Canadian-not to the construction industry and not necessarily to the House of Commons- its housing program so that the average man will know which aspect of it will give him the greatest advantage. I think the government is obligated to do this.
If the minister is interested in solving the housing problems of our low-income people and is not merely interested in playing politics, he should work out a long-term program and explain it to the people. Since being appointed to his portfolio he has brought in three housing bills, not one of which, so far as I can see, has been worth supporting.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister back to the House after his trip to Vancouver, and indicate that I support the difficult position he had to take with regard to the holding of the conference in that city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Over the years, the government has been justifiably criticized for its so-called housing policy. As the Economic Council of Canada suggested, the government has treated housing policy as a sort of filler, in the same way as newspapers include fillers when their stories are shorter than anticipated. But this filler, this policy, has been used to stimulate the economy. As my colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said, this program is nothing but shadow-boxing. It is a political program.
Of course people want a house of their own. Therefore, housing programs have always been political programs. I am not against political things except when they involve something as important as housing. In housing there must be a policy, and we have seen no policy. Of course, at election times housing policy becomes part of the government's program. It tells people what it will do to encourage home building and it says, "We will put money into such programs." And not only this government has said that. I do not say this government is exclusively to blame in that regard. However, it seems that the federal government's housing policy-and I include the policies of some provinces-has consisted of gimmickry rather than any attempt to come to grips with our needs. An adequate housing policy has not been established. The minister may say that this kind of gimmickry has been successful and that it has worked, although it has not always. That is hardly justification to those who are serious about solving the severe housing problem in Canada. When I speak of a severe housing problem, I do not mean that most Canadians are ill-housed or suffer from housing problems. Most Canadians do not suffer from housing problems and therein lies the great difficulty of determining what is a good housing program.
About two years ago I did a survey in my constituency. I asked my constituents, "Are you adequately housed or are you experiencing a housing problem?" About 90 per cent of the people replied that they were not experiencing any housing difficulties. One woman said, "Yes, I have a housing problem. His name is Richard." Nevertheless, a signifi-

cant group in this country is suffering from serious housing difficulties. The parliamentary secretary, who I presume delivered the speech on behalf of the minister, defined them as the ill, the poor and the elderly. I wish the people who write these marvellous speeches were responsible for implementing policy, because invariably we run into a non-sequitur. On the one hand we see definitions and an outline of what must be done, while on the other the proposals put forward in no way meet the need defined.
What will be the effect of the present proposal? This business of encouraging home ownership has increased the cost of every home in this country. Every time the government subsidizes people and allows them to acquire property, it makes more money available for bidding up the price of housing. We have seen this happen over and over again. The government has subsidized a small segment of the Canadian population but not that segment which is most in need.
Home owners have derived great capital advantage from the government's program which has forced up the price of houses. Presumably, that is one reason why it is so difficult to introduce an adequate housing policy in this country. Most people have a vested interest in seeing the price of houses rise. Most home owners look after their property, and although most say they deplore the sharp rise in house prices they are content to note how much their personal wealth has increased as a consequence of government programs. Certainly, that has been the effect of these programs.
You can see this sort of thing happening in other areas. For instance, consider government programs designed to encourage young people to buy farms. Every time we make credit easier we force up the price of farms. The same thing applies to housing. Every time the government introduces a program for encouraging people to buy housing, whether by giving a $500 federal grant on top of the $1,500 Ontario grant or any other method, the end result is that house prices rise. Is this what the government wants? Is this what the minister wants? If so, let him say so. That is one of the great consequences of what he is doing.
Let us discuss home ownership. There has been a terrible tendency to equate home ownership with living accommodation as though they are exactly the same. Obviously, home ownership and living accommodation have a relationship. One of the main reasons people buy homes is to have accommodation for themselves. What is often overlooked, or certainly is not stated, is that home ownership is more than just accommodation. Home ownership is a method of investment. What the government is doing is being very partial to a group of investors. That is what is really involved.
The government is creating two classes of citizens in this country, those who own and those who must rent accommodation. All the advantages are in favour of those who own. They are subsidized in the purchase of their home and in some cases are sustained in the payment of their mortgages. They receive benefits under the Income Tax Act, in contrast to those who have to rent. Is this the kind of society we want, where one group of people who are
December 5, 1975

fortunate to have surplus income and are able to save some money receive advantages on top of that?
The hon. member for Broadview documented the effect of some government programs such as registered retirement savings plans and things of that kind. We go beyond subsidizing and there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction engendered among those who do not receive any benefit. When the $500 grant came in I received many bitter complaints. People were asking if they were eligible for the grant with respect to houses they had bought two months earlier. I had to tell them they were not eligible unless they had purchased after a certain date.
How fair is a program that on an arbitrary basis, or depending on the political whims of the government, provides great capital benefit to some Canadians but not to others? The minister may say, in his defence, that we need to stimulate employment and this can be done by providing an increased housing stock, something that is badly needed. This has been said by various ministers over the years. Surely there are better ways of doing this than the subsidization programs the government now has.
It almost looks as though the Liberal party commissions the MacLaren Advertising Company to determine which group will have to be pleased in the next election. That company comes up with a target group. It may be young married swingers looking to do certain things. The company then tells the government what kind of program they must design in order to satisfy the target group. The poor are never a target group because they do not vote to the same extent as other people. So why bother pleasing them? They may have the greatest needs, but they are not as great a political force. Therefore, programs are not designed to please them. Programs are designed for the middle-class group. They please those who can be expected to be grateful to the government for bringing in measures of this type. They do not come to grips with the serious problems of the 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the population completely outside the housing market.
This minister has an opportunity of doing what others in that ministry have not done, that is, to deal with the housing problem in this country. For most people, the private housing market can take care of their needs. However, there is a group which the market can never take care of; therefore, their needs must be met. They cannot be adequately met by the gimmickry of a $500 bonus, the AHOP program or other forms of subsidization: if they do help, it is only at a marginal, accidental and incidental level.
We should look at the figures to see who really needs housing. Who is really in trouble with regard to housing? As the minister has said, it is the aged. We should be doing more with regard to housing for senior citizens. I should point out that our record in senior citizens' housing is not all that bad; it has been one of the finest programs on which this country has ever embarked. If you live in an area where the municipality has been farsighted enough to take advantage of the provisions for building senior citizens' housing, you will find senior citizens who are managing well on their old age pension. However, this is only because they have adequate housing at their disposal. Where there is good public housing available, in many cases senior citizens do better on retirement than they did
National Housing Act
during their working lives. Where that housing is not available, senior citizens just cannot manage. That has to be a top priority. We are so close to solving this problem that to relax with regard to it now would be criminal. That is one program that should be expanded.
In my own area of Waterloo-Cambridge there is a program that has been very successful. Frankly, without public housing I do not know where families with children would live. Who is in desperate need? Young people have no need. Single people do not have a housing problem unless they so choose. Young married couples in good health do not have a housing problem. They may have a problem of choice, but there is no real housing problem for them anywhere in Canada. Those who have a housing problem are those who have children. The problem is getting worse every year. A recent ruling by the province provides that if an apartment owner in the city of Toronto wants to exclude children and rent to adults only, that is fine. What happens in that situation?
You can understand older people who want peace and quiet, or swingers who do not want children getting in their way, having this self-centred attitude. But what about public responsibility? Where do people with children go? If you have three or four children you cannot find rental accommodation. If you have a lot of money you do not have to worry because you can purchase a home. However, for those with children who have to rent, without public housing they would end up on the street. This is one program that should be expanded. The minister may say that the budget has been increased slightly, but the evidence is otherwise.
The hon. member for Broadview documented the sharp decline in the percentage of aid being directed to public housing as against that being directed to other areas. I suggest we should get out of the AHOP program. In fact, the whole program of subsidizing ownership should be discarded in favour of providing the money for public housing. That is the serious problem. I agree that it is a little easier for people to buy housing with a subsidy, but what is desperately needed is housing for families with children. There is no sense in saying that they should not have had children; the children are here. This is not the time to moralize or to say they should not have done it; the children are here and have to be looked after.
There are many advantages to public housing. It does not have to be bad. I can tell the minister that public housing in my area is good. It is some of the best housing in my area. I am delighted to say that. I know it is not always like that, because some public housing should never have been built. The public housing in my area was planned intelligently. It was done years ago. We did not have to deal with neighbourhood groups who seem to have a vested interest against public housing. I have in mind groups who want to be protected against the sight of children, or perhaps against the sight of the poor. In fact, they are probably one of the most reactionary elements in our society, all in the name of neighbourhood control and participatory democracy. They are the ones I used to fight years ago because I tried to build a sidewalk and they would not let us go through their nice lawns.

December 5, 1975
National Housing Act
That question aside, the point is the government has some measure of control. The government says that is up to the municipality, it is up to the province. Admittedly, they are the ones who have to make the final decisions on zoning, and so on. But the government has a great deal of clout with the mortgage money at its disposal, with the assistance it is prepared to offer municipalities. The government can say that unless municipalities pursue intelligent policies like making provision for families with children, there will be no money going into the area. This is a tough stand to take, but the government has a responsibility, particularly since it is involved in things like immigration and mobility problems. They say, "All right; we have an immigration policy, but what happens to an immigrant once he hits the city is of no concern to us." There isn't any housing, or he tries to compete with those who have been there a long time and all kinds of ill will develop because there is a shortage of housing. It is said that if competition exists, that is not our responsibility but a municipal responsibility.
If we have a mobility program that moves people from the coast to central Canada, it is said that is not our problem: once we provide a mobility grant, it is no concern of ours. You cannot have these federal programs, you cannot have an immigration policy or a mobility policy without at the same time making provision to house the people affected by those policies. That is why these policies fail. It is because we don't make these provisions. There was a time, a couple of years ago-there aren't any jobs now, anyway-when there was a lot of work in Toronto, a lot of work in northern Ontario and other parts of Canada, and people were trying to encourage migration from high unemployment areas to low unemployment areas. But people weren't moving, and the reason they were not moving was that they had nowhere to live when they moved. This is what a housing policy should really be trying to deal with.
I do not understand the government's mathematics in saying we are trying to encourage the private developer, or we are going to provide some assistance or some encouragement for professionals to invest in apartment construction in order to get more construction, as though that doesn't cost money. I presume the government would say, "We do not have the funds," or, "We cannot raise the funds." But that is really a camouflage. It is coming out of the public treasury when you subsidize somebody or allow them to write off their losses on one activity against their income from another. That is just as direct a cost to the government and Canadian taxpayers as it is to go out and raise the funds directly and charge them the tax they should have been paying.
We went through this business with the white paper. One of the provisions of the white paper on taxation, one of the progressive things it did and one of the things it corrected in our tax system, was that it prevented people writing off the losses of one apartment building against the profits of another. People have accumulated millions of dollars in capital assets because they have never paid a cent in taxes by using this route. We got rid of that measure only to have it come in the back door now. The government is acknowledging its own failure by saying,

"The builders were right when they told us, if you close this tax loophole you will not get the construction we were giving you before." So the government has backed away from its position in the white paper, something it never should have done, and it is now allowing this other method for investors to get into the business.
You do not need that kind of private investor when you are dealing with the kind of problems I have outlined, the problems of the old and those of the families. When the great socialist millenium comes, perhaps we will have housing as a public utility: we will have the right to housing, the right to accommodation accepted in the same way as we accept the right to medical attention, to hospital services and to the old age pension. But we are some distance away from that. Therefore, like many other things we have to deal with the most urgent problem, and the most urgent of our problems is public housing for families with children. If we do not do this, I just don't know where they are going to find rental accommodation or housing. That has to be the target area of any government proposal. For most Canadians the minister can take his euphoric position that we are one of the best housed people in the world. That is true for most Canadians. But for some Canadians it is shocking and shameful that these policies are directed toward providing benefits for the middle classes and to those who are already reasonably well off, rather than dealing directly with the problems of the poor.
If the minister is really interested in helping the poor- and I think he is-another area he has to explore, if he does not want these subsidies, if he does not want public housing, if he wants to do it some other way, is to provide more income to people with housing needs, people with family responsibilities and obligations whose talents, skills or vocational positions do not permit them to obtain adequate housing. That can be done through family allowances. We could have a housing grant go out through the family allowance program, providing a sum of money to assist people go into the private market in order to buy houses, because that is where the problem is.
If the minister doesn't want to go one route of providing more public housing, then surely he has to admit the failure of his program to help the poor and advise his cabinet colleagues to do something with the family allowance scheme or some income supplement scheme. Otherwise, no one can really commend either his work or the work of his predecessors in doing anything about housing. We are so close to coming up with an intelligent housing policy-we have solved so many problems in this country-that to stop short at this time and play political games with housing, gimmick after gimmick, depending on the political whims of the time, is really unforgiveable.
I want to return to something I started to say earlier. Housing or home ownership is more than accommodation; it is a form of investment. When the minister says that no one should have to pay 25 per cent of their income for accommodation, I don't think he is correct. Private home ownership for people, unless they have children-I am talking about people who do not have families-is an investment choice, it is not just a housing choice. If all they want is housing, there is a great deal of housing and good rental accommodation around. But they have decided they do not want to go that route. They want to be a home
December 5, 1975

owner. Then they are investing and they have to be considered as investors. They should not be supplemented. The government does all kinds of things to help investors in this country; but is it correct, when you have severe housing problems for some of our people, to go around augmenting the wealth of those who are already reasonably well off? This is really the effect of many of these programs.
The minister may want to take a few minutes at this point to reply to some of the things that have been said in the debate; therefore I shall conclude, but not because I have said everything I wanted to say. There is one thing I want the minister to look at because I consider him to be an intelligent and sensitive man; I should like him to look at the kind of mess he has inherited and is perpetuating.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the closing minutes of the debate-because I think the matter should proceed now-I wish to say something to the minister concerning two matters which I consider to be important. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) mentioned that housing is an investment and that it is wrong for the government to subsidize this kind of thing. I think there is some merit in that argument.
I hope the minister will consider that in order to make housing less attractive as an investment and more attractive regarding what it is intended to be, a roof over one's head and over one's family, there is a duty on all governments-not just this government but provincial and municipal governments-to ensure there is a greater supply of serviced land. This shortage is creating to a great degree the conditions about which the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge is concerned and which concern us all, not only in this House of Commons but in the country, who are home owners and who look at the acceleration of the price of property and realize that in terms of housing the acceleration of value has been unconscionable. I suggest that the importance of a program with regard to serviced land and its availability cannot be over emphasized.
One other matter I should like the minister to consider, as we look at this question as an ongoing consideration in this country, is the dreadful tendency in Canada to live in our large cities. There is a new concept in the legislation. There is a certain viability and a certain quality of life available in the smaller communities, and I hope the minister will use the powers he has, limited as they are in the constitutional sense but large in the moral sense, to encourage housing development around existing smaller towns. I think this is important not only for the provision of housing but, as well, for the social fabric of our community. I think we have forgotten about this in Canada. There is still time in our country, but that time is running short having regard to the projection of statistics.
I just wished to bring those two matters to the attention of the government. We are not just building boxes for people to live in, but we are playing with the social fabric of our country. The minister's program today, his programs of the future and the programs of future governments must be looked at from the point of view of their social attributes as well as the provision of four walls and a roof.
National Housing Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the minister I must inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 37(2), if. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first I should all like to apologize for not having been in the House when this debate commenced. I am grateful to my parliamentary secretary who spoke on my behalf. I have been following the transcripts of the debate and the contributions of various members. I am especially grateful to those hon. members. I made arrangements for the parliamentary secretary to speak on my behalf only after speaking to the leaders of the opposition parties and the spokesmen, in this area, for those parties. They understood the necessity and the urgency of my being away and they supported me on this very important subject. It is important, I think, nationally and internationally in relation to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements to be held in Vancouver next year.
I appreciate the support of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) in this regard. I might say I have been encouraged by my visit to Vancouver and the response by the city council there and the community at large. As hon. members know, we are going ahead with the conference. It will be highly successful for Canada and for the United Nations.
I was especially interested in the two speeches I had the opportunity to hear today dealing with housing and, in a specific sense, also the philosophy. There is an understanding that we do not have a crisis in the sense that we are a badly housed nation, but there are aspects of housing which are quite critical. Housing has been considered much more than a place to live in, in many cases. There was also mention of the urgency concerning the acquisition of serviced land. I was very grateful to my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for his appreciation of such development in southeastern part of the city. In respect of the Lebreton development, the land assembly work is already done and we are moving ahead in a very comprehensive way, as is the case in the southeastern part of the city. I realize how important this is to the hon. member's constituency.
I believe my parliamentary secretary explained the urgency of dealing with this legislation as quickly as may be allowed. It is important legislation. I am sure all members of the House realize how important it is. I should like to deal in a general way with some of the observations made by hon. members opposite and emphasize some of the important features. I note that some hon. members recalled statements my parliamentary secretary and I have made regarding some of the most serious housing problems in Canada, as well as the number of families inadequately housed in crowded or unsanitary facilities.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I shall continue after lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

December 5, 1975
National Housing Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for lunch I was referring to the comments of hon. members in this debate relating to the number of families which are inadequately housed, live in crowded conditions or lack sanitary facilities. This is a matter of concern to me. I am glad these figures are receiving attention and being remembered, because I believe they should be uppermost in everyone's mind when considering the housing needs of this country. My parliamentary secretary began this debate by saying, on my behalf and on behalf of the government, that these people's needs are the number one priority. Indeed, these figures are always uppermost in my mind.
As the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge said, we are the best housed people in the world and we do not have a housing crisis per se. However, as I said in my remarks before lunch, there are many critical areas in housing and I carry in my pocket a list of statistics relating to housing because that is the challenge we face and that is where we begin. It is a rather strange phenomenon that each time the government introduces a new housing initiative, many hon. members react as if all previous housing programs had been superseded or wiped out. Because we are improving and expanding the Assisted Home Ownership Program, for instance, to help more people and to reach down more deeply into the lower income levels, that does not mean we have gone out of the public housing business or that we have abandoned our non-profit and co-operative housing programs. We invested more than $600 million in these programs in 1975, programs directed at least at the most urgent housing problems, almost one-third of the total CMHC capital budget of $1.6 billion. I have undertaken that the funding for these programs will be substantially increased in 1976.
When we say that social housing is our first priority, we back up our conviction with more dollars. It is precisely by utilizing and directing private lenders into the markets which are also of concern to many Canadians that we free more dollars for the lower income groups, for public housing, for non-profit housing, for senior citizens' housing and for rural and native housing. These are the programs which will have additional funding because the private sector will be looking at the market which does not require the same degree of public support.
As is apparent from the trend in this debate, there seems be to general agreement about the nature of the problems we face; the need to increase the supply of housing, particularly low and moderately-priced housing, the need to reduce the high cost of land and the cost of financing. There is not very much disagreement with the action we propose to take. The common cry-which I have heard before-is, "You will never make it work". Let me assure the House that we will make it work, and we are making it work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: They said that last year, last month and the month before. They were saying, "Be realistic. Don't be so optimistic about 210,000 housing units being built this year". I have the November housing starts figure which [Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
shows the rate of starts for last month was at the annual rate of 258,500. These figures, on top of the increased figures of last month and the month before-figures well above the previous figures for the same months last year- virtually guarantee that we will achieve the 210,000 this year and perhaps surpass it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not lie down and die easily because they say some nasty words, are skeptical or do not have the same faith in Canadians that I have. There might be times we do not achieve our target. That does not disturb me very much. I know we have done the best we can. We agreed that we must increase the supply of housing in Canada, and we say we will build a minimum of one million new homes in the next four years. To do that we must emphasize, at least for the time being, new construction to build up the existing stocks. To do that we must increase the supply of serviced land, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated. We will accomplish this objective by making residential development much more attractive to the municipalities. We already give them favourable land assembly terms. We will give them money for water treatment and mains and $1,000 for every low-cost, medium-density unit that they approve and build. I think this is an aggressive attack on the problem of land supply.
I have had some very good discussions, also, with my provincial colleagues about the problems arising from municipal approval processes and zoning. There has been a very useful exchange of ideas, expecially at our last meeting of provincial ministers. But this is a subject which is constantly on their minds and is a concern which we share with them. Although the matter clearly lies within provincial jurisdiction, it is a serious enough problem that it has national implications. I share the concern of the provincial ministers and that concern is reflected in some of the measures we are proposing now, from which they can take off and move further in their own jurisdictions.
To meet our targets we will need another $750 million in private money in addition to the approximately $7 billion which private investors put up this year. Some hon. members say that is not enough. They say that will give us only
20,000	or 25,000 new starts in 1976, and that is right. That would bring our 1976 starts up to about 235,000, and that is our target. It is consistent with our goal of one million good quality, well designed housing starts by 1980. How many would they like-two million, three million? Our target is realistic and related to population growth and household formations. I think our track record is pretty good in that field. It also takes into consideration the real delivery capacity of the industry.
Last year I said that 210,000 would be a realistic target for 1975, and now, in spite of all the skepticism which I just mentioned, we are going to make it. When I speak of one million starts with an emphasis on the lower price ranges, this target will be achieved without sacrificing quality. In that connection I should like to advise the House that on December 17 we are convening a meeting of provincial officials, consumers, builders and lenders in a
December 5, 1975

determined effort to move forward on consumer warranties. At the last federal-provincial meeting on housing there was substantial provincial support for a national system administered by an independent council, and I am hopeful we can quickly resolve any remaining obstacles.
When we say we will have more private investment, the reply always is that the lenders will not come through, that they will cross us up somewhere along the line. Some hon. members suggest that we pass a law telling the lenders where they have to invest their money. That is one way. We could do it that way. But I have spoken with some of the lenders and I do not think we will have any problem at all. As a matter of fact, I am confident we will not have any problem. After all, we are not asking them to pour their money down the drain. They are persuaded that this kind of shift in priorities will not only be socially useful but will be a sensible decision as well. Even without that specific direction, just by offering programs they started to see the value of those as business decisions in the latter part of this year. It did not really catch hold until about July. I urged hon. members then, and I urge them now, to assist the passage of this legislation through the House because there are time lags and it does take time to catch up. Every week or month of delay holds up the implementation of this program.
We are agreed that mortgate rates are too high, and this House has just passed some very important and significant legislation which supports a vigorous attack on the root causes of high interest rates. One hon. member suggested that I could solve the problem of high interest rates by announcing to the financial institutions that interest rates shall be 8 per cent. I can assure the hon. member that if it were that easy, I would not hesitate for a minute. I might be tempted to say that interest rates shall be 6 per cent. Why not? The fact is that most lenders operate on a margin of 1 !4 per cent to 2 per cent between what they borrow for and what they lend at. Not many people would be prepared to accept 4>/2 per cent cent interest on their bank accounts to make 6 per cent mortgages possible.
As long as financial institutions must pay 10 per cent to attract term deposits, I do not think we can be expected to compel them by law to lend funds at a lower rate than they borrow for and, on top of that, to absorb their administrative costs. I would not expect workers to have their pensions lowered and to invest their money on a return which did not at least reflect the realities of the economic scene today. They cannot be expected to do that, and they would not do it. In the meantime, we are offering help with mortgage payments to people who need it most. For people with families and low or moderate incomes we are increasing the government's outright grants to help them buy their homes without putting out more than 25 per cent of their income in monthly payments. For people who are without children or who are not so hard up, we are offering some temporary help until they get established, a loan effectively to reduce their interest rate to 8 per cent, which must be paid back eventually but which is interest free for the first five years. That is pretty fair. We are helping people get established. We are helping young families get into the market, and when they pay the money back they are paying it to their fellow taxpayers, their fellow citizens. They have an obligation to pay it back, but at no time
National Housing Act
are we asking them to pay out more than 25 per cent of their income.
One hon. member said we are offering some people easy credit and leading them into unmanageable debt. That is not so. Borrowers will have to discuss their financial arrangements with the lenders and will have to conform to NHA loan regulations. We believe that when people know what they are getting into, they will make the right and responsible decision. We have much faith in the common sense of ordinary Canadians. Perhaps that is why they support us.
We are going to make similar arrangements with people who will agree to build good rental accommodation at reasonable cost. In return for government help, they have to sign an agreement with us about rent and other matters such as maintenance standards, and so on. When we talk about critical areas, I consider that the whole area of rental is one of the critical areas. As the hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge said, housing is not always a matter of ownership, it is a matter of accommodation and rental as well. For some people rental is the best solution, and it is a solution which is being exacerbated by our inflationary spiral and by some of the restrictions of which the hon. member spoke today.
Some hon. members say that AHOP price limits are too low in many places. That may be so. We are constantly reviewing these prices in relation to the market and I will have an announcement to make in that regard within a few days. However, it is surprising what builders can do when they have to. We can make them work to come up with a good, well designed and comfortable home within AHOP terms. We aim to have some influence on keeping prices down instead of just following every rise in the market. When I first came into this job, people said they could not buy houses at those prices, and they were right. The builders said they could not build them at those prices, and they were wrong. When we were the only action in town, the only place mortgage money was available, the builders found they could build very good houses for that money.
In some parts of the country the AHOP limits will allow a single-family detached house; in some places it will be a townhouse or a condominium. None of these options is a terrible hardship, especially if people who otherwise could not make it are allowed to get into the home ownership market. They are given security of tenure which they otherwise would not have, and they are allowed to begin to build an equity in some property. Very few of these families would expect to spend their lives in their first home.
Some hon. members have suggested that the federal housing action program will be inflationary. On this point I firmly disagree. It is essentially aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing. That is what AHOP and assisted rental programs do. They are decreasing the pressures on the market with respect to the cost of housing, which in terms of ownership is perhaps the largest single payment or obligation any family assumes in its lifetime. For those masses of people who have to rent in Canada, with the vacancy rate as it is the pressures are on for rents to go up because they are not economic these days. They have not risen as high as the cost of replacement. We are trying to make it possible, and that is deflationary.

December 5, 1975
National Housing Act
At the same time, by requiring purchasers of expensive housing to make bigger down payments we are cooling out demand in the high-priced ranges and increasing the supply of capital for the kind of housing we need in this country. This will cool out the existing housing market, but that is not so bad. If we have a home which we want to sell-and perhaps we will get less for it next year; I hope that is the case,-because we want to move somewhere else, we will be able to buy less expensively because, as one hon. member said, some prices have risen unconscionably and we intend to cool that market out. These are speculative gains. We have said this is the type of housing people are living on, rather than living in. It became one of the hedges against inflation and I think that situation will be reversed, not dramatically and not immediately but we will see a gradual cooling off. Indeed, in many places that has started to occur.
To wind up these brief remarks, I appreciate the contributions which have been made in this debate by hon. members on all sides of the House. I think all those who have spoken have helped in some way to illuminate the real challenges which we face in ensuring that all Canadians, not just most Canadians, are well housed. I commend the principles of this legislation to the serious consideration of all hon. members and I look forward to a more detailed consideration of its provisions at the committee stage. Indeed, I am prepared to sit morning, noon and night seven days a week, if necessary, in the hope that all manner of questions will be addressed to me and properly answered, and the legislation thoroughly dealt with so that we can give it third reading before we recess for the Christmas holidays.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want the minister to leave the House under the apprehension of his statement as to my position with respect to Lebreton Flats and southeast city. I put my position quite clearly and I think it is important that he understand that. I regard those decisions on the part of the government, in terms of their priorities for the national capital area, as stupid and I think I should tell him so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. What the hon. member just said proves he has no question of privilege. He is just making an argument which should be made at another time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-74 intituled "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentive Act", as

reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-74 be read the third time and do pass.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of the Friday afternoon syndrome when occasionally bills whose application is rather simple, or they are short bills, tend to slip along for discussion without notice.
I am not going to detain the House for any great length of time, but I think we should remind ourselves that when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was set up with what might be called a flourish of trumpets and press releases, the expectation of people, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, was at a high level indeed. Like so many undertakings of succeeding governments in Canada, the purpose has not in every case fulfilled this expectation. I am therefore sorry to say there is a fair amount of cynicism about the purpose of the department, in my part of Canada at least.
Some years ago it was the "in" thing to say that all the problems of the department would be solved if there could be decentralization. I am sorry to say that despite the most excellent people who have been decentralized to places like Moncton, it seems to me that the criticism could be made that it just adds one more layer to the long and difficult decision-making process. Instead of expediting the decisions of this department, I think it is reasonable to say that in many cases another layer of bureaucracy has interrupted the flow of information and decision-making between the federal government and the provincial governments. This is not a harsh criticism. It is, though, a comment on the fact that often the best plans, made with the best will in the world, do not work out in the best interests of the program.
I have two constituency concerns, Mr. Speaker. These general agreements signed by the federal department and the provinces often overlook the more modest proposals that towns and villages make to improve their facilities. I know that in some cases the onus is on the provinces to give the federal government a catalogue of those things for which they expect assistance in funding. There is a particular case with regard to the Fundy national park in the constituency of Fundy-Royal which is the satellite service village in the national parks' system. Very great strains are placed on that municipality as far as water and sewage are concerned. I hope that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) will not only take note of this service village, but that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) will do so as well.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss for a moment the problems that arose as a result of a question I put yesterday having to do with the New Brunswick Multiplex which I termed a joint federal-provincial industrial expediter. It is a rather imaginative concept and has joint funding. Its board of directors has on it public officials from both the provincial and federal governments. In reply to my question, the minister said that the experiment had been highly successful, but after he got through praising
December 5, 1975

its success he said he was not sure whether it would be continued. I hope that when another five-year lifespan is breathed into the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the continuation of Multiplex as an essential component of the regional plan will be taken up at an early date.
It may be interesting to the House to know how I became involved in this project as a member of parliament. It is a good commentary on the case of a citizen getting in touch with the member of parliament, telling of the success of a program and asking that there be an intercession with the government. Multiplex does a very interesting thing: it provides the experts with the scissors with which to cut red tape. It provides expertise in a special field.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Where is the minister? I ask this question seriously.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Multiplex is a facility which enables small businesses not in a position to obtain the services of a computer to obtain data from computers. Here we are, with an operation that is fulfilling an important function, yet its future is jeopardized. There is uncertainty about the future of what the minister admits is a successful but not, apparently, an overly expensive program.
On the Friday afternoon swing shift let me say that although I welcome the extension of this department's life, too much time elapses between the conception of projects and their final approval by government. The other day I was informed of an application which took 26 weeks to go through. If the Chair will allow me to make an aside, I think the government gets into serious trouble over the way it implements some imaginative pieces of legislation. The conception is fine. Although debate may be somewhat protracted in parliament, the statutes are finally placed on the books. Then everything comes to a shuddering halt.
If I were ever to spend a few minutes with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), I would not discuss with him the unravelling of the universe; I would discuss the unravelling of the red tape surrounding many of the imaginative programs advanced by parliament, red tape which hamstrings by insisting on procedures that are expensive, lengthy and largely unnecessary.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected this bill to be debated so soon. However, I am glad it has come before the House and I say to the hon. member who just concluded his remarks that on this swing shift Friday afternoon I am glad to be in my seat. I know he is, too.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Welcome to the Friday afternoon club.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Like the previous member, I am pleased to see this program extended for five years from the end of 1976 to the end of 1981. No government program, be it federal, provincial or municipal, is perfect. Even though a program is introduced with the best intentions in the world, we must remember that human beings administer it, and there is not a human being on earth who at one time or another is not open to criticism.
Regional Development Incentives Act
My personal experience with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion during the past few years has been a happy one and I wish to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to those who work in the department. I include the minister, the deputy minister, the regional assistant deputy ministers and the staff. I thank them for the co-operation they have extended to many members of the House and the dedication they have shown to their jobs. They have been severely criticized, often unjustifiably.
What benefits has the program brought to those special areas designated under the legislation? I suggest that the true measure of any government program of this type will be determined if one compares what has actually happened in an area designated with what would have happened if the program had not been introduced. During the decade from 1960 to 1970, in the county of Renfrew, one small company was established and there was one instance of one small industrial expansion. That was the extent of our industrial growth. After a certain section of Renfrew county and the northern part of Hastings county in Ontario was designated as a Special Area on March 11, 1970, we enjoyed a number of successes. A number of developments occurred which would not have occurred in the constituency, including the eastern part of Nipissing if this type of legislation had not been enacted.
I am glad to note the presence of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), my neighbour to the north. I am sure he will agree with me that DREE has done a tremendous job for the people of our district, the people of Nipissing, and the people of northern Ontario in general.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It annoys me, Mr. Speaker, to note so much criticism in our newspapers, on television and radio, of a good program. We must have critics because we want to live in a free democracy, but let them get their facts correct and mention the good with the bad.
I can say now that if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had not been established by a Liberal government, the slow growth areas of this country would have been in a far worse condition today. Their condition would have been terrible. At the end of December this year, the designation of the special area encompassing Arnprior, Renfrew, Pembroke, Barry's Bay and Bancroft will end, after extensions by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I plead with the government to extend the designation for another 12 months. I plead for the people in the northern part of my riding, in the district of Nipissing, to be included uner the Regional Incentives Development Act (RIDA).
My reasons are these. Two days ago I received a call from a major industry in the area which had been established under DREE, it has been a good corporate citizen but was forced to lay off 60 employees because its furniture component sales to the United States dropped almost to nothing. The firm established in an area which was almost down and out and put about 300 people on its payroll. I have been in touch with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and DREE, and have tried my utmost to save the entire complex. Mr. Speaker, the

December 5, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act entire population of Mattawa, consisting of about 3,000 people, and all the people who live on small farms near the town, will be in great jeopardy if this industry disappears. The three branches of this furniture business constitute the only industry operating in that section of the upper Ottawa Valley. It is for this reason that I am supporting the bill before us and asking that this area be taken, not just into serious consideration but realistic consideration when the time comes for renewal of the program in 1976.
I could list other statistics for the county of Renfrew and city of Pembroke but I shall not do so at this time because other members want to speak on this bill. However, I sincerely request that the area I have mentioned be reinstated for another 12 months. At the present time, the city of Pembroke and the county of Renfrew are negotiating with the provincial government of Ontario for a General Development Agreement. This has been going on for months but the agreement has not been signed. I should amend that by saying subagreement, because the general agreement covers the entire province.
I know that many members of this House look upon the province of Ontario as the rich brother of this nation. That may be true for certain areas of the province, but the Ottawa Valley, on both sides of the river, is quite often compared with the conditions existing in the maritime provinces. In fact, many members of the Canadian armed forces who retire from the service at CFB Petawawa remain in the Ottawa Valley because it is so similar to their home province in the maritimes. There is a very close relationship here.
While there are rapid growth areas in certain parts of Ontario, many areas of this province are very similar to the slow growth regions of Canada. Because they are slow growth regions, many municipalities, counties and districts cannot afford the water and sewage services about which the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er) just spoke. Therefore, they do not have the up to date industrial parks, with all the facilities, to offer incoming industries in the same way as the rapid growth areas of Ontario.
The local municipalities make suggestions as to what they feel should be included in the General Development subagreements which is a federal-provincial program. Those GDA subagreements should include water and sewage services in order to upgrade industrial parks. However, even if an area 250 or 350 miles from a large urban area has an up to date industrial park, industry still locates in the large centres of this country. What we need in rural Ontario, and in the small municipalities across this province which do not have the same benefits as the large urban areas because the latter have a greater municipal tax base, is an incentive program built into the GDA program. This is necessary if it is going to work effectively and efficiently for those areas.
The GDA subagreements should cut away some of the red tape. Unfortunately, this is common with many federal-provincial agreements. It is very important that we have a good working relationship among officials at the federal and provincial levels. It is important that there be close conversations between the federal and provincial govern-

ments on a very sincere basis. We should not stall in those areas classified as slow growth. There should be sewage and water facilities in industrial park areas. Assistance should be given to municipalities so that they can provide better sewage disposal plants, upgraded water facilities, sewer lines, water lines, and so on. Much of this has already been done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and for that I compliment that Crown corporation: they have done a tremendous job at that level.
In order to provide for the growth that will take place as a result of the development of upgraded industrial parks, we must also provide facilities for those who will be moving into these areas. The increased population will increase the necessity for facilities. This will drain off some of the large populations needlessly concentrated in certain areas of Canada, creating added expense by more expensive housing, for example.
Many people have moved from rural areas into large urban areas. Others who have lived in urban areas all their lives see a certain value to the small town or small city way of life. It offers them a rural landscape, natureland in the shield area, as it is known in eastern Ontario. Not only does this increase the quality of life for people, but through this legislation we are discussing, it provides for their livelihood. It will slow the growth in the large urban centres of Ontario which, if allowed to grow at the present rate, would cost this country a fortune. Do we in Canada want a New York City, Chicago or Detroit?
Under the legislation that we are discussing, and under the General Development subagreements at the federal-provincial level, there should be programs to develop small communities across Canada and to provide for a better quality of life for our people.
I want to say that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), who by the way is my seatmate, certainly has my total support in his endeavours as far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned. I hope these programs will continue to go forward in the years to come so that we do not get into the problems I discussed a few minutes ago.
In closing, I should like to reiterate the request I put on record earlier with regard to a 12-month extension of the special area in Renfrew county. I should like to see more rapid progress in signing the sub-CDA agreement between the two senior levels of government concerning my area of the Ottawa Valley. I should like to say of the Ottawa Valley in general that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) who has worked very closely with me over the years-and we have an excellent rapport-faces many of the same problems and we both support the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the hilt. Once again I pay tribute to the people of that department regardless of the criticism which has been thrust at them from time to time.
I should also like to add that I am prepared at any time to put the plus factors together and stack them up against the minus factors as a whole in the Ottawa Valley as far as the effect the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has had on our locale.
December 5, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two or three points in connection with DREE. I am not sure everyone will agree with me with regard to some of it, but I think I should emphasize that I am speaking in a very personal sense. I want to make it clear that I am not expressing a point of view on behalf of my party. There are certain views I hold in connection with DREE which I feel I can express at this stage of my political career without any misunderstanding. These are things I have said before and I would like to emphasize them again. I am sure there will be a good many on both sides of the House who will disagree with me. Nevertheless, it is important that some of these issues be discussed.
The first point I wish to make is this. It has been said many times that an attack on regional disparity involves, if it is to be effective, a very high degree of co-ordination within the government. It is so obvious I do not need to deal with the proposition at any length. It is evident that DREE could make a great effort to stimulate the economy of a region and that this effort could readily be offset by some countervailing policy adopted, perhaps unwittingly, by another department of the federal government.
The obvious example of this was when DREE was going ahead full force in 1969-1970 and when the Department of Finance was at the same time pursuing a policy of tight money-a tight fiscal policy. Those effects were felt first and foremost in areas of slower growth. Such a policy, pursued by the Department of Finance, negated the efforts of DREE. Then, again, there was the failure of the Department of Transport, for example, to pursue policies which complemented and reinforced the efforts made by DREE. This is another obvious instance where the thing could come apart and where a substantial effort made by the department could fall to the ground.
Also, there must, of course, be effective collaboration between the federal government and the province or provinces involved in particular programs. While there have been agreements between the federal government and particular provinces covering the development of certain parts of a province, I would say, speaking particularly of the Atlantic provinces, that there has not been the degree of co-operation or agreement essential as a foundation of an attack on regional disparity. I think, for example, of the long delay before the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia could come together to establish the so-called Magi experiment in the Halifax metropolitan area. This was a program which was announced by the federal government before the election of 1972. It drifted on for two or three years at least, substantially because the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia could not agree who would assume final responsibility for direction.
This is a key question with regard to regional development, and I do not pretend to have the complete answer: how would one secure within the federal government the necessary degree of co-ordination to launch an effective attack on regional disparity? Nor am I sure what kind of institutional arrangement might be needed within the federal government. I know some machinery has been established; I am sure there are interdepartmental committees, and so forth. But if the government is to make any dent in
Regional Development Incentives Act regional disparity in the Atlantic region, for example, during the next five years there has somehow to be a much higher degree of co-ordination of effort within the federal government itself and between the federal government and the provinces concerned. I am not sure, as I say, what the framework of the institutional arrangement should be, but I do say it does not exist today. There has not been, since DREE was launched, the necessary coordination and collaboration required for a successful effort.
It was rather naively assumed at the time the Department of Regional Economic Development was established that this department would in itself provide the necessary co-ordination of effort within the federal government. I think it was rather naively assumed that bringing together the agencies and what not that were brought together when DREE was established would in itself provide that necessary degree of co-ordination of federal effort. That obviously has not been the case.
I want to make it very clear, that to me it is not adequate for the federal government at this time simply to extend the life of DREE for a further period of five years and carry on with the same kind of inadequate institutional arrangements to do battle against regional disparity in an ineffective way. I want to make that point as forcefully as I can.
The second point I want to make, and this is where I expect I will run into specific disagreement from all quarters of the House, is that I think it is wrong and a substantial mistake to have anything like a uniform approach to regional economic development across the country. Let me make it clear what I mean. I think regional development in the Atlantic provinces, including parts of Quebec like the Gaspe Peninsula, have regional disparity problems that are different from those that exist generally in other parts of the country.
It would seem to me that what the Government of Canada should be concerned about basically is having vigorous regional economies in all parts of the country, in British Columbia, on the prairies, in the north, in Ontario and Quebec, and in the Atlantic provinces.
For example, I do not think the federal government should feel itself primarily responsible for assuring that all the communities in the Atlantic provinces are prosperous and dynamic. The federal government should not feel it has a primary responsibility to see that all the communities in my own province of Nova Scotia are dynamic in their growth. The responsibility of the federal government in connection with the Atlantic provinces is in terms of achieving a vigorous economy in the region which will develop its own dynamism.
One of the mistakes the federal government has made, and one of the things that is wrong with what the government has done to date, is that it is trying to do too much. What is wrong with the DREE program, in my judgment, is that the federal government is just trying to do too much rather than concentrate upon regional development, not allowing itself to be distracted, as I might put it, by thinking in terms of community development.
For example, with regard to the prairie provinces, and members from the prairie provinces might think this is a

December 5, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act
purely gratuitous thing for me to say, I would think that the responsibility of the government in respect of the economy of that area is to help ensure, in co-operation with the governments of those provinces, a vigorous and diversified economy. As I understand it, one of the things the people living on the prairies want to see there is economic diversity.
To be blunt about it, I do not think the federal government should feel it is primarily concerned with the state of prosperity or otherwise of a particular community in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta. Of course there could be crises and catastrophes in respect of which the federal government would be expected to play its part.
It is my belief that in attempting to reach down below the region, assuming responsibility in terms of community development, the federal government through DREE is taking on so much it is not doing an adequate job and not concentrating itself adequately on the development of the region.
I am not suggesting that in a province like Ontario, for example, DREE should keep out all together. I can recognize that in terms of northern Ontario there is a region of sufficient size with enough in common that there is a problem of regional development. On the prairies a similar area may be that mid-north strip across the prairies and into British Columbia. There may be a problem there. I recognize that the Department of Regional Development should think in terms of regional development in these areas, but not in terms of uniform development within regions, which is more the responsibility of the provinces concerned.
If the Government of Canada adopts that approach then the programs it pursues and the methods it follows might well be very different in the Atlantic provinces and in eastern Quebec from those in northern Ontario or in western Canada. Such an approach might be very different, and the government might be much more effective and run much less risk of the federal agencies and departments involved being so bogged down in detail they cannot get anywhere really with regard to regional stimulus.
After all these years of DREE being in existence I have to say that there is no plan for the development of the Atlantic region as a whole. The Atlantic Provinces Advisory Committee, which succeeded the Atlantic Provinces Development Board, under the chairmanship of Professor Smith, emphasized time and time again a few years ago the importance of the federal government and the four provinces down there agreeing on a plan or a general approach. This has never been done. I do not know whether it has not been done because there has not been a will to achieve it, or because nobody has been able to produce a plan that looks as if it might work. Whatever the reason, there has been no plan put forward or adopted for that region as a whole, although there have been agreements entered into between the federal government and these provinces relating to parts of the provinces. The whole of Prince Edward Island is under a plan agreed to by Prince Edward Island and the Government of Canada, but that falls very far short of economic planning for the development of the maritime provinces or Atlantic region.
Are we going to enter the next five years in the life of DREE, drifting along as far as the Atlantic provinces are 
concerned the way we have been doing? I am not suggesting the people of the Atlantic provinces do not appreciate the effort that has been made, or the money that has been spent by the people of other parts of Canada in an attempt to attack the long standing and deep seated economic problems of the Atlantic region.
I ask whether the government is to drift into this renewal for another five years, going along in the same way as in recent years, simply improvising and certainly failing to produce any coherent attack on the problems of the Atlantic region? I am afraid that is exactly what is happening and that, as a result of this happening and continuing, the whole concept of fighting regional economic disparity in areas like the Atlantic provinces will become discredited. I am concerned that people in other parts of Canada will more and more become impatient about having to foot the bill. So I say to my colleagues in the House of Commons this afternoon that we are not doing very much simply in extending the life of DREE for another five years.
I say that members of the government and this House should face up to the inadequacy of what is being done. They should abandon the approach of having one uniform economic attack across the country. We should think in terms of our responsibility here being a regional one rather than thinking in terms of being responsible for the equal development of communities within regions, certainly in areas like the Atlantic provinces.
We should face up to the necessity of developing a coherent attack that is likely to produce some results rather than the kind of improvisation that is going on which has been very useful to particular communities but which has done very little indeed, I must say, to reduce economic disparity for the people in those regions as compared to people in other parts of the country.
I certainly intend to support the bill, Mr. Speaker. I will support the renewal of DREE's mandate, but I feel very strongly, when DREE is being given a mandate for another five years, that this is an appropriate time for the government to re-think the working of the DREE program, to re-think its approach, and to recognize that really at the present time it has not achieved a satisfactory program of regional development in the various parts of the country. The government must face up to the necessity of doing this. It will be a great tragedy if members of this House think they are doing their duty this afternoon simply by extending the life of DREE without at the same time facing up to the fact that DREE has been a very limited success despite the amount of money spent, and despite the good will behind it.
If members of this parliament are to discharge their responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole, as well as to the people living in these disadvantaged areas, I think they should make up their minds to face up to the responsibility and the challenge that a really effective fight against regional disparity involves. There must be co-ordination which DREE in itself does not provide. There must be a determined and orderly attack on these problems which is flexible in respect of the country as a whole.
December 5, 1975


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by commending the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for the speech he has made. I think it is a speech all of us should take a second look at; he made a number of recommendations which I think are very worthwhile, some of which I wish to refer to in my remarks today.
One of the real concerns I have about DREE is that coming from a province like Saskatchewan-and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition coming from Nova Scotia would share my view-I feel that many of the government's programs work at cross purposes to DREE. DREE spends a considerable sum of money in a particular province or area to create jobs, while at the same time some other federal department spends as much or perhaps more money in central Canada in a region like Toronto, or some other developed area, which works at cross purposes to DREE. I shall give some examples.
I remember last year or the year before participating in a debate in this House on the Export Development Corporation. If one looks at the annual report of that corporation one will find that almost all the expenditures of that corporation, except for aid in finding markets for western grain and so on, go to assisting the large corporations that are based primarily in places like Toronto, Montreal, other southern Ontario cities, and Vancouver.
The whole purpose of the Export Development Corporation is to stimulate and expand the manufacturing sectors of the Canadian economy. Most of that industry is restricted to areas not under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and this in many cases works against the general purposes of DREE.
If we look at the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a good many of its programs we find again that much of the money that department spends goes into areas such as southern Ontario, the lower mainland of British Columbia and so on, which again works at cross purposes to DREE. I remember a bill a few years ago in this House which provided tax exemptions for manufacturers and rapid write-offs. Who did that help? It helped the manufacturers in this country, who again are located in areas that are not affected by DREE. More incentive is given to manufacturing companies already in existence in areas that are developed. They are given an incentive to expand. There seems to be a lack of over-all planning and co-ordination where DREE is part of an over-all governmental plan and where there is a balanced growth and balanced development in this country.
We might also look at our taxation system. I have already referred to the fast write-offs and the cuts for manufacturers. I think that taxation system fits into the pattern where once again advantage is given in general to areas which already have industry, areas that already are wealthy, to the detriment of the Atlantic provinces, the northern part of the prairies and British Columbia, as well as much of the province of Quebec, or Renfrew County, or any other area that is lacking in development. Industry already exists in southern Ontario. The type of taxation system we have will give manufacturers in this area an even greater advantage than they already have.
We could look at the financial institutions. Again, where are these located? And from where will all the extra jobs
Regional Development Incentives Act
come when they expand? I think this is a very real concern.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to some problems and some of the cross-purposes of the federal government in over-all planning and co-ordination. I come from the prairies and I see a great many people from that area becoming more and more concerned about the lack of development in the prairies and more and more alienated from the federal government, more suspicious of eastern Canada, and more willing to look at the idea of western nationalism or western secession. Much of that develops because in the prairies we have a discriminatory freight rate structure, a freight rate system, for example, which makes it cheaper to ship livestock from Prince Albert, Saskatoon, and Regina to Toronto than it is to ship the same poundage or the same weight of finished beef. When that occurs, you are naturally exporting jobs to Toronto.
It is natural that the slaughterhouses and the packing houses will be in Toronto if it is cheaper to ship the livestock there than the finished product. As long as we have a freight rate system which will make it cheaper to ship our raw materials out of the prairies and process them elsewhere, the jobs will go elsewhere, and people will be wondering about the real benefits of Confederation and whether or not DREE, which is supposed to eliminate regional disparities, will achieve that end.
I think DREE would be much more useful and successful if other governmental policies were to take into account regional disparities, if more money, for example, were put into the transportation system to overcome some of the inequities and anomalies not only with regard to us in the prairies but with regard to the northern part of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to enable a more valid and diversified industry to develop there. Thus we could process and package more of our own food, we could have a petrochemical industry in the prairies, etc., rather than see a lot of that developed in central Canada or across the border in the U.S. DREE would then be much more successful and we would have a nation that would pull together in a more unified way than it has in the past. We must have that type of national development plan if DREE is to be really successful.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, we have put money into regional development, but I am not sure whether we have reaped the benefits from that investment that we should have gained. It may be the fault of DREE, or the fault may lie squarely at the door of the cabinet for not having an over-all national, balanced development plan and better co-ordination between the various departments and the various levels of government. If that were done I think we could go a lot farther much quicker in clearing up the inequities which exist.
A while ago representations were made to me in my riding from a number of businessmen who told me that because of the freight rate structure-I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) would be interested to hear about this type of inequity-there are manufacturers of prefabricated homes who send them to Port Churchill and Hudson's Bay and it is cheaper to ship these homes by rail to Montreal and then load them on boats and

December 5, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act
ship them along the St. Laurence river, around by Newfoundland and to Hudson's Bay to their destination, than it is to ship them by rail to the port of Churchill only a few hundred miles away. It is about four, five or six times the distance to go around via Montreal.
I am told by some Hudson's Bay officials that the reason for that is that they do not have adequate barge facilities and other facilities at the port of Churchill to handle prefabricated houses. The government should look again at some of the problems of regional development and the transportation system, such as utilizing the port of Churchill and processing more of our raw materials such as food, gas or oil in the west, the fishery business, and so on. It seems to me that the regional economic gaps in this country are growing larger, not closing, and I question the value we are getting from some of the money that is now being invested in DREE.
There is one other concern which I would like to voice, and I will make two more points about DREE. We seem to be getting more centralization in terms of the expanding civil service in the Ottawa-Hull area. When the government talks about regional development and the inequities in this country, it should explore very seriously the possibility of decentralizing many more of the federal government departments.
For example, why should the Department of Fisheries not be located in the Atlantic provinces, or the Department of Agriculture and perhaps the Department of Transport not be located somewhere on the prairies? I am taking these two examples out of the air, there are perhaps other examples that would make more sense, but it seems to me that it is a possibility which should be considered. Locating the headquarters and the staff of several government departments outside of the Ottawa-Hull area in regions of the country where the jobs and the extra economic stimulus would be of real benefit should be considered very seriously. It would make the people in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and the prairies feel more a part of the country. This issue should not be considered from an ideological or partisan point of view but should be considered as a program to develop the country and bring it closer together.
The last concern I want to voice about the bill, since we are giving a mandate to continue the act for the next five years, is with regard to some of the grants that are made to private corporations.
In many cases, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said when he spoke on second reading, we hear about the number of jobs that are expected to be created, but we do not hear about the jobs that are being created and about some of the long-term impacts of certain grants to corporations. I am concerned that, as the years go by, we will find a number of examples of grants to certain corporations which will continue to operate as businesses and continue to expand just so long as the grants keep coming, but once the grants or tax concessions end the companies will no longer see the value of expanding their plants or continuing their operations, in a certain area.
So long as the carrots are coming, the rabbit will keep eating, but once the carrots are gone there will be no point in staying, and the manufacturer might as well fold up his tent and go to central Canada, to the lower mainland, or to British Columbia where the hospitals are greater, the uni-

versities are larger, and so on. We should reconsider the whole philosophy of whether or not we should bribe a company by way of grants to locate somewhere.
We should look at the whole grant structure with a view to applying it so that, for example, if we are to provide money to a company, the federal government should take equity in the company equal to the money it is putting into it. If you give money to General Electric in Kamloops, say $500,000 to develop their plant, the federal government should take equity equal to the amount of money it is putting in because after all we are spending the taxpayers' money, so why should it be an outright gift? Certainly the companies provide jobs, but why should the government not be taking equity?
If we were private individuals we would not be putting money into any business endeavour or parcel of land unless we had a proportinate share of the equity. The federal government should have a continuing and direct say in a real way over the operation of a plant in the years to come. I suspect that as the years go by we will find that in some industries the majority development of which DREE will have financed, the government will be left with no equity in the end. To me that does not make good business sense, and it certainly does not make good political or moral sense since we are using the taxpayers' money for the purpose. That has been the practice in this country for a number of years, not just in DREE but in terms of tax concession which we give companies, in terms of total cost allowances given to companies, in terms of the plots of land which we give free to municipalities and provincial governments, or the years of tax free operation which we give to certain companies. It happens in all the provinces and in most cities.
If you were to total all the give-aways to certain corporations, you would find out that in many cases the majority of the money put into developing a plant has been taken from a public source. If we are going to put the money in, why do we not own the place? If we are going to build a plant, why do we not own it? I think that is not only responsible and highly moral but also good business, since it is taxpayers' money we are spending.
One last point I should like to make is that I should like to see some time in the future a really thorough study made by DREE as to the impact it has had in a particular area, with regard to how many jobs it has really created which would not have been created if the department did not exist, how many jobs are still there after DREE stopped giving certain grants or handouts, and what impact the department has had on the economy of our country.
I would like the government to consider seriously the three things I have mentioned: government departments working at cross purposes with DREE-I think that is a very valid point and a very valid criticism-working out a national development plan, and considering the whole concept of decentralization and, over the years, moving some of the headquarters and head offices out of the national capital area into the developing areas of the country.
Finally I should like the government to consider the philosophy of giving money to a corporation. It should not
December 5, 1975

just be giving it by way of a grant, but if it is public money the government should be taking out equity to the tune and proportion of the grant being given so that in the end we will own the proportion of the plant we are paying for, and so that we are not being Santa Claus with public money. If we are going to use public money we should have something to show the public in years to come as a result of the investment taxpayers of this country will have made.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as we move to extend the authority of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act, it is time to reflect, as some of my colleagues and the leader of my party have, on the approach used by the government in its attempt to equalize opportunities in this country for all Canadians, regardless of the area and the region in which they may reside.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has quite a history, a history of success and a history of failure. My colleagues-and I will take the same liberty-have spoken about their own particular areas with regard to regional economic expansion, and coming from British Columbia I have much to talk about-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Including a good government.


Walter David Baker: Despite the government.


Frank Oberle: -not because so much has happened as a result of the presence of the department, but because so little has happened in the province of British Columbia. While the fault is not entirely with the federal ministry or with my colleagues in this House, some of the blame can justifiably be directed at the government in British Columbia.
The Regional Development Incentives Act does provide that the provincial governments have to co-ordinate their efforts with those of the federal government, and this has not, in all areas at all times, been possible to achieve, particularly in British Columbia. Because the act is so linked to political expediency, a number of politicians have used it to their own advantage.
When the act was first implemented, the previous administration designated an area in British Columbia, namely, the Okanagan Valley, because that is where the premier as well as some of the key ministers of that administration came from, and we industrialized an area which really did not need industrialization. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, not all areas in our country require the same consideration. It was the case in the Okanagan Valley that we used some of the most productive and beautiful farm land to build factories and truck plants to stimulate the economy there, which really did not need it at that time.
This area did not need to be stimulated to the extent other areas needed it, and the potential of other areas was not recognized.
One of the big concerns I always had about the early stages of the act was that it was really only possible for large corporations or big businesses to take advantage of it. The reason was that the decision making process was
Regional Development Incentives Act
highly centralized in that it took an army of consultants and engineers, and much political patronage, to achieve approval of a program. Proctor and Gamble, for instance, received $12 million to establish a pulp mill in Grande Prairie, in northern Alberta. While there is nothing wrong with establishing a pulp mill in northern Alberta, there were other areas which needed that kind of development.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are talking about the constitutency I love.


Frank Oberle: I had not noticed that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is sitting right in front of me. The wrath of God will probably strike me.


Walter David Baker: Not to mention
lightning.


Frank Oberle: I should approach the question of the pulp mill in Grande Prairie with caution. It certainly has done a lot in that area. It has diversified opportunity for the business community.


Gerald William Baldwin: Great speech.


Frank Oberle: I probably could also say that it was because of my hon. colleague in the House of Commons that that particular company was able to carry out that program there. Naturally, what will have to happen in Grande Prairie and in some of these areas where large resource industries have been placed as a result of regional economic expansion is that there will have to be a challenge to make the program conducive to the aims and ambitions of secondary industrial plants, and certain changes will have to be made in the act over the years to make it possible for small firms to apply. It is very difficult for them to cut through the bureaucracy, and even after decentralization and the establishment of regional offices in Vancouver, Moncton, and throughout the country, decisions are still made in Ottawa.
We still must depend on the development strategy of the provincial governments, and they are still not co-ordinated with other departments of government. My leader has adequately described what happens when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion moves into one area and other departments of government concentrate their efforts in some other region. It has often occurred to me that it would be better to spend our money providing areas of low growth and areas with depressed economies with the means to establish their infrastructure, transportation facilities and access to resources. This is a very serious consideration particularly in northern British Columbia and northern Alberta.
It simply does not make sense to move into an area and to establish a great big industry without answering some of these very important questions, not just in the area of transportation, but also in the area of the quality of life of the people who move to these regions which have the resource potential to be developed, and thus in the area of the infrastructure to support the quality of life Canadians have a right to expect. I am talking about infrastructure connected to smaller communities which have to be estab-

December 5, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act lished, the essential services, utilities, recreational facilities, and so on.
Again I should mention and give credit to something which has happened, the first major agreement which was recently announced in the province of British Columbia. Fort Nelson in my constituency received a $6 million grant to upgrade some infrastructures in the area to conform with the aims of the province, and to ready itself for the industrial development expected to take place there as a result of resource management and so on. More things like that must happen rather than simply concentrating on large industrial development. I think the department should get away from the prime industrial development concept and concentrate more on the secondary industries that have the aims and ambitions to diversify.
We must recognize that we have entered an evolutionary phase in Canada's development. Our industry is mainly capital oriented at the moment, and as we chase capital out of the country through the government's fiscal and monetary policies, we must create an industrial capacity and a labour oriented approach to this evolution. But that is not happening. We are not developing the capacity to bring our resources to a semi-finished state before exporting them.
I should like to turn now to the input of regional and local governments. Usually arrangements are made with the provinces, and the local governments have no input even though they have to provide the infrastructure, the quality of life, and prepare for the work force that might come in, providing the housing facilities and so on. Usually the local government is the last to know the plans for the region made in Ottawa or in the provincial capital.
The Regional Development Incentives Act must be used to develop a strategy by which all Canadians can find fulfilment of the dream we have always dreamt. It must be remembered that some of us will not go along with the technocrats who pledge that 85 per cent of our population will have to live in metropolitan centres, and that the vast hinterland can be controlled by computers from those centres. Somebody will have to populate these areas, and if we are to work out a decentralized strategy for industry it will be important to develop some incentive to go to them and remove some of the penalties for those people who face the elements in order to find part of their dream in the north country.
Last night in committee I had discussions with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding their strategy for developing the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They admitted there is no strategy that we do not know what use to make of these great regions. We have not recognized the potential in agriculture or the renewable resources in the forests of that land. Of course we have a transportation strategy for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon but it is really only geared to what the large resource extractive industries are planning for the areas. We have not decided which comes first-the chicken or the egg. No transportation strategy has been developed in the Northwest Territories which would open up the region for agricultural use or for the development of the renewable resources in the forests for wood and fibre industries.
It is a sad thing when the minister gets up in this House and declares it is the responsibility of our country and our challenge to improve or increase the productive capacity of our farming industry and our renewable resource industries. It is amazing that the minister is not concentrating more of his efforts toward these areas. It is not good enough for us simply to pass this bill extending the mandate of the department for another five years without raising some of these very important questions.
The aims, ambitions, and potential of the various regions of our country are very diversified. It does not make sense to industrialize some of the regions that could be put to better use for recreation and tourist facilities, nor does it make sense to take out land for tourism and recreation when they have not potential in that area. To this point there has not been an assessment of the situation.
My colleague who just finished speaking mentioned that there has not been an assessment of the impact of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on the country to this stage. There are tales of bungling and tales of success, but it is high time that the new minister came to committee and to the House with the full story of what has actually happened in this department over the first six or seven years.
I would be remiss if I did not touch on the inequitable distribution of funds throughout the country. I hesitate to point the finger at one region or another, but I have figures here to show what happened in the fiscal year 1972-73 which I would like to put on the record to show how the total of $374 million was spent. The province of Quebec got $115 million; British Columbia got $4 million; Newfoundland, $37 million; Prince Edward Island, $19 million; Nova Scotia, $52 million; New Brunswick, $44 million; Ontario, $19 million; Manitoba, $24 million; Saskatchewan, $13 million, and Alberta, $17 million. This indicates that something other than common sense was used in making the distribution for 1972-73. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the annual report issued by the department does not give these figures. We had to put questions on the order paper to establish where the majority of funds are spent.
Some of the criticisms of the program that I have received concerned the way industries, particularly the large corporations, have followed the designated areas. In fact in some areas industries have sold plants only to establish new facilities in a different area, making use again of the grants and loans made by the department. As a result no new employment is created, but in some cases new and modern plants have been built. I am sure all of these things must concern the minister and I hope we have an opportunity in the months to come and in the new session to discuss some of our concerns first hand.
I hope the minister will consider the sentiments expressed today in the House, and in the second reading debate. Without being entirely negative about the regional incentives program, I suggest there is lots of room for improvement. I hope the minister will consider our demands in this regard.

December 5, 1975


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to extend the date by which facilities must achieve commercial production to qualify for a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I am quite happy that DREE incentives are extended for another five years. The Regional Development Incentives Act has an obvious impact in creating new industries as well as developing existing industries which have to be modernized. Besides their new economic impact on municipalities, those incentives tend to reduce unemployment by creating new permanent jobs, if and when projects have been carefully selected and accepted in view of their profitability.
It is pointless to look back indignantly at sums which were granted frequently on the occasion of an election, and did not fulfill the people's hopes, because the sums had been voted on the eve of an electoral campaign and the minister took advantage of them. Those are things of the past, boss patronizers are no longer with us, so that today, with a new minister, we are looking to the future with confidence.
Obviously the minister cannot do everything by himself. Each region, each group and I should say each businessman should proceed with a serious study of the economic situation in their areas and submit to the department projects which might be approved by the minister. We are going through a somewhat uncertain period, since markets are less open than they used to be in the past years. The minister will therefore have to concentrate slightly less on primary industries to explore more fully the opportunities and needs of secondary and tertiary businesses.
Mr. Speaker, in my area of the Roberval constituency, with which the minister is as familiar as I am, a fair share of unemployment is to be blamed on the development of our primary industry, namely forestry. Modernization and mechanization have paved the way for higher productivity while reducing manpower needs by 50 per cent.
Since the forest industry labour force included 50 per cent of farmers-they were called marginal farmers, which means half farmers and half forestry workers-this explains the reduction of the population in most of our small municipalities since no industry filled the gap left by the forest industry. We shall therefore have to think of something else to replace that industry and consider multipurpose secondary and tertiary industries. Since in Quebec we now have to import 45 per cent of our food products, it seems to me that businessmen must have enough imagination to produce in Canada what is required to create secondary and even tertiary industries which will allow the consumer to benefit from our farm products 12 months a year.
I do not understand that Quebec does not have all the processing plants and cold storage plants required to receive the harvests that our producers must sell immediately at ridiculous prices because of the lack of processing and storage industries. We also have an urgent need of mechanical industries and finished wood industries.
I therefore ask the minister to direct his activities towards this area in the next five years. Moreover, I believe that the minister should help cities and municipalities solve their water and sewer problems.
Telecommunications
The problem of sewerage is urgent in the Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean area. We should protect our environment. We should first of all clean up our rivers and lakes and then ensure that they will remain pollution-free.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will have to continue to help in the development of new industrial sectors in co-operation with the provinces and cities concerned. If the minister wants to meet his objectives of eliminating regional disparity, he will have to free himself of certain political influences of past years and treat each area justly and fairly. This can certainly not be restricted to the federal department level or to the officials of the minister.
We shall therefore have to cut through the red tape and ask for the co-operation of the provinces and all groups interested in working for the prosperity of their area. Lac-Saint-Jean-Roberval is a young area to be developed which is achieving a place of its own in Quebec's economy. That is why we shall be relying tremendously on the assistance of the Regional Economic Expansion Department in the years to come.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been agreed among House leaders that we are to proceed with the bill changing the name of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation as the next order of business as announced. I do not think there is any intention to engage in debate; I think we are to give it third reading.
May I also say that it is a great pleasure to see in the House this afternoon our newly appointed Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT
Jeanne Sauvé: that Bill S-27, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jeanne Sauvé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

December 5, 1975
Telecommunications


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party may I extend congratulations to the minister on her new position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to see her moving up in the world, and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could have done worse than make her minister of finance.
I notice that the bill will change the name of COTC to Teleglobe Canada. That is interesting. Applying this thinking to other departments, I concede the possibility of changing the name of the Department of Finance to "Inflation Canada." I will say no more, Mr. Speaker. We congratulate the hon. lady and wish her well. We have noted her presence in the House and her wit and disposition in dealing with all matters coming before her. We wish her well with the duties which lie ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join my hon. friend from Peace River in extending congratulations on behalf of my party to the hon. lady who has just been appointed Minister of Communications. I am sure that this is the first time in the 107 years of the history of this parliament that a lady minister has moved a motion in the House within hours after being appointed to her portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not had time to do all the research that might be necessary to make that assertion, but I am sure it is correct. We congratulate her on this appointment, and we shall back up our congratulations by passing this bill without further debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and myself, I would like to congratulate the new Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). We are very happy to see her in her new department. We were proud of having her as Minister of Environment because we had always felt no one can match a lady to clean up the nation. But I believe she will be even more at home in her new office and I am sure that, with such an able captain, communications will thrive. We are sure the whole country will benefit from her appointment. I once more extend my congratulations to the new minister.
(English]


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for being so expeditious in passing this bill. I appreciate that they are doing this to facilitate my task as, indeed, I was only sworn in a couple of hours ago. I thank them for passing this bill so expeditiously.
I thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for his very kind words and good wishes. As I already have had occasion to tell him, we all have our favourites on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: That is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Jeanne Sauvé: I have something for you too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: As for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we have a very old acquaintanceship. We have had many discussions. The only problem we have is that we feel we should be on the same side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear! Come on over.


Jeanne Sauvé: I also want to thank the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).

I would like to thank the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) for his good wishes and his kind words. Hon. members of his party have always shown so much courtesy to me that I am pleased but not surprised by their graciousness. Thank you very much, and now I hope we shall be able to get the bill through.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 2, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 15, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
19,	on the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
20,	in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 34, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
December 5, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 37, in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
5,	in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 1, in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
6,	in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
42,	in the name of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 4. Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item
43,	in the name of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 45, in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 2, 1974, consideration of the motion of Mr. Balfour:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that, for the purpose of computing the income from his employment, a mechanic may, in addition to any other deduction to which he may be entitled, deduct the cost of tools or other supplies required in the performance of the duties under his contract of employment.
Mr. Balfour:: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. If the hon. member speaks, he will close the debate.
Income Tax Act


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the debate up to this point on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). It has been backed by many members on both sides of the House, and for good reason. However, it leaves some questions in my mind and in the minds of others I am sure, particularly with reference to other supplies required for the purpose of the duties under the contract of employment. As has been said earlier, and said by the hon. member for Regina East, the class of employees singled out is very important.
If we accept this motion and give the tax relief that has been requested, we leave the door open to other segments of our population making a similar legitimate request. I refer to carpenters, masons, and so on.
What about other trades that also have to supply in varying degrees their own tools while under contract to perform various services? The hon. member for Regina East is really concerned with trades in this motion, not with professions. We have to look at it in that light to see whether in this time of high inflation, when a reasonable effort is being made to cut back by all segments of the population, this would entail a great expenditure of money and take from the treasury of Canada a large sum of money as well.
Basically, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed thus far in the debate. A mechanic is required at his own expense and at varying times to supplement the tools in use in the various garages throughout this country. However, if we open it up for the mechanic, we may have to open it up for other tradesmen as well.
Carpenters require expensive tools in the work they do. Most are required to supply at least the basics. It used to be that if a carpenter had a square, handsaw, and a good knowledge of those basic tools, that was all that was needed. However, these trades are becoming much more technical and it is much more expensive in respect of the tools that they require.
We must look at this carefully because of a precedent that will be established. Will it be necessary to submit a licence to prove that you are a mechanic to qualify for exemption under the measures proposed by the hon. member? What about repeats? Will there be an exemption on the initial cost of the tools required? It was said previously in this debate that that exemption could be as high as $3,000. What are the other supplies required in the performance of the duties under the contract? Where do we draw the line?
We do have, as members know, an exemption now for 3 per cent, with a full exemption of $150 each year for those employment expenses. I think we have to take a look and see, if we are making a drastic change in the income tax, whether it is justified at this particular time in history and whether it would be taken advantage of by other segments of the population as fully as possible.
What is the situation now? What tools are supplied mostly by the service stations in which these mechanics are working, and what would we have to do to know exactly where the income tax people stand with respect to the tools that the man himself must employ?

December 5, 1975
Income Tax Act
I do not wish, of course, to digress from the topic we are studying, but I think perhaps for the thought of those in the present House and for other times we should also look to the general lack of qualified mechanics that appears to be on the scene now as far as this trade is concerned. And I might just briefly perhaps propose to the House that in this deliberation at some time in the future it should look to the licensing of mechanics through the armed services. I will not take that idea too much further other than to say I have had representations that the licences supplied by the provinces primarily, should be looking toward the supply of more qualified mechanics. But right now we must deal with the motion put forward by the hon. member and look at the exemption with relation to the tax act.
The fact that self-employed professionals are allowed deductions for materials and equipment consumed in income earning clearly establishes that it is administratively impossible to audit such expenditures. This was a statement made by the hon. member in the course of the discussion on December 2, 1974. I think we have to look at this in the light in which it was put forward. Consider the term "self-employed professionals".
Is a mechanic a professional? I would like to think most of them are. So we should perhaps consider very strongly allowing the deduction for a mechanic whether he is employed by a garage or large firm or as a self-employed professional, because if he is giving his professional services to a garage he is really self-employed due to the training he has undergone. We do have lawyers who work for corporations and they .are self-employed professionals. I think too often we tend to look at a mechanic or a tradesman and say he is not professional. I think that is one of the things that has seriously hurt this country. But of more concern is to have them look upon themselves as non-professionals.
I trust some consideration will be given to the motion put forward by the hon. member because basically I must say I am almost fully in agreement with it with respect to the use of the Income Tax Act by mechanics. I think we should perhaps go further and open it up to many of the trades that make this country a better country in which to live. I could mention, of course, just a few of the others- draftsman, I believe, masons, and carpenters among others. We should not limit our discussions or our openings in the income tax levy to just the mechanics. I must say I am fully in agreement with the motion and, bearing in mind the possibility of establishing a precedent and possible loss at this particular time to the tax structure of the Government of Canada, I would support it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to commend the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) for bringing to the attention of the House by way of his motion a very important matter and to say I am delighted to hear that the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) supports that motion.
It is interesting to note that when this matter was debated previously-I think in December, 1974-it was supported by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), a member of the NDP; by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), a Liberal, and by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), another Liberal. I note that the only Liberal who spoke against it at that 
stage was the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), presently Minister of National Revenue. I do not know whether that is the way to the cabinet-to speak against progressive motions of this nature. At any rate I am happy to hear the words of the member for Bruce-Grey. I hope he speaks for his party when he says he is in favour of it and supports it, and that at the end of this hour the government supporters in this House will give more than lip service in terms of their support and will allow the motion to come to a vote.
I believe the motion is a constructive one and, as the member for Bruce-Grey has said, perhaps it does not go far enough. This is not to say we ought to stop, in view of the support the motion has received, on the grounds it does not go far enough, having regard to the spirit in which it has been presented and the way in which it has been received. It is a step along the way and I think it would be a shameful thing if any of the hon. members opposite were to stand up and talk out the motion.
I do not intend to speak for very long. I think that if there is this kind of agreement in the House the motion should carry. We should perhaps go further to deal with the motion before us today. Let me say I believe it is important for the very reason the hon. member mentioned, namely, the fight against inflation. I wonder how many more young men or women might be induced into the trade, calling, or profession of mechanic if the incentive were given them to do so by removing the obstacle of the expensive purchase of tools they have to acquire. I am wondering if any hon. member has statistics that might indicate whether the infusion of new blood into a trade, calling, or profession would produce a great deal of tax revenue for the people of Canada as a result of that gainful employment.
It seems to me the government talks always in terms of restraint rather than recognizing that while there must be restraint in some areas-perhaps one is government spending, and others have been mentioned during the course of the last few days in this House-there is also a neccesity to encourage productivity and gainful employment, and to encourage those who want to enter gainful employment in order to contribute in some way or other to their community.
There is the other side to the coin of restraint. This is important because of the metric system, whenever the government decides to introduce it. This will produce great expense for mechanics who must trade their tools in or, in the alternative, buy additional tools. This would be one way in which the government could recognize this impediment to the conversion to the new system and the burden it will place on mechanics who wish to convert.
In so far as the argument that has been advanced about justice and equity is concerned, let me say I have listened carefully to the debate thus far, as well as on the last occasion. I was in the House on December 2, 1974, when the earlier debate took place. I see no reason in equity why a mechanic, and indeed at some stage we could carry this through into other trades and callings, ought not to be treated in the same way as a lawyer, a doctor, an accountant, or perhaps an engineer, in respect of our tax system.
December 5, 1975

I see no reason, for instance, why a lawyer who may use an automobile in the course of the conduct of his practice should stand in any more advantageous position than the mechanic who uses tools in the course of his trade, calling, or profession. I see no reason why a mechanic should be in any less significant a position than the engineer in respect of the tools of their trades, or why a lawyer in terms of his tax return should be in a more advantageous position because of owning a typewriter than the mechanic who has a set of wrenches or tools.
There is an important element here in terms of equalizing opportunities, and I think perhaps the reason that there is some hesitancy on the part of some people to accept this kind of approach is the great adherence to tradition. Traditionally lawyers, doctors, accountants, and engineers have been regarded by society, by parliament, and by those who advise the minister on what are proper deductions, as the privileged professions. The fact of the matter is that they are becoming less and less privileged in terms of the requirements of society.
If one is to advise a young person today where he or she ought to seek their fortune one would not be wrong if he advised that young person to seek his or her fortune or career in some area that is other than professionally oriented in the traditional sense. We have to take a hard look at this, and that is why I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Bruce-Grey state that he supports in principle this kind of deduction even though it does not go far enough. I was glad the hon. member for Nipissing supported the principle, and I was pleased that the hon. member for Assiniboia was in favour. I was equally happy that the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) supported it as well, because it is an important principle.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to bear witness in terms of the way in which this debate is conducted today by giving some efficacy to their support. They can do that by not talking the motion out, thus bearing false witness to their words, and by letting this motion proceed to the appropriate standing committee of the House, because this is a principle that ought to be put before the government and the committee where there can be intensive study, not only having regard to equity but to the matter of restraint and inflation raised by the hon. member. I think it is important that we discuss all these things.
When I leave the House today I hope I will not be disappointed. We still have 30 minutes time left, of which I hope ten minutes at the end can be used to vote in favour of this motion. Having regard to the support from the other side I am confident that it will pass this test with flying colours.
I want to express my thanks to all of my colleagues on the Liberal side who have indicated their support for the position taken by the hon. member for Regina East. I ask them not to send that member home tonight disappointed in that what has come from the other side is really only a lot of wind and very little substance. I know that those who are in the House today are not the kind of members of parliament who would give lip service to this kind of thing, but are the type who intend to allow it to pass.
Income Tax Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because I agree with the view just expressed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that it is desirable to pass this resolution this afternoon, I shall keep my remarks very brief.
As the previous speaker pointed out, everyone who has taken part in this debate, both on December 2, 1974, and thus far on December 5, 1975, has spoken in favour of the resolution, with one exception. Even that one person who was not in favour of the resolution, namely, the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), admitted that what is presently being done by way of an exemption for the purchase of tools is not good enough. At the conclusion of his remarks on December 2, 1974, as noted in Hansard at page 1863, he said:
Recognizing there is some merit in this argument, the government went part of the way with the 3 per cent or $150 deduction. Speaking personally, I do not think it is enough. I believe it should be higher. If the opposition had not spoken so long, I would have been able to expand on that.
The place to expand on that kind of proposition is in the committee to which this matter might be referred. I say, therefore, since all who have spoken have either supported the resolution outright or admitted that something ought to be done, I hope we can express that by passing this resolution this afternoon.
The only other word I should like to add is by way of the same thing said by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, namely, with the changeover to the metric system that is coming many workers will have to buy additional tools, and in many cases they will require two sets of tools. Some workers who at the present time may be fitted out with the tools they need will be faced with this kind of expense, so I think this issue becomes more urgent at this time in our history. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support all those Liberals and all other members of the House who say this is a good resolution. I hope it can be passed this afternoon.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is a proverb in the country from which I come which, briefly translated, says in effect that you never praise the day before the sun sets. I am afraid the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has made a kind of mistake by thanking everybody in this House.
It seems to me what we are debating today is a subject that probably is raised many times at lunch hour in the factories, on construction sites, and in the mines of Canada. It is one that has probably attracted the attention of workers in particular when they look at the way an employed worker is treated and then compare that to the way an employer can proceed in deducting all the expenses the employer is allowed to deduct under the Income Tax Act. Then I suppose they ask themselves why the employer can do this, while they cannot. Some speakers have already said that they would not want to see this limited to one trade but in fairness would like to see it applied to all trades.
Of course one could make a very good argument in favour of bricklayers, plasterers, electricians, technicians, miners and so on. They would all have a very good argu-

December 5, 1975
Income Tax Act
ment because they take pride in acquiring and developing a set of tools of their own.
I am surprised that a member of the Conservative party, which party historically has adopted the concepts of private enterprise, has missed one of the basic philosophies in our Canadian tax system, namely, the fact that income from employment in our country is treated differently from income from business. I imagine the reason is the fact that income from business is the type of income that allows one, if he is an employer, to create his own job and the jobs of his employees, and therefore having done so he is given a consideration and treatment under the Income Tax Act that is particularly favourable because he performs a special role of creating jobs. Now all of a sudden we have members of the Conservative party taking an approach which seems either to disregard this basic principle or forget the fact because of personal, local, or regional considerations.
It may be there is a large number of mechanics in Saskatchewan since that region seems to be particularly interested in this type of exemption. Let me say that at least in theory the assumption has been made that an employer will pay his employer-employee expenses, which include the tools, and in a case where an employer does not pay his employee's expenses other expenses are considered to be unnecessary. This, of course, we all know is not the case in respect of tradesmen, including mechanics. We know traditionally that tradesmen for reasons of pride, practicality, and reasons related to the fact that they have a certain preference or choice in the selection of tools, develop their tools and equipment on their own at their own expense. Therefore I think the question is very legitimate. However, let us for a moment think this through.
What would be the ultimate result if we were to adopt the resolution put forward today? It would mean that we would have in our society a group of tradesmen who are already commanding a very good income who had been recognized under the act, if it were to become law, as having been granted an additional preference, namely, that of deducting certain expenses that other workers who are employees do not have.
I am very surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who seems to be staring at me with great astonishment, would support this measure which would really make the rich richer in a sense, and the poor poorer. This would be the net result of this kind of measure. Surely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because of his fine contribution to debates in this House, would see the merit of another approach I would put forward to you, Mr. Speaker, namely, that instead of this kind of a measure we might support one that would perhaps increase the amount which can be deducted by any worker in this country, regardless of whether he has a trade, whether he is semi-skilled or is unskilled.
It is true that such a measure would not address itself to a specific sector, and therefore would not relieve the workers in the particular industry or trade referred to, but in terms of social benefit it seems to me a measure to increase what is presently being permitted, that is to say, the $150 per year or 3 per cent of wages, to an amount that would not greatly affect the revenue of the Department of Revenue, first of all would be fair because it would apply to |Mr. Caccia.]
every employee, whether in the mines, in a body shop, an auto shop, a construction site, a bank, or an office downtown.
I refer to a measure that would provide some form of modest tax relief to everybody in this country who happens to be an employee. This is the basis for my argument. It would not be a measure that would provide an additional income benefit or advantage in society to a group which, for a number of reasons, can already command in our economic system a fairly good or reasonable income.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a few seconds from the topic at hand I should like to remark that just about a year ago when I was a very new member and easily intimidated, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) while a private member's bill was under discussion thundered across to members on this side that people on this side of the House had a tremendous habit of talking out private bills. Then he proceeded to take up quite a lot of the time allotted to the discussion of that bill. I should like to say that now, one year from then, the same thing has happened again.
My intention is not to talk out this bill but rather to endeavour to make a contribution, which I believe is what all members should be encouraged to do. My theme is similar to that of my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Why single out the mechanics rather than the carpenters, the dye makers, the tool makers, or even the hairdressers and barbers? How about waitresses? As my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport pointed out, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has done tremendous work inside and outside the House for the lower scale employees. For instance, waitresses, if they are lucky, might earn the minimum wage an hour. Big deal! Who buys their uniforms? If they are lucky enough to work in high class restaurants they might get some tips, but the ones I know do not even get work there.


Mr. Johnston:: I give them good tips.


Ursula Appolloni: I am glad the hon. member across is so generous. I must tell all the waitresses I know to serve him.
The wording of the motion concerns me. As I said, I do not see why mechanics have been singled out, even though they deserve tax deductions as much as anyone else.
I also notice another anomaly in the phrase "cost of tools or other supplies". The wording lends itself to speculation. Here again I ask, what about special clothing, for instance, that is needed in almost every sector of industry and commerce in this country, and who helps to buy it?
I sat on a special board, again last December, where we were discussing the egg situation in Canada and I remember some of the farmers, members of the various boards, told us why they must get so much a week, especially in Quebec. They said they needed it to keep up with the industrial wage in Ontario. I asked them, "Do you have the same expenses as the average worker who lives in a large urban centre, who must pay for his transportation to his

December 5, 1975

place of work and who must provide suitable clothes for himself in order to carry on even the most basic work such as answering a telephone, because when you turn up in an office in blue jeans you can lose your job pretty fast?" What about these people? Do you think of granting them tax exemptions? We think of mechanics who, as my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport pointed out, are not badly treated; they are well paid.
I agree with the substance of the motion but I also agree with what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) said-that was his private opinion but hopefully now he will make it more public-that $150 a year is not sufficient and that it should be increased for all. Let us apply it to all people. Let us not cure one inequity only to create another.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, before I enter the crux of the subject I am sure I will be permitted to join my colleagues in expressing my best wishes and my most sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), the former Minister of Environment, and wishing her utmost success in her new department. The one thing I and the members of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry regret is that henceforth the former Minister of Environment who became today Minister of Communications will no longer sit on that committee.
Mr. Speaker, I must first congratulate the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) for the topic he chose to discuss today, and I must state right away that I am in great sympathy with the purpose he has in mind.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I was always surprised to find what I will call "discrimination" that always existed between the businessman, the professional and the shopkeeper and worker whatever his trade. And, as the hon. member who spoke before me said so properly, with the conviction it commands, I must say there is still in this motion by the hon. member for Regina East a feeling of discrimination since it is purely aimed at allowing mechanics to deduct from their income tax the cost of the tools they must use to practice their trade.
Why not? But that presents danger that is pointed out by the Department of Revenue, or those who are in charge of collecting taxes. If we open the door to mechanics, it means that everybody will be coming here to ask for a deduction as well. It is perfectly normal. Just like the lawyer needs paper, a telephone, secretaries to be able to practice his profession, just like the doctor, the worker needs tools. The same goes for the carpenter and all workers if they are to practice their trade decently and earn their living like all other professionals. Some companies supply the tools, fine, but in the case of those who do not supply them, the worker himself must pay for them. So I think it would be more equitable to allow those people to deduct it like lawyers, notaries, all other professionals, innkeepers, businessmen, industrialists and so on.
Fortunately, this government finally recognizes that something ought to be done in this sense and this is why a $150 deduction or 3 per cent of the yearly income, whichever is the lesser, is now allowed. It is always the same thing, it is always the lesser figure but when it is on the other side it is always the higher figure. I am informed
Income Tax Act
that no voucher is required. We are told that the approximate cost of those automatic annual deductions of $150 a year for the federal treasury is $235 million.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that those deductions be extended to everybody, I mean to every worker for the real cost of his tools or what he needs to work and practise his trade, but we should require supporting evidence. Today, anyone can deduct $150 a year even if he does not buy any tool at all. Even if it means extra work for the staff ot the National Revenue Department, I do believe it would be better to require receipts and to allow not only mechanics but every worker to file a real deduction representing the cost of the tools they bought during the year to practise their trade. If they did not buy any, no deduction is allowed. Some people might not agree with my point of view but I think it would be more equitable for everybody and for the government-that is for Canadians-and particularly for those who have to buy tools to work at their trade. Those were the few comments I had to make on the motion of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) and once again I commend him for this initiative and I hope the government will consider it.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) spoke at such great length because it is impossible for me, in the few minutes remaining, to have a chance to discuss this subject as fully as it deserves to be discussed.
Fortunately the subject has been discussed very wisely by my colleagues on this side, and they have brought a sensible perspective to the problem which was not revealed by the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He, of course, skipped quickly over the subject matter of the bill and discussed the whole economic question in Canada, which he saw as being very ominous. He elevated the discussion, we have to admit, to a very high moral level, but I think he failed to deal with the particular questions raised by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that there is no doubt, I have always looked forward to the contributions in these debates by my good friend, the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). Speaking on behalf of my party I want to say that we are quite prepared to extend the time for as long as it may be necessary for the hon. member to finish his speech, and for all other hon. members who wish to speak in the debate to finish, so that the question can be put, and I hope there is general agreement from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear! Agreed.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Unlike the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton I have a very lengthy journey to make back to my constituency tonight where I have an engagement. I know many of my colleagues are not as fortunate as the hon. member. He can drive his car five of ten minutes to get home.
9790

December 5, 1975
Income Tax Act


Walter David Baker: I will lend you my car.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: My hon. friends and colleagues here raised the very important point as to why we have singled out mechanics and, having singled them out, why do we not ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for people employed by gainful concerns, who are deducting the cost of doing business from their income, to have to outfit themselves with tools to begin with, or having outfitted themselves, do they not have them replaced as they wear out at the employer's shop? The question of a lawyer's expenses, the utilization of his car-a very suspect device at any time-is, I suggest, very unlikely to be closely related to his business needs. However, what of the employees who are in this same lawyer's office who, in order to enhance the premises and their appearance, dress expensively at their own expense? I suggest that the hon. member's own law office is a pleasure to walk into, but I doubt whether he pays any great heed to the cost of clothing borne by his employees as they help to create an impression of thoughtful affluence.
So the question is, therefore, why are we confining our discussion to the question of mechanics? However, I am curious as to why the $150 deduction or 3 per cent is not in itself probably adequate, even in the case of mechanics. I read in the speech of the hon. member for Regina East that he contended that expenses could run as high as $900 to $1,000 per year for replacement of tools. I find that to be a very high figure, and I would be inclined to cut it in half, which is a suitable procedure to take with regard to anything we hear from the other side of the House. So, taking half his statement as true, it would seem that the depreciated value annually of the tools would probably come close to $150 as a deductible item, so that in this case the mechanic is not faring too badly.
However, there is a very valid question at the moment about the cost of mechanics converting their inventory of tools to the metric system. Here I think the government should take special note and should recognize that this is a fundamental alteration in the assets of workers, people who can ill afford this sort of blow to their economic condition, and I think there should be a special provision introduced by the government to take account of this. This has been raised at meetings of the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade, Economic Affairs, which is discussing the metrication program. I think hon. members on both sides
of that committee are enthusiastically supporting the concept of something being done for individuals, for to fulfill the national objective of metrication they must invest heavily in the tools of their trade. I strongly recommend that the hon. member for Regina East give further study to this matter so that when he reintroduces this motion, perhaps at another time, its more carefully thought out provisions will lend strength to this aspect of the argument.
Finally, we should consider the anomalies this kind of bill as it presently stands presents, because all across the economic community are inequities created by the problem of either being employed and the employer deducting expenses, of not being employed or of being self-employed. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the hon. member for Don Valley as he then was, spoke in debate and pointed out that the musician who had been selfemployed was able to deduct his taxi expenses, but as soon as he signed on as a permanent member of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra he could not do so even though compensation was offered by the orchestra, and I suppose he had heavy instruments to carry.
All across the country there are these very hard to administer matters, and I recommend that the government take very careful note of the problem of the metrication program and the cost which will be borne by mechanics in this regard. Then the government perhaps should study the meritorious proposals brought forward by the hon. member for Regina East, and I urge upon him the desirability of studying the question and coming up with a sounder and more acceptable measure.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to join in this debate today, and
1	must say that I am happy to find the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in such a conciliatory mood. I hope that when major pieces of government legislation come before this House he will be in such a conciliatory mood at that point in time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at
2	p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 8, 1975