1976-11-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation}

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to bring up an urgent matter of national importance.
In view of the increased tensions and obvious economic and social injustices which were provoked by the present government through faulty application of the principles of Canadian federalism, more specifically as regards decentralization, respect for provincial autonomy and bilingualism, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie):
That this House demand of the government that it prove itself responsible by putting an end to its tactics of systematic harassment and confrontation, and that it come back to the only true concept of the federal pact, namely an integral respect of the jurisdictions of each province, the essential guarantee of harmony in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


TITLE OF &quot;SCROOGE, 1976&quot; FOR MINISTER OF FINANCE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the Anti-Inflation Board that it is going to interfere with Christmas bonuses and Christmas gifts, in some cases denying them altogether, I suggest that it is appropriate to move a certain motion today, bearing in mind that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is responsible for the Anti-Inflation Board. I therefore
move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House officially confers on the Minister of Finance the title of "Scrooge 1976".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacFarlane:: Humbug!


Mr. Paproski:: Ghosts of Christmas past-Scrooge himself said no.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In light of the former minister of transport's often repeated remarks that transportation is in a mess, and in view of examples of incompetency demonstrated by the present Minister of Transport, such as his handling of the air traffic controllers' problem, the application of the "I use but people pay" principle which he established and, now, his incompetent and inconsistent handling of the simple matter of car rentals at airports, would he consider giving part or all of that minister's portfolio to the Minister without Portfolio?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for internal administration and I will give some consideration to the question, provided I understand the basis of it. For instance, the questioner referred to the minister's mishandling of the air traffic controller situation. I would be happy to know what the Tory policy was on that.


AIRPORTS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Before I put it, may I say to the Prime Minister, give us the responsibility and we will give you the policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80005-41/2

Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport which criterion was used to judge the bids? Was it expected or projected sales, the percentage, or the minimum guarantee? Which one was used in the acceptance of the bids?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, minimum guarantees and percentages are both considered important and evaluated together in determining bids to accept. The over-all objective in the acceptance of bids is the maximizing of revenue under the contracts in question.


ALLOCATION OF SPACE TO CAR RENTAL COMPANIES- ASSESSMENT OF VALIDITY OF SALES FORECASTS USED IN BIDS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? Since car rental contracts were awarded largely on the basis of the optimism of a firm's sales forecasts in making its bid, with little emphasis on guarantees, and since the Ministry of Transport's estimate for total sales at each airport was far exceeded by the aggregate of the six successful bidders' forecasts, can the minister advise the House what measures were taken by his department to assess the reliability, indeed, the validity of the sales forecasts made by each firm before awarding the contracts?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's preliminary remarks were quite wrong. Great weight was attached to the minimum guarantees because, logically, simple projections on sales have to be weighed and the minimum guarantee works out to be the confidence factor which the bidder has in his own sales forecasts. We did weigh those two things together in determining the specific bid result.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the Minister of Transport I think the figures will reveal that the heavy emphasis was placed on sales forecasts rather than guarantee. In yiew of the fact that the Ministry of Transport's specifications for tenders specifically state "a tender shall be disqualified if the department determines that the sales forecast is unrealistic", and in light of the admission by a senior MOT official to the effect that since there were so many bids submitted sales forecasts were not checked for reliability, can the minister inform the House as to whether the MOT's own regulations were adhered to with respect to unrealistic forecasts and, if so, just how this was done?


Otto Emil Lang: Again to try to be helpful to the hon. member, 1 would like him to recognize that the sales forecasts were not relied on in an important way in these calculations. The two figures considered to be particularly important were the percentage of revenue bid and offered by the particular bidder on the one hand,- and the minimum guarantee which the bidder offered and agreed to on the other, and not a heavy reliance that the hon. member seems to think there was on the sales forecasts.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister, in response to my leader's questions the other day, confirmed that his department has prepared unemployment forecasts showing that unemployment in Canada will remain at 7.5 per cent and possibly increase to 8 per cent in the next eight months. Will the minister now confirm that his department has also prepared forecasts showing that unemployment in the province of Quebec will rise to 11 per cent this winter and that unemployment in the maritime provinces will range between 12 and 15 per cent and if so, will the minister table such forecasts in the House?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would want to check the accuracy of those figures.


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO REDUCE LEVEL
David Orlikow: Can the minister inform this House whether at the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers, now rescheduled for December, the government of Canada will be bringing forward new economic initiatives in order to avoid what will be the highest level of unemployment this winter since the depression?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we do not have a specific date in December. I have suggested, in response to questions that have been asked, that I would be glad to seek with the provinces to postpone the date of the conference if requested. However, at the moment it has not been changed. Any measures the government will be bringing forward with respect to the economy this winter will first be brought forward in this House.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REASON FOR ACCEPTANCE OF HIGH LEVEL IN QUEBEC
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my final supplementary to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not feel that the unified and indivisible country which all members of this House desire is threatened by the very high levels of unemployment and, if so, can he indicate to this House why his government is prepared to accept such high levels which affect not only Quebec but other provinces in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question. It is a paraphrasing of the speech the Tory leader gave last night in Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1976


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -thereby forcing the Province of British Columbia into a 50-50 participation in the cost-revenue shortfall for the movement of passengers, can the minister advise us whether he will participate in a 50-50 formula for the $25 million shortfall which the B.C. ferry system has incurred in the movement of passengers?


Otto Emil Lang: The moves which have been made in relation to the ferries in British Columbia are part of an overall policy in relation to ferries, one which reflects the view that the provinces are essentially responsible for the movement of passengers; where reasons for developing remote areas exist, the province and the federal government should work together in relation to the movement of freight to such areas. This is the policy which was applied in the case of the Northland service and, as the hon. member has noted, it may result in a total saving of approximately $3 million. As I have said before to the people in the area concerned, this is not because of a desire to save money, although that is a good motive but, rather, because of our desire to use the money saved for better transportation in the area.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I gather the answer to be negative as far as the British Columbia ferry system is concerned. Does the minister consider this negative response to be fair to the people of British Columbia in the light of the fact that his department is spending $128 million on similar subsidies affecting the east coast?


Otto Emil Lang: There are two things to be noted. One is that the broad policy which we are following is designed to apply to all areas of Canada, and we are in negotiation with the various provinces to this end. Of course, when the hon. member refers to the sum he mentioned he should remember that a very substantial proportion applies to the guaranteed ferry service to Newfoundland, which was a constitutional commitment made at the time that province entered confederation. I take it he is not suggesting it should be treated like any other payment. As far as I am concerned it is a very important and, one might say, sacred commitment.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. As industries in Canada attempt to restructure themselves to meet world competition-I have the shoe industry particularly in mind; thousands of workers have been laid off in recent months-is the minister considering the imposition of further import quotas or other means to protect a Canadian industry which is being savaged while it attempts to reorganize itself so as to retain a portion of the Canadian market?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can tell the hon. member that with respect to a number of industries the question of imposing import quotas has been placed before the cabinet. In the light of the overall position we are taking in the GATT negotiations, we feel it would not be desirable over the long run to maintain a general system of restrictive quotas. But in particular cases where there is a prospect of serious injury to a Canadian industry we would be prepared to consider them. When such a decision is taken, the House will, of course, be advised.


INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell us whether he intends to propose amendments to the textile and clothing legislation so that the Act might cover shoe manufacturers as they have requested, bearing in mind that 14 shoe manufacturers have closed down in recent months and that the remainder are finding it extremely difficult to compete with foreign competition and feel they need the right to appear before the Textile and Clothing Board to present their case and, hopefully, retain 50 per cent of the Canadian market?
[Translation)


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department is considering this matter and I take note of the hon. member's recommendation.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary, directed to the Minister of Finance. With respect to the GATT negotiations in Geneva, is the minister aware that the

November 18, 1976
Oral Questions
nature of foreign import competition has changed dramatically in recent years inasmuch as huge single corporations have now become capable of funnelling sufficient goods into the Canadian market to supply between 10 and 20 per cent of the demand, as is the case with the shoe industry, and, if so, has he advised our negotiators in Geneva that it might be necessary for future trade agreements to deal not only with countries but with foreign corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not the approach which has been taken by Canada. It is done on a country to country basis.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC'S CLAIM TO LABRADOR-REQUEST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT NEWFOUNDLAND'S POSITION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the new government of Quebec has laid claim to a large part of what is the territory of the Province of Newfoundland, is the government prepared to support the position taken by the Newfoundland government and, indeed, by all political parties in Newfoundland, that the land boundary is not negotiable with Quebec or anyone else?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not exactly know what the hon. member is referring to, except to say that there has been no new government appointed yet in Quebec. I imagine there will be in the next few days. The hon. member may be referring to some statements of the PQ party in its previous avocation; therefore, I am somewhat in the dark in answering the question. I can tell the hon. member that the constitution of Canada is quite clear on the point that he brings up; the frontiers of any province cannot be moved without the agreement of the provinces involved and of the Federal government.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he would restate this position during his first meeting with the premier-elect Levesque? Would he restate that the position is not negotiable and that the territorial integrity of the province of Newfoundland, as safeguarded by the constitution, the British North America Act, will be upheld by the government of Canada, and will he transmit this to the new Quebec government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to state outside the House the answer I have just given, which is perfectly clear. If the question is asked at the conference that is, of course, the answer I will give; but I repeat that the premier-elect of Quebec is still only premier-elect. Until he forms his cabinet and makes any statement on the subject that is of concern to the hon. member, I do not see why I should answer a hypothetical question.


WHEAT-REDUCTION IN PRICE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RECTIFY TO PROTECT EXPORT MARKETS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as reporting to parliament on behalf of the Wheat Board. There is considerable fear among western Canadian farmers today concerning the drastic fall in the futures price on the United States wheat market. Indeed, December wheat futures are dropping to $2.50 a bushel compared with a July high of $4.20. The fall has been $3.50 over the last two and a half years. Is the minister in a position to say whether or not, so far as the western wheat farmer is concerned, he will have to look forward in the coming year to a very pronounced reduction in wheat prices, and naturally as a result in his general income?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the most recently quoted Canadian Wheat Board price was over $3.19. That does, of course, mark a distinct and significant reduction from the high levels that were achieved previously. In any short-run period of time the grain farmer still remains very significantly dependent on the world condition of the wheat and barley markets, and this can, over any particular year, seriously affect his direct income from sales.
Over a longer period I am confident that the world will continue, as it did in the last couple of years, to appreciate the value of this secure food stock. If the farmers' direct income from wheat and barley drops, it is of course no thanks to the right hon. member's party that we now have in effect a grain stabilization plan that will compensate the farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Apparently the hon. gentleman never gets over his jet type reply.


Mr. McKinley:: He suffers from jet lag.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, and with the minister's usual lack of knowledge on the subject he endeavours to decloud the issue with observations that are entirely gratuitous. I ask him this simple question. Is it a fact that in so far as competition for wheat in the international field is concerned today, it has increased very much in the last few months with the result that our wheat markets across the world are endangered?


Otto Emil Lang: Not the wheat markets, but the price at which those markets are retained obviously is subject to threat. I thought that when the right hon. gentleman was putting forward his question and referring to American prices it might have been useful to him to have had a Canadian price to work with. However, beyond that the answer to his question in a sense had to be the obvious because the question had an obvious answer.
November 18, 1976


AIRPORTS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to return to the matter of the letting of contracts which was first referred to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister confirm that in the criteria with respect to the applications for counter space major auto manufacturers must be classified only under the open counter provisions of the criteria?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that would likely be true. I would like to double-check that because if there are any which could classify as domestic, it does not come to my mind, but obviously the test for the distinction was between those which were essentially, if you like, foreign in the nature of doing the bulk of their business in a foreign country and domestic in the sense of doing their business here. However, obviously on a highly technical question like that I would be glad to have the written question and answer in detail.


ALLOCATION OF SPACE TO CAR RENTAL COMPANIES-REASON FOR ALLOCATION TO OTTAWA MOTORS
Walter David Baker: When the minister is checking that point, would he also look into the reason why Ottawa Motors received the local counter space at the Ottawa Airport, in light of the fact that Ottawa Motors is under the Ford Rent-a-Car system? In other words, that company is one of the major auto manufacturers, and it would appear, on the surface in any event, to have crept in under another classification.


Otto Emil Lang: I would certainly be glad to look into that. The local bid, of course, was designed essentially for a local operator who was not in the car rental business elsewhere.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Raynald Guay (L6vis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since I put my question last October 20 concerning Marie-Andree Leclerc, I wonder what is going on because it seems to me that the government is not very anxious to intervene in this matter. There seems to be an enormous difference between what the government tells us concerning Marie-Andree Leclerc's conditions of life and of detention and what she says in a letter she recently sent to her parents. So, I ask once again to the Canadian government to make pressure on the Indian government so that Miss Leclerc be charged as soon as possible and, consequently, that justice be done to her.
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the last submission on this question, we have continued, through our high commission in India, to inquire about Miss Leclerc's welfare. The latest word 1 have, and I am reading directly from the communique, is that she is being detained under the Indian maintenance of internal security act because of crimes she is alleged to have committed both in India and abroad. The allegations regarding criminal acts are under investigation, and the Indian authorities have decided to keep Miss Leclerc under judicial remand until the investigation has been completed, at which time any charges which are justified will be laid.
Subsequent to the hon. member's last question, as recently as November 5, which was just a couple of weeks ago, our high commission has made further representations to Indian authorities requesting that they expedite matters, and I am told that it has also succeeded in providing not only consular services but also in getting some improvement in the conditions under which she is held. However, I am sure the hon. member will understand that this is the maximum we are able to do in this case.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's announcement yesterday that the federal government has abandoned the idea of a national park as a solution to the mercury pollution problem at the White Dog and Grassy Narrows Indian Reserves, does the minister support the unanimous request of the band councils that sport fishing in the English-Wabigoon river system be banned as a first step toward a solution of the problem, and will he urge the provincial government to accede to this request?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with Mr. Bernier about that and some other matters next Friday. With respect to that position, we have not yet come to a conclusion on it, but I will be urging a solution with Mr. Bernier when I meet him next week.


REQUEST THAT BAND COUNCILS BE PERMITTED TO DEAL DIRECTLY WITH DREE OFFICIALS
Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the frustration experienced by native leaders in dealing with officials in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will the minister establish mechanisms to allow the band councils to deal directly with DREE and other federal agencies in order to promote economic alternatives for the native people

November 18, 1976
Oral Questions
in this area whose livelihood has been destroyed by mercury pollution from the Reed Paper Company?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no obligation for the bands to go through my department in approaching DREE. They can approach DREE directly.


THE MINISTRY
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
While congratulating the minister for his astounding success in taking part in the Quebec electoral campaign, I would like to ask him, Mr. Speaker, if he was speaking on his behalf or that of the government when he stated a few days before the election that a PQ government in Quebec would compromise-and that is the term he used-the distribution in that province of old age pension cheques and other similar social welfare benefits?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1
am quite pleased to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, because it will enable me to state clearly in the House that I made a speech which lasted almost an hour during which I presented a complete panorama of what is Canada as an ideal country where a man can live. I listed the social programs available to Canadians and especially Quebecers and I said that should a PQ government separate Quebec from Canada, it would be necessary to make a choice in that series of programs and that it was not sure that those welfare programs could have the same scope as those now available to Canadians. Part of that speech was taken out of its context, reported and taken up today by the hon. member. I wish to state that such was not the implication of my comments in Montreal.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of this rather strange admission, to say the least, on the part of a minister of the Crown, I would ask the minister whether he feels that the use of such blackmailing methods, and rumour-mongerings as well as stratagems of this kind reflect an adequate knowledge of Quebecers' maturity and pride?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of one Canada and I am amazed by the hon. member's remarks after the explanations I just gave him, remarks that are suggesting that I have made some statements I have not made. I am wondering whether the hon. member is not trying to revive a concept which the Progressive Conservative Party used to call associat-

ed states or a particular status. If as a Progressive Conservative the hon. member wants two Canadas, that's his business, but as far as I am concerned, as a Liberal, I am in favour of one Canada.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. We have noticed that the former president of the treasury board and the present Minister of Public Works have assured the mayor of Ottawa that any loss of jobs or office space from the national capital region because of decentralization will be more than offset by the requirement for space as a result of government expansion. Does the minister have specific plans set out for additional government office requirements in the national capital area for the next five years and if so would he be prepared to table those requirements?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, when I chatted with the mayor a couple of days ago, I acted on the assumption that if the growth of the public service in the next three to four years were kept at or under one per cent, the proportion that would normally be located in the national capital would require-I should get the exact figure-it seems to me around 200,000 square feet per year, so that that added up would offset the effect of decentralization.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this assurance to the mayor is rather hollow unless the minister has a specific plan to lay before us. It seems to me that actually all he is telling the Canadian people is that the government bureaucracy will continue to grow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister table his reply or at least give us the nature of his reply to a memorandum under date of November 15 sent to him and to all members of the government purportedly from the hon. member for Vaudreuil calling in pretty strong language and giving strong arguments for a national federal Liberal leadership convention immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South.
November 18, 1976


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Mir. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that on November 5 in the Vancouver papers there appeared an invitation for tenders to dredge sand at Borrow site number three on the north arm of the Fraser River and to pile it on McDonald Road which is on the north shore of Sea Island, can the minister tell me, in respect of this particular contract which has been put out by his department, whether the sand that is being dredged is contemplated for use on a new or third runway at the Vancouver airport.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is sand which might be useful for that purpose if a decision to build that runway goes ahead. There is a time interval between the time the sand can be obtained and the time the necessary dredging takes place and we are therefore acquiring the sand. As I indicated earlier that does not prejudge the question of whether or not the runway will be built.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, in 1978, which is the time for decision according to the Minister of the Environment, if the decision is not to go ahead will the minister assure us that the sand will be put back into the river.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I am told that the dredging going on and which is contemplated is required in any case. We are saving the sand in case we need it. It may be that the hon. member would be able to ask me what we will do with the sand if we do not need it for that purpose.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Last month the former minister of state for urban affairs indicated he could not answer a question in connection with the mortgage of Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation to York Place of Hamilton Incorporated because it was under consideration by the courts. I have checked thoroughly into this matter and find there is nothing before the courts. In view of the former minister's comments that if there were any irregularities he would want to be the first to know about them so that he could check into them, I should like to know if the minister has now checked into the influence exerted by the employees of the office of the minister and who was instructed to approach the office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Hamilton for the purpose of influencing the decision which had been handed down to decline an increase in the amount of the mortgage granted by CMHC?
Oral Questions


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question involved an accusation or an innuendo concerning an employee of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and with your permission, I would like the Minister of Labour to answer this question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to reply to the hon. member. Yesterday an article appeared in The Spectator-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did in fact make a very serious allegation. The hon. member may want to put the question to the Minister of Labour but until he does I think the minister will have to remain in his seat.


REASON FOR INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF MORTGAGE GRANTED TO YORK PLACE OF HAMILTON
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Since the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation comes under his jurisdiction will the minister tell the House why the decision of the Hamilton office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was reversed and the mortgage, originally for $5.7 million, was increased to $7.2 million?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will examine the issue raised by the hon. member and give him an answer as soon as possible. But I fail to understand why he does not want to put a question to the Minister of Labour, who would certainly be able to clarify the situation and put an end to such insinuations.


GRANTING OF MORTGAGE TO YORK PLACE OF HAMILTON- ALLEGATION OF INFLUENCE BY OFFICE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will accept the minister's invitation and direct it to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us what influence was exerted by his office on the decision of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Hamilton to increase the mortgage to York Place of Hamilton Incorporated?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, because of allegations of a similar nature that were made, I did not respond. My lawyers issued a writ against the Hamilton Spectator and it is my understanding that a statement of claim was filed within the last few days. If the hon. member wishes to add to such insinuations I would be more than happy to have him stand outside then perhaps I could add him as co-defendant.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let us see the guts now.

Oral Questions


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1976

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It refers to the reply he gave to a question put by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond yesterday, regarding moneys due pre-retired coal miners in Cape Breton on whose behalf such a gallant effort was made by the former member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, Mr. Maclnnis. In view of the assurances given by the minister and Mr. Tom Kent, president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the last time they appeared before the Standing Committee on Regional Development that they would do their utmost this fall to rectify in a financial way the injustices perpetrated on the Cape Breton coal miners who were preretired between 1969 and 1971, is it the intention of the minister to welsh on the assurances given at that time that were accepted in good faith by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the miners and myself?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to emphasize that when the hon. member refers to moneys which are due, that is not, as he is well aware, the interpretation which has always been given. This was the topic of a lengthy discussion and we have agreed on that. We did say, and I reiterated myself, as my predecessor did before me, that we have been trying ever since the beginning to improve the pension scheme of those people. There was some improvement in the last few months and we have always said that we would try to do it as far as possible. Of course the whole thing is dependent on our financial possibilities and the problems facing us. We stated we had a role to play as far as workers in mining operations are concerned, that is our first responsibility in the immediate future. We shall continue to take care of those people and, if possible, of the workers who were previously employed by them.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by the minister's reply yesterday and I am doubly shocked today. Is the minister aware that his predecessors, including the hon. gentleman who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs and his predecessor, agreed that while there may not be a legal obligation there was a moral obligation? Is he not aware that there are many areas where money could be found in the wasteful spending of the government whereby this unjust treatment-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just keep Otto at home for a few days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: I was just leading up to my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member surely realizes the question is, in the minimum, argumentative. If the hon. member has a question to put to the minister within the understanding of the rules, I would be glad if he would do it.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I have breached the rules. I want to ask the minister if he is aware or shall I send him a memo outlining different areas where he could get this money? One of them would be the 3A of a million dollars spent by the Minister of Transport flying back and forth across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Clip Otto's wings; that's what we used to do with the turkeys.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that three Canadian banks, the Toronto Dominion, the Royal and the Bank of Nova Scotia, have formed a consortium to lend $125 million to the bankrupt junta of Chile, and in view of the fact that since the International Monetary Fund has refused to support that country because of its mismanagement of the economy thus calling such a loan into question, on the basis of the government's loan criteria concerning "economic and technical merits" of the loan, and in view of the fact that the government has already involved itself politically in private economic affairs between countries by issuing a code of conduct-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it not possible to put that question without a preamble?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is this: is the Canadian government prepared to convey to the banks Canada's position on the Chilean junta's disrespect for human and civil rights in that unfortunate country and ask them to respect both the moral position of the Canadian government and the technical and economic unacceptability of the loan?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the preamble was of such a nature that I have to confess I am having a little difficulty trying to follow it through. I will be glad to study the question but if I understood it correctly, I would say the banks are already aware of the Canadian government's position with regard to Chile. In so far as exerting any influence, however, this is a private banking transaction and I see no reason why we as a government should interfere in any way.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary.
November 18, 1976


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the International Monetary Fund has refused further assistance to the Chilean junta because of their mismanagement of the economy, is the minister prepared to bring legislation before this House to control the export of capital from Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say without qualification that such legislation in effect would impose exchange control and would not be in the best interests of the Canadian economy. I have no such proposal to put forward.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there are no apparent environmental problems, that sand and gravel is available and there is a need for employment opportunities, can the minister inform the House if he will arrive at an early decision with respect to a much needed airport facility in northwestern New Brunswick?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: 1 hope to be able to do so, Mr. Speaker. I certainly recognize the strength of need for an airport in that particular region thanks to the hon. member's many representations. I am also delighted to know there are some places left in Canada where we can build airports.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he will be tabling the Sharwood report dealing with industrial research and development incentives in the very near future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position today to give an answer to the hon. member. However, I shall inquire and report personally to him.
Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister or his department had any contact or negotiations with his counterpart in the United States, presumably in Washington, over his idea or suggestion that there should be a toll increase on the St. Lawrence seaway? The minister indicated that he thought he would be in touch after the presidential election. That is now over. I ask, what is the status of the negotiations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there would have been any further contact in the interval since then. Before then there had been official discussions in a preliminary way. Of course, I shall be interested in following up those discussions as soon as it seems sensible to do so.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There is every indication that the Americans will not go along with the type of suggestion the Minister of Transport has put forward. If that happens does the minister intend unilaterally to impose increases on the St. Lawrence Seaway for the 1977 year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to reflect on that hypothesis at this time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence. One month ago the Minister of National Defence said, concerning base closures, that the problem was before him and he was dealing with it now and an announcement would be made in the very near future. Can the acting minister inform the House if any progress has been made and will the government inform the House what criteria they use to make these decisions? Are they made on financial, political or military criteria?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the Minister of National Defence this week is in London attending the meeting of the nuclear planning group. Fie has not had opportunity in the short time since his appointment to deal in detail with the complex review the hon. member raised in his question. However, I can tell the hon. member that all the factors he mentioned will be taken into account in the structure review of the armed forces.

November 18, 1976
Oral Questions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My original question was directed to the acting minister and I am sorry he did not see fit to reply to it. With particular reference to the base in London, Ontario, the people in that city and in southwestern Ontario have been waiting ten months to learn the fate of base London. Can the government not at least provide an early decision and an explanation now as to how they arrive at these decisions?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be reviewing that matter immediately upon his return from London. In the meantime, I can advise the hon. member that the city of London has adequate representation in this House, on this side.


Walter David Baker: That is not what I heard the other day.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the minister tell the House when the government will be in a position to implement a guaranteed annual income policy giving an appropriate income to the Canadian people who have to leave the labour market before being eligible for old age pension, and could he make a progress report on the negotiations with the provinces on this subject?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the provinces ended in June last year and all provinces expressed support for the income supplement program; Ontario is the only province to reject this proposal; the other provinces endorsed the proposal either in principle or categorically.
However, a lot of work still has to be done regarding the precise administration of such a program. I am still waiting for some answers on the part of the provinces to consider the number of steps they want to take in the implementation of this kind of program if it were managed by provincial authorities. The proposal we have brought forward implies a provincial administration with a cost-sharing of 50 per cent of the expenses by the federal government. If we cannot reach sufficient agreement with the provinces, we shall have to consider other alternatives.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement of the chairman of Canada's larges telecommunication equipment manufacturers, Northern Telecom Limited, that his company may shift a major portion of its operation to the United States unless the business climate in Canada improves, I ask, what action does the government contemplate to make sure that the climate for business in Canada improves, so that business and manufacturers in Canada may feel secure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to refer particularly to Mr. Scrivener's remarks, he laid emphasis on the comparative wage rates in Canada and the United States, attesting the acceleration which has occurred in Canada in recent years. As the hon. member knows, one of our principal concerns in maintaining the antiinflation program is to reduce the rate of increase of costs in Canada, the very situation which all Canadians, as well as Mr. Scrivener, I am sure, would like to bring about.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if there will be an improvement within the next 12 months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, everything I can do to bring it about will be done.


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. The other day I asked about the launching of the study which the government had mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the study on the question of freedom of information, and the hon. gentleman replied that he was waiting for a report from the committee. Of course, in view of the problems he had on his mind that day to do with the election in Quebec the minister probably forgot that the terms of reference lapsed at the end of last session and that we have no jurisdiction. Is the hon. gentleman prepared now, on behalf of the government, to give to the committee that proposal which the government has in mind, as referred to in the Speech from the Throne, so that we may launch a study and report back to the House shortly?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the only word I should like to qualify in the hon. member's question is the word "now." The proposals will be sent forward to the committee just as soon as they have received proper scrutiny and we have reached the conclusion that they would satisfy the hon. member.
November 18, 1976


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. gentleman's predecessor indicated last May that the government was giving considerable priority to this question and legislation was being drafted-1 am paraphrasing what he said-can the minister now say if it is correct that the mild proposals we sent to the cabinet earlier were rejected because of the advice given by senior advisers to various cabinet ministers who said they were unhappy with the amount of openness which would be involved in the proposal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, obviously 1 cannot confirm or deny the proceedings of the cabinet.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Following the introduction of the PRA program, the provinces were invited to present a list of municipalities which would be designed to benefit from such a program. Could hon. members be provided with the first and the second lists which are reported to have been presented by the province of Quebec?


André Ouellet: am not aware that a second list had been presented, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to seek information about it which I will communicate to the House next week.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT CONSIDER THE URGENT NEEDS OF MUNICIPALITIES
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister cannot say now whether there is a second list, would he consider the possibility of amending the formula which has been used to choose the municipalities, in order that the most urgent real needs in a whole constituency might be really taken into account?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent suggestion which I shall not fail to consider.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the minister responsible for DREE. Since he is no longer in the House perhaps I can catch him tomorrow, when he is here.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF REPORT OF BEEF INQUIRY TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the government House leader? It concerns the status of the beef inquiry report. Since the report has been complete for some time and since all segments of the beef and meat processing industry are interested in the report, will the minister undertake to have the report referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that question with the Minister of Agriculture and decide whether it is possible to make such a reference.


John Wise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the minister has said. After he has discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, if the report is to be referred to a committee I ask him to refer it to the standing committee of the House of Commons and not to a committee of the other place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May 1 ask the government House leader what legislative proposals he is to bring forward and what other matter he may wish to discuss with respect to the business of the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that today we will be dealing with an opposition motion. Tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Whether or not it is concluded tomorrow, we will resume debate on the expenditure restraint bill on Monday. Following discussions I have had with my counterparts, if that debate should terminate on Monday we would look forward to having a division on that bill, if such were necessary, on Tuesday evening. Following the expenditure restraint bill, we will take the bill respecting the Income Tax Act if it is not passed tomorrow.
As a result of consultations, I would like to indicate that December 3, 1976, will be an allotted day in replacement of the earlier date of November 26. Finally, if I have to give notice, on motions I would like unanimous consent to move that the public accounts be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to us what bills other than those now on the order paper will be placed on the order paper before the Christmas recess. In

November 18, 1976
Business of the House
particular, can he tell us when the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan will be given first reading?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of major bills that 1 hope to introduce before Christmas. Tomorrow notice will be given of an immigration bill, a bill relating to human rights and a bill relating to metric conversion. Very soon I would like to give notice of the introduction of a bill relating to Manpower services and unemployment insurance. I cannot, however, at this moment tell the hon. member when a bill relating to the Canada Pension Plan will be introduced. 1 will check that out and provide information to him as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader say when the holidays bill will be introduced? The Secretary of State said a day or two ago that we would see it soon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite positive about introducing that bill and will confer with the minister to try to bring it on as early as possible.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern across the country about the timetable the government has for introducing legislation relating to the Criminal Code, especially that related to abortion laws. When does the government House leader plan to table the Badgley commission report so that the country will know the contents of that report?


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer for the President of the Privy Council the question related to the Badgley report, I anticipate that it will be tabled and made public in December.


Mr. Maine:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to refer to an issue that you mentioned you were taking action on relating to dress in this House. I agree that the question should be reviewed and action taken upon it. Until an order has been made, I have agreed to abide by it. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton should show the same respect for the decision of the Chair. I feel this matter should be dealt with forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: I have great difficulty at this moment dealing with the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton about his dress in the chamber, because he is not in the chamber. In any case, on the matter of standards of dress for members of the House, the subject was raised particularly in reference to the hon. member for Wellington at the end of last session. I indicated then that I would be asking, and I will still be asking, the members' services committee to examine this question to see whether any changes should be made.
The reason I have not been able to do so until very recently was that the standing committee on members' services was not reconstituted. It has now been reconstituted and has elected a new chairman who at the moment is attending a NATO conference. I have already invited him to discuss a number of matters of pertinence that ought to be brought before the

committee immediately upon his return. This item is one of them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, a draft bill to correct anomalies, errors and other matters of a non-controversial nature in federal statutes. It is intended that this bill will be referred to a committee of this House.


FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT
John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-380, to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (recruiting by advertising).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the recruitment of mercenaries in Canada by advertisement, advice or other inducement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would move:
November 18, 1976

That the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 65, 79, 93, 103, 399 to 420, inclusive, and 585.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has an internal document been circulated within the Unemployment Insurance Commission setting forth budgetary guidelines for the future and did this document outline increased expenditures in the area of benefit control?
2.	(a) Did the document state in effect that this was for purposes of checking defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission (b) what is the name and job designation of the (i) person who wrote the document (ii) highest ranking official authorizing release of the document?
3.	How many Benefit Control Officers (a) were employed by UIC as of January 1, 1976 (b) have been hired since then (c) is it anticipated will be hired in the next year?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. The budget guidelines for 1977 stated that the 1977 budget for Benefit Control is to reflect the resources currently being added in this area.
2.	(a) Included in the overall objectives for 1977 was the objective of maintaining the level of resources allocated in 1976 to the Benefit Control Program with the emphasis to continue to shift towards specialized investigation of fraud, (b) Input into the formulation of objectives and budget guidelines is the collective responsibility of senior management. The document referred to was considered and approved by the Executive Committee.
3.	(a) 400; (b) 66; (c) 18.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the time that the honourable Member for Leeds first introduced the subject of alleged defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the House of Commons, has UIC made a change whereby all persons in Metro Toronto who wish to make application for unemployment insurance must now apply in person at a UIC office?
2.	(a) What were the reasons for the introduction of this change and was this for the purpose of screening applicants to avoid future fraud (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest ranking official in the Commission who ordered this change and on what date did it come into effect?
Order Paper Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In what capacity is Mr. Jean-Marie Duguay presently employed with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and where is his place of work?
2.	Over what period of time, including his present position, has he been (a) Regional Personnel Advisor for the Atlantic Region at Moncton, New Brunswick (b) Regional Personnel Advisor for the Ontario Regional Office at Belleville, Ontario (c) Regional Manager of Operations for the Northern Region in Ottawa?
3.	What was the (a) individual (b) total cost to the taxpayer of transfers for the relatively short period involved?
4.	Does the Commission give consideration to the disruption caused to employees and their families by such frequent transfers and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason are such transfers made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Director, Planning and Evaluation (SX-1)- Montreal R.O. effective September 6, 1976.
2.	(a) August 1972 to August 1973. (b) August 1973 to September 1974. (c) September 1974 to March 1976.
3.	(a) (i) $2,332.06; (ii) $3,435.08; (iii) $3,532.23. (b) Total $9,299.37.
4.	UIC does give consideration to the disruption caused to employees and families by transfers, (a) Not applicable, (b) Mr. Duguay's transfers were results of promotions based on knowledge skills and superior performance. He has been an employee of the UIC since 1960. Each move and payment of expenses was in accordance with promotional practices.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 95 -Mr. Cossitt:
What has been the total amount of money spent by the Official Languages Section of the Unemployment Insurance Commission since it was established, including salaries, expenses and all other matters whatsoever?
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: $4,125,603.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission form number 1103 entitled "Record of Employment", does the Commission follow a regular system of verifying these to ensure their authenticity and (a) if so, what is a description of the system (b) if not, for what reason and does this not provide a large opening for possible fraud?
2.	Are only some forms verified and, if so, what percentage of the total and on what basis are they selected for verification?
Hen. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is

November 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions
concerned; The following replies are based on the assumption that the question is directed to the authenticity of the information contained on the Record of Employment as opposed to the authenticity of the Form itself. 1. Yes. (a) inked blocks to prevent alteration; issued in triplicate; employer verified with Revenue Canada, Taxation; special computer programs to validate Social Insurance and Employer Account Numbers; personal contact with employers; computer post-audit programs involving benefit payment and record of employment information; employer payroll audit programs, (b) Not applicable.
2. No, the verification procedures outlined in 1(a) apply to all records of employment.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) manslaughter (c) rape (d) dangerous sexual offences (e) assault (0 kidnapping (g) armed robbery?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Nil-Institution activated in 1972. 1972, Not available*. 1973, 264; 1974, 66; 1975, 108. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-capital): 1; (b) Manslaughter: 1; (c) Rape: 3; (d) Dangerous sexual offences: Nil; (e) Assault: Nil; (f) Kidnapping: Nil; (g) Armed Robbery: 8.
*For 1972 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) manslaughter (c) rape (d) dangerous sexual offences (e) assault (f) kidnapping (g) armed robbery?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Nil-Institution activated in 1972; 1972, Not available as
(Mr. Cullen.]
population figures were included in Kingston Penitentiary; 1973, Not available as population figures were included in the Regional Reception Centre (Ontario); 1974, 121; 1975, 108. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committeed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 86-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-capital): 2; (b) Manslaughter: Nil; (c) Rape: 4; (d) Dangerous sexual offences: Nil; (e) Assault: Nil; (f) Kidnapping: 1; (g) Armed Robbery: 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) manslaughter (c) rape (d) dangerous sexual offences (e) assault (f) kidnapping (g) armed robbery?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Nil-Institution activated in 1972; 1972, 60; 1973, 126; 1974, 118; 1975, 97. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in Table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-capital): 1; (b) Manslaughter: 4; (c) Rape: 2; (d) Dangerous sexual offences: Nil; (e) Assault: 2; (f) Kidnapping: Nil; (g) Armed Robbery: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Millhaven Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, Not opened; 1971, 360; 1972, 365; 1973, 407; 1974, 300; 1975, 227. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a


[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1976
[Stage Direction]
general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in Table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-capital): 7; (b) Attempted Murder: 2; (c) Manslaughter: 2; (d) Rape: 1; (e) Breaking and Entering: 12; (f) Indecent Assault: 2; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 1.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at LeCIerc and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 434; 1971, 466; 1972, 449; 1973, 491; 1974, 440; 1975, 460. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: 2; (c) Manslaughter: 5; (d) Rape: 10; (e) Breaking and Entering: 53; (0 Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: 13; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 18.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 433*; 1971, 445*; 1972, 423; 1973, 536; 1974, 523; 1975, 504. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Insitutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The
Order Paper Questions
statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): 10; (b) Attempted Murder: 1; (c) Manslaughter: 7; (d) Rape: 18 (e) Breaking and Entering: 37; (f) Indecent Assault: 10; (g) Robbery with Violence: 13; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 21.
*The figures for 1970 and 1971 include satellite institutions.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Cowansville Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 349; 1971, 347; 1972, 434; 1973, 423; 1974, 410; 1975, 428. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): 3; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 6; (d) Rape: 3; (e) Breaking and Entering: 7; (f) Indecent Assault: 1; (g) Robbery with Violence: 11; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 8.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Ste. Anne des Plaines and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 62; 1971, 72; 1972, 74; 1973; 99; 1974, 90; 1975, 99. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b)

November 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 1; (d) Rape: 3; (e) Breaking and Entering: 12; (f) Indecent Assault: 1; (g) Robbery with Violence: 5; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 4.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Archambault Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 378; 1971, 391; 1972, 416; 1973, 404; 1974, 399; 1975, 409. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): 9; (b) Attempted Murder: 3; (c) Manslaughter: 3; (d) Rape: 3; (e) Breaking and Entering: 15; (f) Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: 3; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 2.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Frontenac Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*. 1972, 77; 1973, 86; 1974, 75; 1975, 69. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 1; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 5; (0 Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: Nil.
*For 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Collins Bay Institution).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Rockwood Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related
crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*. 1972, 74; 1973, 81; 1974, 78; 1975, 66. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Nom Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: Nil; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 1; (f) Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: Nil.
*For 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Stony Mountain Institution).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Stony Mountain Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 427; 1971, 469; 1972, 456; 1973, 458; 1974, 443; 1975, 452. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The Statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): 7;

November 18, 1976

(b) Attempted Murder: 4; (c) Manslaughter: 13; (d) Rape: 9; (e) Breaking and Entering: 56; (f) Indecent Assault: 5; (g) Robbery with Violence: 14; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 15.
Note: The figures for the years 1970 and 1971 include satellite institutions.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Joyceville Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 477; 1971, 510; 1972, 408; 1973, 462; 1974, 432; 1975, 423. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitienti-ary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: 1; (c) Manslaughter: 4; (d) Rape: 6; (e) Breaking and Entering: 46; (f) Indecent Assault: 3; (g) Robbery with Violence: 3; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 10.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Montee St. Francis and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*; 1972, 1 13; 1973, 128; 1974, 118; 1975, 118. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: 1; (c) Manslaughter: 1; (d) Rape: 2; (e) Breaking and Entering: 20; (f) Indecent
Order Paper Questions
Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: 7; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 3.
*For 1970 and 1971 information not available as the population figures were included in the parent institution (St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary)


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 67; 1971, 65; 1972, 71; 1973, 95; 1974, 70; 1975, 48. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: Nil; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 6; (0 Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Pittsburg Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*; 1972, 69; 1973, 87; 1974, 92; 1975, 72. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter:

November 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 6; (f) Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 2.
*For the years 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Joyceville Institution)


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Quebec Federal Training Centre and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 276; 1971, 296; 1972, 356; 1973, 342; 1974, 316; 1975, 388. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: Nil; (d) Rape: 6; (e) Breaking and Entering: 46; (f) Indecent Assault: 1; (g) Robbery with Violence: 11; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 13.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Collins Bay Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 440; 1971, 500; 1972, 448; 1973, 456; 1974, 434; 1975, 438. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital):
[Mr. Fox.)
Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: 1; (c) Manslaughter: 11; (d) Rape: 3; (e) Breaking and Entering: 34; (f) Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: 12; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 13.
Note: The figures for 1970 and 1971 include satellite institutions.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Warkworth Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 271; 1971, 301; 1972, 304; 1973, 430; 1974, 408; 1975, 389. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in Table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): 1; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 9; (d) Rape: 13; (e) Breaking and Entering: 23; (f) Indecent Assault: 4; (g) Robbery with Violence: 8; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 14.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Bath Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*. 1972, 69; 1973, 83; 1974, 67; 1975, 51. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in Table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter:
November 18, 1976

Nil; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 4; (f) Indecent Assault: 1; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 4.
*For the years 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Millhaven Institution).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Saskatchewan Farm Annex and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971, Not available*. 1972, 72; 1973, 70; 1974, 61; 1975, 46. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and NonCapital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 1; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 5; (f) Indecent Assault: 1; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: Nil.
*For the years 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Saskatchewan Penitentiary).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 52; 1971, 51; 1972, 64; 1973, 74; 1974, 52; 1975, 38. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service Inmates Information System for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publications of
Housing
"Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its Inmate Information System are as follows: (a) First degree murder (Capital and Non-Capital): Nil; (b) Attempted Murder: Nil; (c) Manslaughter: 1; (d) Rape: Nil; (e) Breaking and Entering: 4; (f) Indecent Assault: Nil; (g) Robbery with Violence: Nil; (h) Drug or Drug-related crime: 2.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Fred Doe appointed in the past two years to a position at the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission at 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) what is the position (b) what is the salary (c) how many days has he been on the job?
2.	Is Mr. Doe somewhere in Toronto or elsewhere at the present time, or has he been somewhere other than Ottawa for some period of time and, if so, what is a full explanation of his absence including a description of what he is doing and the cost to the taxpayer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing are totally inadequate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the motion on the inadequacy of the federal government in the critical issue of urban and rural native housing, I wish to emphasize at the outset that the subject is an extremely complex one. What is particularly disturbing is that the federal government should have used the complexity of the subject to avoid the development of an over-all strategy to satisfy the housing needs of the native people. Despite an obvious need for the development of a native housing policy, the government has utilized the artificial division between status Indians on the one hand and

November 18, 1976
Housing
non-status Indians on the other to create a gigantic bureaucratic mess which clouds the underlying issue, that is to say, the need for more and better native housing.
The motion before the Elouse today does not imply that housing is the only critical issues confronting native people. Indeed, their needs are written in the statistics of short life expectancy, increased infant mortality, unemployment, poverty with its ugly side-effects of hopelessness, alcoholism, suicide, high drop-out rates from school and a host of other handicaps. However, the main purpose of the debate today is to enable us to focus on the specific issue of native housing, one which has been ignored by the government despite overwhelming evidence of need and despite the obvious fact that adequate housing is an essential component of any over-all strategy to improve the standard of living of the native people, preserve the integrity of the family unit and rectify many of the ills to which I referred a few moments ago.
It is hardly possible for the debate today to be relevant in the absence of an awareness of the dimensions of the subject as they relate to the various segments of the native community. Moreover, it is necessary to understand the inadequacy of the government's approach to the native housing issue. Other members taking part in the discussion will, no doubt, deal with various matters of critical importance. In the time allotted to me I find it essential to enlarge on the two aspects I have just mentioned since these must be clearly understood if we are to insist, as we will, on a commitment from the government to rectify a native housing situation which is nothing short of a national disgrace.
The cause of this housing crisis is frequently overlooked by Canadians, yet it is pertinent to our discussions. Upon the gradual urbanization of Canada and in the face of the technological explosion experienced in the western world, many native people were left in limbo, in transition between their traditional hunting, fishing and trapping economies and the reality of the present-day economic system. Native people were unprepared for the changes which were taking place, and the paternalistic attitude of government contributed to their bewilderment.
Despite a history of poor native housing, one which has an even worse story to tell in recent years, native people have shown amazing restraint in their requests for justice. Status Indians began to complain about their government-constructed housing at the end of the Second World War. Provision of housing for the Inuit, the Metis and non-status Indians is of more recent origin. The Inuit, who have traditionally been self-sufficient when it comes to shelter, turned to what in southern Canada would be termed conventional housing only with the migration to the north of an increasingly large white population. The Metis and non-status Indians whose ancestry is either Indian or mixed blood through intermarriage with the early voyageurs, explorers and hunters, have been a relatively forgotten people; their aspiration to decent housing have really only received the attention of the government since the formation of the Native Council of Canada in 1971.

Before dealing with these specific groups, it is important to recognize that the basic criticism emanating from all three sectors of the native people is remarkably similar yet it has fallen on deaf ears. A common denominator of the complaints coming from the three groups is that the government's bureaucratic methods have failed to produce the type of dwelling which accommodates them in their culture or their environment. Perhaps of even greater significance is the well-founded complaint that native people have not been involved in planning and construction. The major criticism-and the reason for it is obvious to all who have visited native communities-is that the housing provided so far is far short of present and projected requirements.
Another pertinent point is that the government is unresponsive to the uniqueness of native peoples and ignores this uniqueness in its planning. Registered Indians have suffered when housing projects are promoted because of the narrow view taken by the Department of Justice with respect to the interpretation of the Indian Act. The Inuit, in calling for more involvement, insist that efforts should be directed toward environmental suitability, the development of solar heat for domestic purposes and cheaper forms of construction. The Metis and non-status Indian people have quickly learned from experience that the program originally designed for them must be recast so as to suit their specific needs.
What are the facts as they relate to each group? George Manuel, the past president of the National Indian Brotherhood, in his presentation to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry at Yellowknife on April 13 of this year outlined the tragic story. General housing and living conditions are far below accepted standards and are deteriorating. Over a period of 30 years the government's housing program has resulted in the construction of some 31,000 houses for Indians. Of this number, approximately 14,000 are, by any modest standard, habitable. Over 9,000 houses require major rehabilitation and more than 7,500 are beyond repair. The number of houses required by existing families who have no shelter whatsoever is 4,351. With the rising Indian population it is expected that by 1981 housing needs will be in the neighbourhood of 20,000 new houses and that a further 9,000 existing units will be in need of major reconstruction.
I know the government is inclined to use that figure of 9,000 homes requiring major reconstruction as evidence that Indian's lack interest in maintaining their homes. That is nonsense. The major reason these units need to be reconstructed is the kind of housing originally supplied. For instance, in 1968-69, 10 per cent of the homes supplied consisted of one room and were provided to an coverage of 5.5 people per household. While the average area of new Canadian homes is just over 1,000 square feet, 90 per cent of Indian houses contain less than half this area.
Seventy per cent of the Indian population have no water in their homes. Approximately 25 per cent use water hauled from sources that are known to be contaminated, and 40 per cent rely on surface water. As many as 90 per cent use outside pit toilets for sewage disposal and, finally, no organized means of
November 18, 1976

garbage disposal is available to about 60 per cent of the Indian communities across Canada. Is it any wonder, after 30 years under these conditions, that homes have fallen into disuse or that reconstruction is essential?
Time does not permit me to undertake a review of the evolution of the housing program. Nevertheless, it is important to take a long look at the current housing program administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It might best be described as one which is great in theory but a failure in practice. The procedures under the present housing program begin with an estimation of the manpower needs by district departmental staff in consultation with local Indian band councils. That is delay number one. The resulting estimates are then submitted to the regional office for approval. Delay number two. Subsequently, funds are allocated to the district offices on a priority basis, taking into account five-year forecasts and the needs of a reserve in relation to others in the area: That is delay number three.
Then comes the crunch. Locally, band councils establish priorities on the basis of the greatest need and are responsible for the allocation of houses built on the reserve with the funds provided from appropriations. I ask, is it any wonder that chiefs and councillors are not only politically but chronologically aging with such a process? Imagine, if you can, Mr. Speaker, receiving funds for two houses when the established needs and priorities in that particular area are for thirty, and being confronted with deciding who should have those particular homes. Imagine, if you can, receiving only enough money to build half a home on a particular reserve, and attempting to do it if you can. Then, finally, imagine the incredible circumstance of receiving funds for building homes when in fact you have indicated to the department there is no need for a particular home building program during that current year.
Without going into detail, it is apparent that the present subsidy on reserve housing program, which provides financial assistance up to $10,000, depending on income, to Indians living on the reserve is insufficient to obtain adequate shelter in view of today's construction costs. Similarly, the on-reserve housing program under Central Mortgage and Housing is outmoded, as is the Indian off-reserve housing program negotiated in 1966 under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the veterans' land administration branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs for Indians who are regularly employed and living off the reserve.
Finally, and not surprisingly, the National Indian Brotherhood, in desperation, attempted to offer meaningful input into future housing policies. Their policy paper entitled "A Declaration of Indian Housing Policy" was presented to the former minister of indian affairs and northern development in August, 1974. The initial response to the department's suggestion that there should be a joint Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation program established was rejected, and rejected obviously on the basis of previous experience in these two
Housing
areas. However, agreement was finally reached to establish a joint working group made up of officials of the department and representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood. Despite what appeared to be an agreement in principle between the two groups, the minister has failed to take action. Again native housing is in limbo and the chance of the future housing needs of the native people being met is as remote today as it was when the government first met with leaders of the National Indian Brotherhood.
I am sorry that the minister is out of the House at the moment, but I am sure he will be back.


André Ouellet: I am not away; I am right here.


John Robert Holmes: I was referring to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand). I will get to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in a few moments.
If the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is sincere in his approach to his new portfolio, and if indeed there is an interest in correcting this very serious social problem to which I have referred, I hope that if he enters the debate later today he will take the opportunity of responding to a few simple questions which I suggest will help him to restore some confidence not only among the native community but also among members on this side of the House. I put these questions because if the minister can answer them I am sure it will be of great assistance in terms of giving added confidence to the House.
Firstly, since the National Indian Brotherhood and the department of Indian affairs have reached agreement in principle regarding Indian reserve housing, when is the minister going to make a formal commitment to the National Indian Brotherhood and status Indians across Canada? Secondly, will the government raise the subsidy for Indian housing on reserves to a level that is consistent with existing conditions, bearing in mind that there has been no change, at least in the last five years, in the subsidy, and the cost of living during this period has continued to increase?
Thirdly, since the government agreed to establish a mechanism for Indian people to participate in plans for housing and community development on reserves, it would be most important for the minister to indicate what he has done to promote that policy at this point in time. Fourthly, would the minister agree that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should act as the single centre of responsibility and accountability to mobilize funds and technical resources needed to deliver Indian housing? Fifthly, is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development prepared to secure program commitments from key agencies such as Manpower for job training and work opportunity programs, from DREE for certain infrastructure programs, and from CMHC for loan fund programs?
That particular group of native people, the Indians of the so-called non-income group, and their need for housing and related programs-which is really an emergency-type situation-require priority and I would ask whether the government

November 18, 1976
Housing
is committed to giving those in this non-income group that priority.
As I indicated earlier, it is projected that by 1985 one half of the Indian population will be living in urban areas. What is the minister doing to assess the needs of native people migrating to urban areas?
I hope that the minister will comment upon some of these questions during his remarks. If he addresses himself to the questions I have posed, I think we will have a far better indication of his intentions in the area of native housing, and in addition it will remove some of the cloak of secrecy which is sometimes far too pervasive in this government. This would go a long way toward re-establishing some confidence on this side of the House and certainly among the native community.
If the minister is prepared to move in a bold and imaginative fashion, he has the opportunity of implementing a housing program which will stimulate the band economic sector and this will result in the emergence of more Indian-owned and operated services in construction, building material supplies, the manufacture of housing components, transportation of goods and other related service industries.
Two functions should be paramount in any program. The first and most important is to provide housing which is desperately needed; the second is to provide for economic development at the band level. Such an approach would offer hope for Indians to correct their critical housing needs as well as their employment needs.
I want to move on now, Mr. Speaker, to the second group to which I referred, the Inuit. As hon. members know, responsibility for Inuit housing, formerly carried out under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has been turned over to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. It is to be hoped that this will improve the situation. However, it is perhaps too early to pass judgment on their performance at this time. Nevertheless, it is important to stress the difficulty experienced by the Inuit, which I indicated earlier parallels to some extent the criticism of the other Canadian native peoples. The Inuit feel that the housing provided to them in the past suffered from certain defects.
For instance, the units provided were designed for markets in southern Canada and were not fit for the climatic conditions of a northern environment. The buildings had a life expectancy of five or six years. Their substandard construction rapidly deteriorated in the severe climate and they were not large enough to avoid overcrowding and condensation. Finally, in most instances the houses did not accommodate the culture and lifestyle of the Inuit.
The waste of money as a result of the inadequate housing, which has to be replaced after short periods of time, has ultimately caused financial constraints and shortages of housing in the particular Inuit communities. A point which should not be ignored is that the provision of houses of considerably higher standard than those provided to the Inuit very frequent-

ly and understandably caused resentment amongst the people themselves.
Against this background, is it any wonder that the Inuit feel that housing affecting their communities should be planned and organized by themselves? They have asked for adequate provision for research in order to determine the types of structures which would be best suited to their climatic conditions. They are interested in exploring the use of windmills and solar panels for the generation of light and heat, and they are disenchanted with the very high cost of transportation of building materials from the south and have suggested more use of local materials. In the areas of ownership and individual participation, the Inuit contend that families should have the option of ownership, regardless of income; the Inuit should be allowed the choice of appropriate house designs and should also be given the opportunity to have maximum involvement in the actual construction of houses. Those with the greatest needs, of course, should be served first.
Added to this should be an education program to help Inuit families adjust from their traditional mode of living to the form of life which now prevails in other northern communities. Part of the education program should help the people to organize housing associations in order to come to grips with the full range of housing concerns without relying on the government.
The Inuit have gone some distance in taking the initiative toward obtaining their own housing. The Inuit Tapirisat, whose headquarters are located in Ottawa-I am sure all hon. members are aware of this-instituted the Inuit non-profit housing corporation in 1975, and the Inuit people are looking to this organization to obtain their needed housing. In the summer of 1975 this corporation undertook a ten-house project involving the communities of Frobisher Bay, Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay and Inuvik. This was the first experience for the Inuit in providing houses from start to finish.
Apparently, despite the widely separated locations involved, the project turned out to be a resounding success and the experience gained confirmed the contention of the Inuit that they can build and design their own houses at a somewhat better standard than that provided by the federal government. What usually took the federal government two years, the corporation was able to accomplish in six months. Furthermore, the cost was initially estimated at $44,000 per unit, and I understand that the actual cost is expected to be substantially less. Finally, this has permitted the Inuit Tapirisat to begin the process of developing its own housing policies with funds provided by the federal government for research purposes.
With their own policy the Inuit hope to avoid the repetition of mistakes which have prevailed in government policies over the last decade. By this initiative the Inuit maintain that they have come to the conclusion that their housing needs can no longer be left to the government and to bureaucrats from the south. Above all, they have indicated, like other native people, that they will continue to demand the right to establish policies and programs which affect their lives directly. Surely the failure of the government to provide sound policies for Inuit
November 18, 1976

housing and the imagination and initiative demonstrated by the Inuit is ample reason for the minister to reassess his entire approach with respect to his Inuit housing program.
The third group I referred to at the outset was the Metis and non-status Indian. It is virtually impossible to obtain an accurate assessment of the magnitude of the plight of the Metis and non-status Indian in Canada because of the inadequate resources allotted to this task. For example, during a visit to the Friendship Centre in Regina earlier this week it was readily apparent that because of limited resources the personnel were literally swamped with daily crisis problems. Their energies were devoted to the immediate problems of assisting the migrating native to make the transition from a reserve or rural setting to an urban area. As a result, the staff was frustrated in its attempts to obtain the data base which is so valuable and important for present and future programs.
However, let me attempt to place the housing crisis of the Metis and non-status Indian in perspective. I will do that by quoting from an article written by Alan deJourdan, entitled "Native housing: the focus is self-help". It reads in part:
A July 1968 report of the Manitoba Metis Federation describes the homes of Metis and enfranchised Indians in rural Manitoba in following terms:
"In many areas houses are so worthless that residents seldom bother to spend money on improvements or make an effort to repair them. Broken windows are patched with cardboard boxes.
"Rusty cream cans are used for water storage. It is rare if there is more than one bed and more than one or two chairs. When a visitor eats at home he usually is given the few dishes and silverware, while the family eats out of the tin pans or even tin cans. Most homes have no electricity. Kerosene lamps are the only source of light. In many communities, water is scarce and has to be hauled long distances. Often it is unfit for human consumption.
"Bed bugs and lice swarm over the cracked walls and floors and are a plague to everyone, especially infants.
"Most of the roofs leak. If the floor is dirt, as most often they are, it becomes soaked and muddy every time there is rain. Windows are small and few. To contain heat during the winter, walls are plugged with mud and cardboard. Tin heaters are often the only means of heating the shacks. It is a log, cardboard and mud ghetto that contains appalling fire traps."
It is important to emphasize that the current rural and Metis housing program was developed by the respective provincial and territorial organizations. This was done because housing was seen by native leaders of the day as a vehicle for breaking out of the traditional cycle of native poverty. If one had time, it would be beneficial to review the sequence of events leading to the involvement of the government in the program. Its involvement was significant and indicative of its insensitivity to this problem. As many hon. members know, initially the Metis and non-status Indians received their assistance largely from the voluntary sector of Canadian society.
It should also be stressed that the federal government rejected repeated requests for research funds from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the years 1965 to 1970 until there was an upsurge of general Canadian interest in the plight of native people. Knowing that CMHC and the federal government were insensitive to the plight of this disadvantaged group and had repeatedly refused to offer assistance in the past, as I have already indicated, perhaps one should have predicted from the outset that any program or
Housing
programs introduced by the federal government would fail. From 1970, when CMHC set up a task force to explore ways and means of responding to the housing aspirations of native people migrating to urban areas, to the present time we have seen this government effectively use the complexities of bureaucratic machinery to ensure nothing more than token help, and failure to implement any meaningful programs.
I am sure the government and the minister will refer to the winter warmth program of 1972 and the subsequent announcement of a five-year program to build or buy 50,000 houses for Metis and non-status Indians as well as other low income non-natives in poor rural housing areas. I have no doubt, that during the debate they will refer to other promises they made, such as the development of special standards for residential construction, housing programs to be used as job training and economic development projects, the inclusion of other federal departments to ensure the success of the Indians, direct involvement of native people to be augmented by training of administrative personnel at the regional headquarters of the Native Council of Canada as well as by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert Holmes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues in the House for the opportunity to carry on. I will try to be brief.
The success of any program can only be measured by the end result, and the government's program has been a complete and absolute failure. As I indicated earlier, the bureaucratic machinery was effectively used to defuse the program. It was obvious from the outset that the complexity of the government's rural native housing program would mitigate against its success. I doubt if the government is prepared to discuss the actual implementation of the program and the numerous committees and interdepartmental committees. However, a brief glimpse at some of the components will reveal the absurdity of the structure which inevitably had to lead to its failure.
A national monitoring committee was established which ostensibly permitted native associations to watch carefully the implementation process as it progressed. The native housing group at CMHC was to establish interdepartmental and intergovernmental committees at the federal and provincial levels. On the government side, the committee structure recommended the establishment of an interdepartmental committee at the federal level to co-ordinate the activities of federal government departments such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of the Secretary of State, and to round out the game plan
80005-S

November 18, 1976
Housing
there was the establishment of intergovernmental and interdepartmental committees to ensure that federal and provincial governments were directly involved so that they could be assured the rural and native housing groups attained their goals.
I doubt if there has ever been greater expenditure of energy, time and money for the reallocation of personnel for a specific project that has been a total failure. Is it any wonder provinces were less than enthusiastic about the program and that many delayed signing the necessary agreements? What have been some of the anticipated failures? The most obvious and inhumane is the small number of new homes built, purchased or repaired. The central concept of client involvement resulting in community development and rehabilitation was not implemented. The development of local housing societies or co-ops did not materialize to the degree anticipated. Disunity developed between provincial housing officials and native housing organizations as well as with local housing societies where they were formed. CMHC regional branch offices gave little or no encouragement to the program. There are innumerable additional problems that could be outlined, but surely it is obvious the game plan was so structured that problems had to occur which would undermine the ultimate success of the program.
In conclusion, I would simply reiterate that the sensitivity of the government to native problems can only be measured by the end results. We know the end results. A native housing crisis exists and is increasing, and the policies of this government are totally inadequate to meet their needs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some maiden. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see how interested hon. members on the other side are in this innovative program through which this government wants to help rural and native people enjoy better housing conditions.
I appreciate very much the fact that hon. members opposite have decided to devote one day to debate this important issue. I am particularly pleased to rise today, for I think this housing program for rural and native people is not as clearly understood as it should be, especially by hon. members in this House and, of course, by most people living in urban areas of this country.
I think it is important to point out that this is a housing program launched in 1974 to help people living in remote areas of Canada, including native people, to purchase, build or renovate 50,000 housing units over five years. And I want to state immediately, Mr. Speaker, that with the co-operation and participation of those who benefit directly from this program we are going to reach our goal. This year, with the

help of those community associations created in rural areas, we have purchased, built or renovated some 6,800 housing units, for the most needy individuals and families. Implementation of the program is being carried out at a stepped up pace from month to month, and we have just started to give it the speed at which the government would like to see it move.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note how this program has developed over the years. As early as in 1971, extensive studies were being carried out and plans prepared to find solutions to problems arising from housing built according to acceptable standards in rural areas, mainly those designed for native people.
In 1974, after numerous consultations with local organizations and once project submission were made by the National Native Council of Canada, plans had been sufficiently underway to allow my predecessor, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), to lay before the House of Commons the gouvern-ment's policy concerning rural native housing and to set up the objective of some 50,000 housing units for the next five years.
Well, it is unquestionable that the first months that followed should have first been used to set up a body to implement that program, including negotiations with other levels of government which must join with us to implement several aspects of that program, and the need to help local community associations to prepare themselves to play a role in the elaboration and implementation of their own housing programs.
Those preliminary actions, Mr. Speaker, were essential and must, of course, be phased in before we can really start producing housing units. Actual housing production in the other months of 1974 was negligible, I must admit. But in 1975 we had reached an annual production approaching 3,000 housing units. At the end of this year we will have more than doubled that number. And I want to add that we can predict by the end of 1977 a housing production under this program with an annual rate of nearly 1,000 built, acquired or restored units for the people living in the rural and remote areas of Canada.
If we continue at that rate I believe we will have an excellent chance of reaching our goal by the deadline we set for ourselves. As hon. members know, that assistance is being extended under mainly two sections of the National Housing Act. Under section 40, we are making well built, well administered and economical houses available to families and people living in rural and remote areas who could not otherwise afford one. Those houses can be either leased or bought by monthly instalments in proportion with the occupant's income. The federal government pays 75 per cent of the capital cost and operating deficits resulting from that program. The federal government provides the rest, and municipalities sometimes pay part of those costs. The other main source of financial help comes under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program-known as RRAP. In designated rural areas RRAP provides for loans of up to $10,000, including up to $3,750 which can be forgiven. That money is used to repair, restore and improve units whose condition is judged to be below acceptable standards, to make them healthy and safe and
November 18, 1976

extend their life by at least 15 years. In 1975 we allocated a little over $35 million for that program. In 1976 the budget had more that doubled for those same activities, exceeding some $7 million.
I mention the financial assistance program provided under section 40 and RRAP as two of the main measures to provide housing for rural and native population. However, any form of assistance under the National Housing Act or any provincial legislation can be applied to the same purpose if it can help reach the objective.
The Assisted Home Ownership Program, which is a big success, applies frequently to rural and native families that meet the requirements. Under this program, families with children and a low income can get low interest loans and a direct subsidy of up to $750 a year to buy a house. Of course, those housing programs are not the only form of assistance given by the federal government to rural populations.
It is an essential principle of the rural and native housing program that the people who benefit from its assistance should be deeply involved in its planning and implementation. For this reason we allocated some $4 million this year in sustaining grants, mainly to provincial native peoples' organizations, to help them fulfil their role in assisting with the development of community housing projects. We allocated another $l'/2 million for various kinds of training programs designed to help people learn how to plan and manage their own housing plans.
In addition to the rural and native housing program, we have been providing assistance to native people for a number of years under what is now called the emergency repair program. Originally called the winter warmth program, it was set up to provide temporary emergency repairs for people in the most urgent need. The money was spent for new roofs or to repair windows and walls in order to make the buildings habitable for another season. As the rural and native housing program becomes more effective, the need for emergency repairs declines, and has already started to decline. The annual budget has been reduced from $3 million in 1975 to $2 million this year.
I have cited these numbers and these amounts, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that this government recognizes the seriousness and the urgency of the housing problems of the rural and native people of Canada and that we are honouring, and will honour, the commitment which we made to them two years ago.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this intervention- my first in the House since my appointment as Minister of State for Urban Affairs and also my first since the recent provincial elections in Quebec-to assure hon. members of my desire to serve, to the best of my knowledge, all Canadians whether they live in cities or rural communities and whatever may be their origin, standard of living or political opinions.
Housing
I accept with enthusiasm the new responsibilities that were given to me by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I am aware that there is much to do as housing is a major priority in the life of all Canadians. Urban affairs and urban problems should and will become during the next years a major concern for governments at the municipal, provincial and federal level. I intend to work hard to improve the quality of urban or rural life for Canadians. Mr. Speaker, this is my first ambition and I do not intend to continue my political career elsewhere.
I want to stay here as minister in the federal cabinet because I feel I can really do something within the framework of my present responsibilities. In particular, I want to stress that I have no intention of punishing the people of Quebec for having democratically elected a government which does not hold the same political views that I do.

I hope the translation was accurate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could confine himself to the motion before the House which deals strictly with urban and native housing.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: I hope the hon. member realizes that there are still some residents in rural areas who also happen to be native people living in the province of Quebec. As I said previously, I have no intention of punishing the people of Quebec for having democratically elected a government which does not hold the same political views that I do.
Last year, my department and various agencies under my responsibility-the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Capital Commission-have spent something under $500 million in the province of Quebec. This year we intended spending a bit over $500 million, and so we shall. Indeed, I, as minister of the federal cabinet, and my colleagues have absolutely no intention of using Chilean tactics when dealing with the province of Quebec, as one Montreal morning daily implied.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put it to you, sir, that the minister's remarks are out of order. The motion now before the House reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing are totally inadequate.
The minister has just been dealing with federal-provincial relations as they apply to Quebec, and I think he ought to address himself to the serious question raised by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes).
8000S-S'/2

November 18, 1976
Housing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I am advised that the minister is just about to relate his remarks to the question under discussion.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the reaction of opposition members when I say that in discharging my responsibilities as minister I do not intend to punish Quebecers. I wonder if their reaction means that they would like to punish them, but certainly I do not intend to do that as a minister of the federal government.
When he tied in my responsibilities as minister with that motion which concerns the improvement of government policies on urban, rural and native housing, I think the hon. member got carried away in his motion. Of course the opposition should criticize. Our programs are not as good as they would like them to be but they cannot say that the government has no urban and rural housing programs for natives or other Canadians. On the contrary, we do have very good programs and we are trying to improve them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as a minister of the Canadian government-and as other ministers of the Canadian government who, like myself, grant important amounts of money in all the provinces-that we do not intend to starve Quebecers out, because I do not doubt that it would be the quickest and surest way to push them toward separation. When an individual would have nothing to lose, that day he could embark upon a dangerous venture. My responsibility, Mr. Speaker, will be to see that no Canadian wherever he may live in this country might one day conclude that he would have nothing to lose by leaving Canada.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Give him the leg-hold trap treatment, Wally.


Walter (Wally) Firth: I suppose large numbers of people in Quebec have stopped shivering in their boots. They now have the assurance of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) that they will not be punished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was so kind of him to give that assurance.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing are totally inadequate.
I agree with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) and am sorry to say that our housing is totally inadequate. I am very disappointed-I am sure I speak for many native people in Canada when I say this-in the government's housing program. It just is not working. On October 25 I mentioned in the throne speech debate in this House that rural and native housing must become a high priority item on the list of the government's policies, especially in northern Canada. Nowhere have housing conditions become more des-

perate than in northern Canada. As I have said in this House previously when discussing housing, the Northwest Territories, from the point of view of housing, must be described as a disaster area.
In Canada, as in other countries, housing should be looked on as a basic human right. Since the beginning of human existence on earth man has sought shelter for himself and his family; he has sought protection from the elements. Today, considering the vast resources and many technological skills we possess as Canadians, it is a national disgrace that so many Canadian families are forced to live in totally inadequate housing.
On March 8, 1974, the minister then responsible for housing, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), announced the establishment of the rural and native housing program. I thought it was a good idea. The aim of the program was to build 50,000 new housing units by the end of 1978. Construction did not start until 1975. By the end of that year just over 2,700 units had been built, bought or rehabilitated. I am not certain if these units were located in southern rural areas, on reserves, or in northern Canada. I do not think anybody knows. At present it is highly unlikely that the program will come even close to achieving its goal of 50,000 new housing units built in this country by the end of 1978.
This failure in housing starts can lead to increasingly hard and difficult times and frustrations for native and other peoples living in rural areas, especially in my constituency, the Northwest Territories. To understand the desperate situation of the native people one should know some background; in other words, why the program was established in the first place. The rural and native housing program was developed originally by the provincial and territorial Metis and nonstatus Indian associations.
Native leaders recognize that housing is a good vehicle for breaking out of the vicious cycle of poverty which has held so many communities captive for many generations. This cycle is familiar to many native families. We know that good housing can provide tremendous benefits for people, especially poor people. I am thinking of the improvement in family life associated with good housing. That in itself is a strong argument in favour of good housing. Adequate housing helps to keep families together besides improving the over-all health of families. Plain common sense suggests that a family will be healthier if its basic human need for adequate housing and heating is met, and that is another argument in favour of good housing. Much of the illness and mental stress among the native peoples of Canada can be attributed to inadequate, often miserable housing. Countless sociological studies have shown that when a family is well housed it is better able to do good work in society. Well-housed people can hold on to a job more easily and are more willing to work harder at their jobs.
Because so many native people lack this basic necessity, they feel insecure. There is not the same motive to look for work. Often they find it difficult to keep a job, because such people have no place in which to eat and rest before they go back to work. The home life of many native people is not good because
November 18, 1976

of extremely bad housing conditions. This is most appalling among the children of many native families. With bad housing it is often very difficult for these children to be in good health so as to take advantage of the available educational opportunities. Without a reasonable level of education and health that one would like to have at home, it is difficult for many native people to obtain steady employment and the income that is needed to enable meaningful participation in society.
Good housing would also help curb alcoholism. For many native people living in miserable housing conditions, alcohol is too often used as a substitute and relief. It is a hideous crutch to lean on, but people in that desperate situation have few choices in life. When a person can scrape together a few dollars, he can choose to buy a bottle. He has very little or no choice, in most cases, over his housing situation.
When the native people first advocated the rural native housing program they envisaged other social benefits as well. More points in favour of a good housing program. The housing program would provide employment in areas where there was very high unemployment. For a long-range benefit, their participation in the house building industry would enable these people to acquire skills that would be of long-lasting value to them in entering the Canadian wage economy.
In proposing the program in the 1960s, the native leaders saw this as much more than replacing log and tar paper shacks with more modern housing. They also hoped that the program would be the principal vehicle for upgrading their communities and enriching the quality of life of their people. Let me briefly review a number of the broad goals and aspirations the native people had when this program was announced. It is important that we realize what native people envisaged if we are to understand the present housing situation.
First, the native people at the community level would have had the responsibility for planning, organizing and conducting their own housing activity. Local non-profit native housing societies or co-ops would be formed and would be the vehicle for the delivery of new houses, purchasing of existing units and the rehabilitation of housing units. This local society would mainly assess the housing needs in its local community, and set priorities. It would also decide on housing designs. This is extremely important for native people as their homes would help to preserve their lifestyle and traditions.
Time and again I have referred to a program that should be put into effect, especially in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories. I have mentioned this in committee, I have mentioned it in this House on more than one occasion and in interviews with the press, radio and television. Even though a number of people agree that it is a good suggestion, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. That is sad, Mr. Speaker.
About a year ago in this place I suggested a program that 1 hoped the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development would look at for the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada as well. I mentioned the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories because many people
Housing
there believe it is a good idea and should be implemented. The program I have suggested would make use of a local, renewable natural resource in helping to alleviate the housing problem. 1 have suggested houses made with logs. All across the Northwest Territories, and the Mackenzie district in particular, there is a good stand of timber. There are many points in favour of such a program. First, it would be cheaper than bringing material from the south to the north to build homes there.
Another point is that the program would use a local, renewable natural resource. Log housing in the territories would be easier to maintain that a frame house; the maintenance would be reduced. Log houses would fit in very well with the local environment of the Mackenzie district. Such a program would provide local employment. The most important point in favour of a log housing program is that a log house lasts much longer than an ordinary frame house. I have made this suggestion several times. I understand that some people in the Northwest Territories government administration are generally in favour of it, but not enough is happening in the area to implement a program that would be of benefit to people in the north. Such a program could also be put into effect in other parts of Canada, with as many benefits.
Second, local native housing organizations should ensure the maximum involvement of the native people in solving their own housing needs. It would also help the local organizations in general community development. The native associations recommended that the CMHC provide professional personnel to assist in the establishment of native housing organizations, and also the development of native housing leaders to ensure the meaningful involvement of the native people in resolving their housing needs. It was an ambitious program and high hopes were expressed. Why is this program not working as it should? I have recommended before in this House that the government make a serious effort to determine why the program is not working. They may find out a few things that are embarrassing. However, the program could be made to work and it would be of benefit to a large number of people in this country.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Where is the minister?


Frank Oberle: I, too, would like to see the minister. I would like to tell him that never in my experience in this House of Commons have I seen a more disgraceful, arrogant and contemptuous performance than we witnessed here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: He left the ministry a few months ago because he was in contempt of court. Today he was in contempt of parliament, taking advantage of the privileges of every member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1976
Housing


Frank Oberle: I accuse him of having orchestrated the press gallery. I look up there and I see one Canadian Press reporter. There were 15 reporters listening to the minister using the native people to strengthen his position. He will hear more about this when the time comes. The same minister who was accused of having a loose tongue in this House has come back to pretend to be the spokesman for native people in this country. What a disgrace to take advantage of a situation like this, not making any reference to the question. The minister mentioned one lousy program. He made no reference to the speech of my hon. colleague. I serve notice on this minister that we will be back to him and have more questions to ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: Don't snicker over there. This is serious. It is difficult to address ourselves to the question at hand, sitting across from that insidious bunch of people who are playing with the unity of this country.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Stop calling names.


Frank Oberle: If the hon. member has something to say, let him stand up and say it; or let him listen, in which case he might learn something.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I have been sitting here, but that's all.


Frank Oberle: Why would the official opposition take a whole day to discuss the subject of native housing if it were not a most important issue, one which strikes to the very root of our integrity and sense of responsibility? Indians have always recognized that owning houses or living in decent shelter is an inalienable right. The principle applies even more closely to a native person, because under our constitution it is established that Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Canada, has a responsibility to provide shelter for the Indian people, a responsibility which evolved from the Hudson Bay blanket theory.
We indulge in philosophical adventures, paying respect to a distinctive native culture. We encourage native people to rediscover and preserve their lifestyle and cultural heritage, though we do very little to help them in their task, which includes the integration of a house into their native culture. This means something very different for them than it does for a white person. This is why we need a native housing policy. The government has never understood this.
To an Indian, a house has a different significance because his cultural background is different. He lives a community-oriented lifestyle. He has stronger ties with his family. We started out by promising the Indian that he would be allowed to live his own lifestyle in perpetuity. That, of course, would mean living in harmony with nature, a dream we all knew would never be realized, a promise which would never be kept. But some of us have been less than honest with the Indian people. Then we talked about a development program through which the Indian would adjust to a new, western lifestyle. We

used such phrases as "integration" and "assimilation". When you speak to an Indian about assimilation he has the picture of an eagle assimilating with a groundhog. That is the fundamental difference between our two cultures.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member prepared to accept a question from the parliamentary secretary?


Frank Oberle: We have heard enough nonsense from the other side of the House today. Perhaps he will wait until I have finished.
We maintain a department of government which is responsible for Indian affairs. This department was always concerned with shelter for Indians, or should have been, under the principle which evolved from the Hudson Bay blanket theory, as I mentioned. As late as 1969 it issued statements like the following:
To the extent that the national economy will permit, the Department of Indian Affairs is authorized to assist Indian people in securing suitable accommodation, including water and sanitary services, electrification and improved roads on reserves as well as roads linking reserves with adjacent communities.
Task forces, study groups and commissions have prepared mountains of paper which the native people could never understand. The native people have never-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member seems to be making a point on native housing, but the motion before us today deals specifically with urban and rural native housing; it has nothing to do with housing on the reserves, to which the hon. member has been referring. Your Honour will notice that he keeps referring to Indian reserves and the conditions, sometimes pitiful, on those reserves.


An hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was not a cheap shot; it was for clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) is well within the terms of the motion.


Frank Oberle: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not count these interruptions against the time allotted to me. Obviously, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has picked himself a parliamentary secretary who matches the disposition.
The relationship between our indigenous people and the government is like a modern Bible story. They feel their god has been offended by the new king who lives in this country. He has climbed up the mountain and shouted up to heaven, "I am the king." What he did was this: he confounded the language, so we now have two official languages in which we
November 18, 1976

speak and write to our native people, and they cannot understand either one of them. We send them papers which they cannot read. It is a modern Bible story.
The Indian people have been lied to and cheated for the last hundred years, and they have been cheated particularly by the present government since 1968. What is the truth? One native leader put it this way:
The Indian people in the past have been placed within a system that did not create the opportunity to develop self-reliance. Instead, it perpetuated a condition of unilateral dependence that stood in the way of any honourable or mutual exchange between the federal government and the elected representatives of the Indian people. The best interests of any community can only begin to be realized when its peoples originate and execute the policies by which they themselves wish to live.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we have never been honest with our native brothers, and this is shown to be particularly true when we review the many commitments we made to them on the issue of housing. The problem has always been an acute one, but it became worse in the fifties when our finer sensitivities were aroused by the native people who out of sheer frustration and out of a legitimate concern for their younger people left the isolated communities to move closer to the more populated areas. As they moved closer to us, Mr. Speaker, the mere sight of them offended our eyes and our finer sensitivities. We started in earnest, though, to address ourselves to the problem of native housing and some of us actually discovered that a real and very special need existed. But it was not until 1970 that anyone talked about a policy for native housing.
There were programs which evolved from the Hudson Bay blanket theory, but real housing policies did not emerge until later, and are not yet working today regardless of what the minister says. His own arithmetic in this House makes nonsense of the commitment he made to our native people to build, within five years, 50,000 homes. He has not built 5,000 homes, Mr. Speaker; he has built something in the order of 3,000-and the program is in its third year. A native housing policy must be more than just a policy to provide shelter. In a statement made to the urban affairs minister by the Native Council of Canada, he said:
We know, and governments at all levels know, that without adequate shelter the native people profit little from massive federal and provincial expenditures in health, education and other development programs. Expenditures in these latter areas run into hundreds of millions of dollars each decade. They achieve slight success because the basic problem of subhuman housing goes unattended.
As in the white society, the home for the native person must be a tool, a component in the evolutionary process of his cultural, spiritual and intellectual life. How does the government respond to this challenge and what has been our reaction? How have the various task forces, study groups and commissions addressed themselves to the challenge to do something for the native people in these areas? First, Mr. Speaker, there was the on-reserve Indian housing program. While the ordinary Canadian finds protection against the pressures of inflation by building and owning a home, this does not, of course, apply to the native. It does not apply because he does not own the property on which his house stands. Ownership in both the house and the property rests in the governor in council, or the minister. So the native's house is not on the
Housing
market. It does not increase in value with inflation. He can never sell it. It fits into the total program that the government maintains on behalf of the native person so that whatever money he puts into the home is lost. Is that the reason the National Indian Brotherhood refuses to go along with any of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's programs that tie these people, as it has for generations, to making payments on property?
There has never been any native involvement in the planning of native houses, either. Houses are built in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver and shipped by barge to an environment for which they were not designed. The provisions of the National Housing Act and programs designed for our native people must be altered so that the native people can build log houses and houses with indigenous materials, a matter my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) mentioned. We must encourage our native people to design their own heating system. There is nothing wrong with an Ashley heater. It is not sufficient to send into the north a house with a three-by-three stud built in a factory in Toronto and equipped wih three-inch insulation. That might work in Ontario but it does not work in the Arctic. This is why the housing inventory of our native people is in such deplorable shape. The minister says that he is retarding the winter works program because already the new housing program is having its effect. The fact is that at least half the native houses throughout our country are in need of major repair or need to be replaced.
May I say a few words about the native and rural housing program. Now there is a story, Mr. Speaker. We all remember the famous policy that was introduced in the House in March, 1974, which was going to construct 50,000 homes in five years. I asked the minister a year later how the program was getting on, and he answered two questions in the House before he even remembered it. Then when he did answer, out of 50,000 houses there were 24 houses commenced. I suppose you have to start some place, but this was after one year.
Then there was the program that prompted the Firing of that great senior civil servant, Mr. Walter Rudnicki. He was fired because he had taken the liberty of sitting down with native people and discussing how housing policies might be advanced to cabinet. He was actually following the minister's instruction to discuss with the native people what should be advanced to cabinet, and he was fired for that. Since then he has taken his case to court, at great expense and at great personal hardship, and the court has found him innocent. His case of wrongful dismissal of a senior civil servant was proven right. He has asked to return to his work in his capacity as a policy planner for native housing, because that is what he is.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: Get back to the bill.


Frank Oberle: If the hon. member has something to say, let him stand up.
Although the court found for him, he cannot be reinstated. Over there, Mr. Speaker, sits a man who defends the govern-

November 18, 1976
Housing
ment housing policy but who has left the chamber now because he is not interested in native housing. He was found guilty by the court on contempt charges, yet he has been reinstated and is now sitting on the Treasury benches. Then there was this other great man hired in 1972, William Teron. He is more affectionately known in this chamber as "the hon. member for commerce capital". The other day he told a reporter who questioned him about his private interests and about possible conflicts of interest which may exist in view of his responsibilities in the field of native housing, "I am an urbanologist". Whatever that means, I do not know. I have shopped around, Mr. Speaker, but have not been able to find out what it means.


Otto Emil Lang: Check your Canadian dictionary.


Frank Oberle: I asked one native leader what he thought it meant, and he said he did not know but that he hoped it was a terminal disease.
Mr. Teron was to develop a delivery system for the native and rural housing program which would produce 40,000 to 50,000 homes. He spent millions of dollars on this. The minister mentioned today how much will be spent in the development of some kind of delivery system. This is being engineered, of course, in the back rooms of this time-honoured institution without consulting the native people. There has never been, and never will be, consultation so long as this administration sits across the aisle. This program has not worked. It is restricted to population centres of less than 2,500 people and that, obviously, is a key reason why there will never be 50,000 homes.
Most natives who migrate from remote rural areas and move closer to cities now live in the fringe areas. They find they cannot cope with urban living or with the zoning by-laws of larger cities, so they live in the fringe areas and this puts them outside this particular program. There is also the question of the urban native housing policy which fits into the motion we are discussing today. We were hoping to give the minister some ideas in this regard and talk about some of the things we spoke to him in private about which are contained in letters and publications, such as the bulletin published by the Canadian association in support of native people, which dedicated a whole issue to native housing.
The minister does not have the time to sit here and listen to us, Mr. Speaker. We could have told him that he would have to lift the ceiling of 2,500 population to give the program broader application. We could have told him that he would have to establish a tripartite consultation process through which the provinces, the federal government and native people could evolve programs and policies that would be effective. However, the government was concerned that the program might work, which is why this type of consultation process has not taken place.
There are many components to the building of native housing. For example, local native people have got together with their brothers and built houses. There is what is known as a "sweat equity" where a native has experienced for the first time pride of accomplishment and achievement; where a native

child for the first time has experienced something it has never experienced before, namely, pride in his parents for having achieved something for the family that is lasting, valuable and good. Economic development should be integrated with our native housing program, but the government is just not interested.
Let me talk for a moment about the urban native housing program, which is another classic, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago the former minister of state for urban affairs said that there would be a policy on urban native housing within six months, but there has not been one. On October 20, 1976, two full years after he promised a native housing program, I asked whether he had a mandate to develop such a policy, and how it was coming along, and he answered:
Mr. Speaker, certainly there is a mandate with regard to a rural and native housing program. It applies to all low income Canadians in rural areas. We also have a mandate for urban dwellers, but not specifically for natives. It is for all low income Canadians. We do not discriminate between native and non-native Canadians.
What a declaration to make. The former minister does not discriminate against the white race by giving natives special concessions with regard to housing. What a reassurance it would be for all white Canadians to know that their neighbourhoods will be free of the redskin and free of all the unsightly things which are inherent in native housing developments. I suppose, like the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the former minister also means that he is not going to discriminate against people in Quebec. The new minister will not punish them for what they did the other day in Quebec. The people of Quebec will eventually be the judges of what this government does, and the wrath of the Lord will come down and strike the members of the government and make them all urbanologists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. I have given him about three extra minutes because of a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Give him another three minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous consent, I will have to recognize another hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Let him go on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks, and he has already been allowed three extra minutes so I will have to recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion I am not at all surprised that hon. members opposite have denied the hon. member for Prince
November 18, 1976

Housing
a year and left businesses throughout the area bankrupt. The government says it is not responsible for any of the debts it helped in large measure to generate. That is an example of how woolly headed the Department of Indian Affairs is concerning its policies.
If half that amount of $5 million had been put into the type of industry suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River to develop the adequate and appropriate type of logs for housing for native people, even if it were in the form of a subsidy, then the native housing program certainly would have moved much further ahead. When I stopped at the community of Iskut, south of South Dease Lake in British Columbia about 50 miles south of the Yukon border, an area which is subject to frigid temperatures-not so much snow, but very frigid temperatures-I was very pleased to notice the log houses there. However, I was very concerned when I was informed that they could no longer afford the log houses. Pulled up in the community there was a truck from Prince Rupert loaded with plywood two-by-three's. It is no longer two-by-four's but, rather, two-by-three's. This plywood was for the purpose of building private homes for the native people in those frigid temperatures.


Donald W. Munro: You must be kidding.


Robert Hylton Brisco: No. Does this government really care? Will it get the message about the condition of housing and the situation that exists, when on one side of the road there are fine homes which are warm in the winter, cold in the summer and well insulated by virtue of their construction, and on the other side of the street there are plywood homes? We might ask what kind of social problems will be generated in this community, albeit a small community, because this government wanted to save dollars on the backs of the native people.
I am tired, as I am sure are all members, of hearing reference to the fact that the Minister of Transport flew at a cost of $750,000-I think the Canadian people clearly have the message and that this need not be repeated any more-but that $750,000 would have gone a long way to providing adequate housing for the native people.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have been witness to the bitterness that has been created by the intervention and interference of CMHC in the affairs of the native people. We have special ARDA program under DREE. We have a particular ministry for the native people to cope with. We have National Health and Welfare, we have CMHC, and we have a few other scattered government programs which inject their oar into Indian affairs. Time and time again the native people have said they wish to deal with the federal government and with one ministry. But CMHC has injected its oar and has decided that the program it wishes to propose for native housing would require mortgaging the homes on land which is not theirs.
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the native people could accept or understand that? I ask you, Mr. Speaker to compare native housing today as we know it in urban centres to the

homes that belong to non-native people in the urban centres, and to give thought to the massive migration of people into the urban centres. I wonder if this government has any knowledge of those figures. I wonder if anyone in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can advise the people and members of this House how many native people have moved into urban centres, where they have come from and why, and what social problems have been involved in their moving from the reserves to the urban centres, and what social problems have been generated by their presence in the urban centres without adequate means of support and without adequate housing.
I ask what the government is doing to assess the needs in respect of native housing in urban areas. I ask this government to indicate what it is doing to assess the social needs of the native people in the urban centres. The Native and Urban Housing Association of Canada, in March, 1975, was promised an urban native housing policy. That was over 18 months ago; indeed it is two ministers ago. That association is still waiting for a response. Knowing this government, and knowing that nothing has been done, there is no question in my mind but that they are going to wait a damn sight longer for a response, and when they do get it it will not include a social program.
Since the rural and native housing program was announced in 1974, how many houses have been provided under it in the provinces and the territories? The minister's appearance in the House today was the first in his new capacity, and it was interesting to hear him say that his department will reach its commitment of 50,000 homes by 1978. Only 3,000 homes were built by the end of 1975, yet the minister promises 50,000 by the end of 1978, Mr. Speaker. Is this his solution to Canada's unemployment problem? No one on this side of the House believes him-and not only on that statement. It is now engraved on stone, however; the minister has said it.
We on this side will watch with interest his attempts to live up to that statement, and when he does not we will be waiting for his answers or, more particularly, his excuses. Time and time again delegations concerned about housing have appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This serious question occupies the bulk of the committee's time, but it is also concerned with problems of health.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has not only failed to address itself to the problems of native housing but has also failed to address itself to the problems of native health. This, of course, is part of the social problem and pressures, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has failed to recognize it. In fact, he denied there was a problem with mercury pollution in northern communities. How many times were questions on mercury pollution asked in this House, and how many times did the minister deny there was a problem or indicate it was minimal?
November 18, 1976


Donald W. Munro: The whole opposition raised it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) says, Mr. Speaker, a whole opposition day was devoted to the subject under a motion introduced by this party which made the government look sick because they had no answers. Understandably so, because they had not addressed themselves to the problem.
Today the minister said-and I feel I am not out of order on this because I am, after all, responding to the minister's remarks-that he is not going to punish the people of Quebec. In my view, because of his arrogance this minister will never cease punishing the people of Quebec, he will never cease punishing Canadians and he will never cease punishing the native peoples.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member. 1 was hoping he would notice that the Chair was ready to rise a minute or so ago. His time has expired, and unless he gets the consent of the House he will not be able to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not consent, so the hon. member cannot proceed. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson).


An hon. Member:: This should be interesting.


An hon. Member:: This should be a disaster.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad some members of the opposition have already prejudged what I am going to say. That is to be expected, because normally they do not listen anyway and 1 suppose today is no exception.
Mr. Speaker, there are 23 bands of native people in the riding of Comox-Alberni. I should like to say, first of all, to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) that I take great exception to the statement he made regarding the hovels in which native people live. The hon. member may be speaking about conditions that he has observed in his own riding, but if that is the case he should say so and name the areas in which he has seen these depressing hovels. By and large in my riding-


Robert Hylton Brisco: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) on a point of order.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is making serious allegations about my remarks, and 1 should like to set the record straight. I made reference to the fact that in all parts of Canada in the past it was customary to see native shacks. I did not say that in
Housing
the context of the future or the present. If the hon. member had been paying attention, he would know that.


Hugh Alan Anderson: 1 do not have Hansard before me, Mr. Speaker. The point 1 want to make is that native housing, at least in my area, can be considered the equal of, and in some cases better than, the so-called white housing in my area. Many times I have noticed this attitude of classifying native people as second-class citizens and making the point that somehow the federal government is responsible for this condition. I should like to point out to hon. members that some of our so-called white housing is not of the highest standard and for some of the other races besides white it is not of the highest standard.
I took it from the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West that he was speaking about the present. I have heard in this House and outside this House that somehow native people are relegated to second-class housing by a government that does not care. That is not true, and in my opinion it was never true. 1 trust when hon. members make those statements they will indicate where those areas are. I want to say in this House, unequivocally, that we have some of the finest native people and native housing on Vancouver Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: I will stand up any day of the week in this House and say that. The hon. member for Kootenay West made another fascinating statement when discussing the movement of native people from rural areas to urban areas. I hope the hon. member has considered that many other people have gone from rural areas to urban areas, whether white, black, yellow, green or whatever.


An hon. Member:: There is a difference, and you know it.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I think native people have the right to go into urban areas, rural areas or wherever they want. If they wish to move, they do so of their own volition, not mine or anyone else's. Are they different? Are they something special? I think they are the same as all of us, and I do not really wish to comment on their movement from one area of the country to another.


Mr. Ellis:: You don't have any answers because you don't know what the questions are.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member for Kootenay West also raised the question of the policies of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on native housing. He is not here now, so I hope he will read Hansard. During the past year the National Indian Brotherhood-and I am sure most hon. members know of the president, George Manuel-held many meetings with the department in order to have input into the housing program. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been criticized ad nauseam for sitting in ivory towers and making policy without consulting with the native peoples. The hon. member says it has taken 18 months.
80005-61/2

November 18, 1976
Housing


An hon. Member:: Eighteen months! It has taken more like 18 years.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Hon. members opposite will have their turn. Just listen, I say, and perhaps they will learn something. Yes, there have been consultations with native peoples for 18 months. I suggest to the hon. member that it is better to take 18 months going through the consultative process with the National Indian Brotherhood than to sit in an ivory tower for six months discussing the problem with other officials of the department. I wish the opposition would say which way it prefers to do it. Do they want the Indian Affairs Department to do it on their own, quickly, or are they in favour of consultation with the National Indian Brotherhood and other groups? I think the opposition-assuming we could get a straight answer from them-would agree that consultation should be the order of the day. In years gone by we should have placed greater emphasis on consultation with the native people. Thank God that such consultation is not a matter of priority; it is the order of the day. Let us not say that negotiation has not continued for some time-because it has, and for good reason. We wanted the full input of the native people since we are talking about their houses, not the houses of members of parliament.
May I comment about some of the discussions involving Mr. Manuel, the National Indian Brotherhood and the Department of Indian Affairs to do with low income families and how the government should deal with their housing. The consensus which has emerged from these discussions is that any housing program proposed by the Department of Indian Affairs alone or in conjunction with Central Mortgage and Housing must first meet the needs of the low income family. The problems of the low income family must be solved first; only then should we embark on other programs.
The question of subsidies was raised by the Indian Brotherhood. I think we all agree that $10,000 is too little in this day and age. As a result of these discussions, I do not doubt that we shall soon hear the announcement that this amount of subsidy will be increased.


Robert Hylton Brisco: What took you so long? It has taken over five years.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member for Kootenay West has had his opportunity. Perhaps he will allow me to speak. I did not interrupt him. I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair.


Robert Hylton Brisco: But I had something of value to contribute.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The third point discussed was the question of loans. Again, the matter has not been finalized. It was suggested in the discussions that a percentage figure rather than an exact amount should be arrived at with respect to a building program. In other words, one should not say, "We will provide $25,000," or whatever the figure may be. The native peoples should provide, with their own work, a certain percentage of the value of housing being erected. As Mr. Manuel said, native

people should provide "sweat equity" in any housing program. In other words, native peoples ought to accumulate equity by working on the houses. If they could work on their own housing programs, they would be employed. Such participation would be fruitful to native peoples, since by working on the projects they would acquire useful skills, something which the Department of Indian Affairs ought to encourage.
As the National Indian Brotherhood said in its discussions with Department of Indian Affairs officials, it is not reasonable to expect off-reserve people to come on to the reserve and build houses and tolerate the existence of unemployment on the reserve. The obvious solution is to make sure that the native peoples participate in these housing programs and do not merely sit on the sidelines watching houses being built.
The concept of a joint housing group was also mooted in the discussions. Although the discussions have not been completed, I understand that a national Indian housing council has been set up, and I also understand that a regional group has been set up in Ontario. Such groups are vehicles for consultation. Officials of various government departments sit down with native peoples and discuss what questions are of high priority, what is not of high priority, what should be done and in which direction the program ought to proceed. At present, certain pilot projects are under way. In this connection may I say that certain band councils have taken action on their own initiative and, having established their own priorities, set up their own housing programs.
It is not the intention of the National Indian Brotherhood or the Department of Indian Affairs to establish inflexible programs. In other words, the basic decision as to where housing money should be spent will be taken at the band council level. I trust hon. members opposite agree that such decisions should be made at the band council level and not in regional districts or in Ottawa. What I have just said applies not only to housing but should apply to many other circumstances involving our native peoples. Our band councils must make these important decisions.
I trust that as time passes some bands in our prairie provinces will adopt this concept in a meaningful way. It is fair to say that many bands on the west coast of British Columbia have advanced furthest with this process of democracy at the reserve level. In my area the bands are basically self-governing groups. As hon. members know, the B.C. Council of Indian Chiefs has been disbanded and decisions are made strictly at the band council level. I applaud this. It is good that they are running their own affairs with as little interference as possible from the Department of Indian Affairs.
I have seen some figures relating to houses built last year and have learned that in 1975, and up to the period ending March 31, 1976, 1,819 new houses were built on reserve lands and 2,163 houses came under the major renovation sections. Approximately $30 million was spent on the process. Perhaps hon. members opposite think that $30 million is not enough.


Mr. Neil:: It almost covers the minister's travelling expenses.
November 18, 1976


Hugh Alan Anderson: I hope that I am not misinformed about that amount. It should be a matter of top priority in the discussions between the National Indian Brotherhood and the department. I hope, as do other hon. members, that as time goes by the amounts of money so allocated will be increased on a rational basis. The concerns of the band must be taken into consideration for they know best how the money should be used.
Hon. members must remember that we are considering rural as well as native housing programs, and rightly so. I am concerned particularly about people living in small communities such as Tofino, Ucluelet and other, similar communities who in my view face difficulties as great as those faced by people living on reserves. Because small communities are isolated, building materials are costly and therefore houses are more costly. The supply of money being limited, and banks and lending institutions preferring to lend money for housing in urban centres or larger communities, our native peoples and those living in smaller, isolated communities who also deserve decent amenities and decent housing find it difficult to obtain money.
Since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am particularly interested in matters concerning rural and native housing. Many Indian people live in the area 1 represent. However, some of the questions raised in this debate, I honestly feel, are outside the scope of parliament. After all, you are dealing with peoples' attitudes and their priorities in life. Not all people feel as members of this House do about property. The philosophy of some people is not having as their major goal in life a grand home, a swimming pool, and so on. We cannot impose our culture on other people. The object and purpose of government is to help those who wish to help themselves.
I trust that when the meetings between Indian Affairs and the National Indian Brotherhood are completed, the policy that is announced will be one of many policies for native people in which they have had a direct input. I hope that it will be a policy that will suit them, and not necessarily the bureaucrats in any government department who may have had input into the process. If we can apply that concept not only to native housing but to developing industry on reserves, whatever the native people feel they can do best in their area, giving the native people the opportunity to make the majority of the decisions, we will have come a long way in solving the native problem.
It has always been my contention that we have got into trouble by not listening to the native people, but to our own people who thought they had the best interests of the native people at heart. Much of the confrontation has been of frustrated people having imposed upon them a style and culture which did not suit them, philosophies they could not assess. I trust that in this enlightened age native people will have the opportunity to make their own decisions with regard to housing, industry, jobs, where they live, whether on or off reserves. What it finally comes down to is that each individual is
Housing
responsible for his or her actions. The role of government should be a helping one, not one that directs them in one or two channels. It should help them, but not be their direct master and put them into areas in which they do not wish to be.
I wish to thank the Indian Affairs critic of the official opposition for placing this subject before the House. I am sure it will be discussed in the standing committee on several occasions. The hon. member should be commended for his humanity and concern for the native people. I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Reduction in pension of Constable Hale-Government action to rectify; the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-National Defence-Possible change in location of airborne regiment-Government position; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-Energy-Request for report on proposal to establish uranium refinery in Saskatchewan.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Holmes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing are totally inadequate.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, when I decided to speak on the motion this afternoon I fully intended to make a reasoned and dispassionate address concerning the contents of this motion. I was very favourably impressed by the lead-off speaker of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). He put the problem in its proper framework and asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to reply to some of the problems facing native Canadians today with regard to housing. The

November 18, 1976
Housing
hon. member did not deal with the other social problems, and he said so. He wanted to focus on the serious housing problem which native people have. However, when I heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs speak this afternoon I could only ascribe three adjectives to his address. The first is "condescending"-condescending to the native people, condescending to members of parliament, and condescending to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: He was contemptuous. He treated the subject very lightly. He wanted to make the political point that he was not going to punish the people in Quebec. This same minister was recently convicted for contempt of the judiciary. He should be convicted for contempts of parliamentarians and the people of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Sauve:: You should be ashamed of yourself.


John Gilbert: The Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) is underlining my feelings with regard to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Any minister who makes a speech like he made should be brought to attention by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: He started off by saying, "I intend to serve the Canadian people to the best of my ability", and then threw in as an aside, "I am not going to pursue my political ambitions elsewhere." Isn't that kind of a minister who has just been appointed to a very important position, to say that he is not going to pursue his political ambitions elsewhere?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where has he gone?


John Gilbert: What did he do? After the speech he literally flew out of the chamber to the TV room to be interviewed about the asinine statement that he was not going to punish the people of Quebec. Our Indian friends have the right to say that we, white people, especially the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, speak with a forked tongue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: When I heard the minister say that we as parliamentarians and we as Canadians do not understand the native housing programs as we should, it made me sick of heart. I have read the comments of the native people. I listened to the constructive criticism of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, my colleague from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and other members of the House. If that is the minister's attitude with regard to a very serious problem, my best advice to him-and I give it through his parliamentary secretary-is that he read the booklet "Bulletin" which is published by the Canadian Association in Support of the Native Peoples, the August issue. He would indeed be filled in with regard to the serious problems.

The minister should get together with the hon. member for Northwest Territories, the Minister of State in charge of small business (Mr. Marchand), the members of the Indian affairs committee and some housing people from this chamber and travel from one end of the country to the other in order to get a response from the native people with regard to the serious problem that we have.
This motion is timely, and the discussion is urgent in view of the disastrous results of the native housing program and the recent judgment of Mr. Justice O'Driscoll with regard to the Rudnicki affair. I am amazed and appalled at the artificial division that we have with regard to the treatment of native people in Canada. We have a division between the Metis and non-status Indians who come under the control of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. We have the status Indians which come under the control of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand). Finally, there is housing for Eskimo people which is the responsibility of the Territorial Commission of the Northwest Territories. I have never seen such confusion.
We see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development developing a program for status Indians to be put into position in April, 1977. There are many shortcomings in that program and I certainly wish the minister had been in the House this afternoon to hear about some of those shortcomings as expressed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent along with others. He is not here, and in one way that is inexcusable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House that the motion we are studying today was drafted in such a way that we on this side were under the impression that we were considering urban affairs. The hon. member is still referring to matters which come under the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, the minister will be here at eight o'clock and no doubt he will take the opportunity of entering the debate.


John Gilbert: I will accept that interpretation from the parliamentary secretary. I was somewhat confused myself as to what the hon. member for Lambton-Kent was driving at, though I did think he was getting at the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In any case, I am sorry the minister is not here, because the mover of this motion intended to cover a wide range. What really hurts is that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has not deemed it necessary to come back and listen to the remarks of the members because the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs has inherited the program to build
50,000	homes for Metis and non-status Indians; as at the end of 1975 roughly 2,700 homes had been built. This disappointing performance is, in my opinion, the result of the artificial division of responsibility and lack of consultation with the persons affected. These people have shown the patience of Job. They deserve better treatment. They have a right to be mad, and a right to demand immediate action.
November 18, 1976

Why are the government's policies inadequate? The main reason is that the housing policies of the government are not based on human need but rather on human greed. Decisions regarding investment capital, interest rates, numbers and types of homes to be built, are based solely on opportunities for profit. We cannot develop a native housing program on the basis of the profit motive.
The private building corporations are not interested in building homes for Indians, for Metis or for Eskimo people. They want profits, as evidenced by their recent exodus to the United States in which country, to date, they have invested $1.5 billion. They have a market place mentality and, this being so, the whole onus for the provision of adequate native housing falls on the government.
Two weeks ago we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) announce changes in AIB guidelines which affected the valuation of land. This was done to assist developers even though their 1976 profits are excessive. The minister's action is an illustration of government thinking with regard to framing plans to meet the human needs of the native people. This is why Tony Belcourt, the President of the Native Council of Canada, said in 1973, speaking of the tarpaper shacks in which native people live, "They are not safe and they are not healthy: they are bloody time bombs." This is why I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) was attempting to defend the indefensible.
By and large, I am sure the adjectives used by Mr. Belcourt fully described native housing in Canada. If there are certain exceptions in the hon. member's own riding they do not appear to deny the general rule that native housing across Canada is a disgrace and a disaster. This is why the following appears in the August, 1976, issue of Bulletin as the native interpretation of the Habitat Conference held in June in Vancouver:
The Indian people who played their role in the formal conference felt betrayed when Canada refused to accept the United Nations position that profits from the sale of land should not be kept by individuals but should be used for the public good, and when Canada's presentation completely ignored the situation of the native people. But then, those principles-the wholesale and uncaring neglect of Indian people and the selling of our mother earth like a colour TV for profit and greed-are the principles this country is built on, so they shouldn't have been surprised.
That is what the native people felt about Canada's position at Habitat.
What did some of the native leaders say with regard to the native housing program? Bob Douglas, writing in the Ottawa Citizen on August 5, 1976, stated:
Only 2,797 units were built, bought or rehabilitated for the rural and native poor in 1975, the first full year of the program. Native leaders say some of the original goals of the native housing program have been lost. The Native Council of Canada decided last week end to review the program and propose changes to the federal government.
What are the leading native councillors saying? Gloria George, the immediate past president, said there has been insensitivity and lack of interest by the CMHC, ranging from some regional directors up to the corporation head, William Teron. Then she added, according to the report in the Citizen:
Housing
Urban Affairs Minister Barney Danson seems committed to the housing plans even if some of his officials are not.
We know what has happened to the former minister of state for urban affairs. A Native Council paper quoted in the report
says:
The native associations themselves have not consistently supported the concept of maximum client involvement.
This is why it is necessary for the minister to involve not only parliamentarians but the native people themselves.
What is the second reason for the disastrous performance of the program so far? It is the non-involvement of the native majority. On this aspect, Peter Puxley, an expert and excellent adviser on Indian affairs, said he was astonished at the extent of this failure to become involved. He took the view that if control were to be transferred to the hinterlands there was a prior need for the establishment of community development corporations. People would then "learn by doing". Slow initial growth was to be expected, but along with whatever progress was made we could count on the development of new skills and closer unity. It would also be necessary to build an infrastructure. That is why I wish the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were here today. He is attempting to put in place by April, 1977, a program which lacks the infrastructure necessary to develop the skills needed to carry out the actual building. The necessary corporate forms are lacking, for example, private corporations, non-profit corporations, and co-operative corporations.
The third aspect is the failure of CMHC. The president and its officials are not sensitized to the needs of the native people. When I heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs speak this afternoon I was convinced that he is not sensitized, either, to the needs of the native people. The results indicate this to be the case. A target of 50,000 units within five years was set. We now hear that 2,700 were completed by the end of 1975-5 per cent-and that by the end of 1976 we might have between
5,000	and 6,000. What an arrogant attitude the minister of state displayed this afternoon when he said that some of us do not understand how the program works. A former president of CMHC, now deputy minister advising the minister, dismissed the very person who could have co-ordinated a program and delivered these houses, namely, Walter Rudnicki.
Let me review the facts, Mr. Speaker. In September, 1973, the Native Council of Canada had an interview with the then minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), and pointed out what a serious condition these homes were in. They referred to them as tarpaper shacks which were fire traps and unhealthy, and which could blow up at any time. The minister was shocked and amazed to find that there was no housing program in place and demanded that his officials put a program in place within ten days. He was then advised that there was insufficient time for any input on the part of the native people, which would be necessary to make the program successful. However, since Walter Rudnicki was the chief execu-

November 18, 1976
Housing
tive officer on the planning staff, he and his officials were directed to set up a program.
Mr. Rudnicki set up a program and discussed a draft document with the native leaders. What happened, Mr. Speaker? William Teron fired Walter Rudnicki on the basis that he had disclosed a draft cabinet document to the native people. He was told he was indiscreet and did not show good judgment. Mr. Justice O'Driscoll of the Supreme Court of Ontario completely exonerated Mr. Rudnicki and cast a shadow on the statements made by Mr. Teron before the miscellaneous estimates committee, and cast a shadow on the then minister of state for urban affairs, now the Minister of Justice, in regard to who fired whom. The Minister of Justice said it was Mr. Teron who fired Mr. Rudnicki, but Mr. Rudnicki said that it was the Minister of Justice who fired him. Surely a man with 18 years' experience in government service as knowledgeable as he could have made a great success of such a program.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to move an amendment to the main motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the words "totally inadequate", the following words:
"and urges, as a first step in correcting this situation, the immediate reappointment of Mr. Walter Rudnicki as head of the housing program for Metis and Non-Status Indians".
We have removed a person of knowledge and compassion, known for his co-ordination and co-operation with the native people.
What is needed to develop a native housing program? The Indian people have said that we should start afresh, develop a new program and scrap the old program. We must involve the native people-the status Indian, the non-status Indian, the Metis, and the Inuit-in developing such a program. We have to shore up the shortcomings of the native housing bill by getting community development co-operation. We have to set up an administration to develop administrative and technical skills. We have to give sufficient moneys for funding these programs. Foremost, Mr. Speaker, we must settle the aboriginal land claims of our native people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am facing two situations. The time of the hon. member has expired. Secondly, I have looked at his amendment which I consider to be acceptable, so I will put it to the House. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moves:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the words "totally inadequate", the following words:
"and urges, as a first step in correcting this situation, the immediate reappointment of Mr. Walter Rudnicki as head of the housing program for Metis and Non-Status Indians".


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few additional points.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue his speech only with the unanimous consent of the House since his

time has expired. Does the House give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Gilbert: I should like to thank my colleagues for their co-operation; I will only be two minutes. I was setting forth what was required to put a proper native housing program in place. I said that we should start afresh and involve the Metis and non-status Indians, the status Indians, and Eskimo people in developing the program. We should shore up the native housing legislation which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intends to put in place by April, 1977. We should develop the administrative and technical skills of people who are responsible for the program and those who will be involved in the program. We should provide sufficient moneys for funding. I heard the amount of money that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said was being allocated to native housing, Mr. Speaker, and I say he is taking a peanut approach in regard to launching a substantial and successful program for these people.
We also have to settle the aboriginal land claims of these native people. It is so important to the dignity and well being of these people that the government take the initiative in settling these claims. Some 400,000 acres of land are owned by the native people, and the courts of British Columbia have determined that they do own this land. But no action has been taken by the federal government in regard to settling these claims.


John Robert Holmes: It started in 1973.


John Gilbert: Yes, it started in 1973, as my good friend from Lambton-Kent says. This lack of action is a disgrace; it is really an indignity that is being done these fine people.
Finally, I come to a point that I hope the officials from CMHC who are in the gallery this afternoon will take back with them. What we need are big men. We need men bigger than William Teron. We need men who will ignore personality differences such as exist between Teron and Rudnicki and who will look at the problem of native housing in the same way as Mr. Walter Rudnicki, a man of compassion, a man of knowledge, a man known for his co-operation with the native people. Put him in charge of the native housing program. We do not need men like Teron, who are concerned only about land mapping for the developers across the country, and who show little or no concern about native people and their serious housing problem.
I hope Teron will be big enough to ask Walter Rudnicki to return. I hope the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will press Mr. Teron to bring Mr. Rudnicki back and to get him working on this important problem. Then the native people could have some hope, rather than despair. Then they could have some hope that a proper program will be developed, and then they could be proud to call themselves Canadians.
November 18, 1976


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon. 1 was quite surprised at the interjection of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Gauthier). He indicated that he did not understand the motion. I do not want to appear to be a nit-picker, but it seems to me that if the motion had been restricted to the rural native housing program, the words "rural native housing program" would have been capitalized. It is as simple as that.
I am disappointed that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) is not in the House, and I feel that the least he could have done would have been to arrange to have his parliamentary secretary in attendance.
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and listening to him one would think that there is really no problem with respect to native housing. It is quite obvious to me that the hon. member has not travelled very far beyond the boundaries of his own constituency, because if he had travelled in Saskatchewan, in the northern parts of the prairie provinces, or in the Territories, he would certainly have seen the mess native housing is in. For example, I recommend that he travel to the port of Churchill or to The Pas and see the state of native housing in those areas. However, I did not intend to talk about native housing as it relates to the Indian people. My hon. colleagues have covered that subject adequately.
In the short time allotted to me I want to talk about the housing problems of the Inuit people in Canada's north. I read a report in the August issue of Native Housing about the Habitat Conference, which was held earlier this year in Vancouver. At that conference the Inuit people were represented by a man by the name of Jens Lyberth. Mr. Lyberth was born in Greenland and has spent some 30 years with the Inuit people in the north. At the present time Mr. Lyberth is the vice-president of the Baffin Region Inuit Association. At the Habitat Conference Mr. Lyberth had this to say, as reported in the article:
Our people have not been able to influence the formation of policies that affect our communities. In a very real sense, we are becoming strangers in our own land ... In the present situation our Prime Minister and his Cabinet, in dealing with Inuit problems, have been as effective as a kayak without a paddle.
The government is proud of building us houses ... but they simply don't know what they are doing. This system has been built by highly educated, knowledgeable, respected Canadians who do not understand us at all.
That statement is a sad but true commentary on the action of the Canadian government with respect to Inuit housing.
If we read Section 35 of the National Housing Act we see that the CMHC has a certain responsibility. I would like to read Section 35 of the act into the record as follows:
It is the responsibility of the Corporation to cause investigations to be made into housing conditions and the adequacy of existing housing accommodation in Canada or in any part of Canada and to cause steps to be taken for the distribution of information leading to the construction or provision of more adequate and improved housing accommodation and the understanding and adoption of community plans in Canada.
Housing
Notwithstanding the remarks of the former minister on October 1, 1975, to the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities to the effect that he recognized that there were special problems of construction and design in the north-he indicated that some thought would have to be given to these problems-I am not aware of any program or any study which has been carried out which has resulted in any new or innovative designs for houses for Inuit people, bearing in mind the climatic and cultural conditions of these people.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in the House this evening. It is unfortunate he and his parliamentary secretary were not here during the afternoon to listen to the lively debate which took place on this important subject relating to the native people of our country.
Before I called it six o'clock I mentioned 1 was not aware of any study that had been carried out to determine the needs of the native people, in particular the Inuit people, in respect of housing based on the climatic or cultural conditions which exist. Generally speaking, housing units which have been designed and which are in use in the north have been designed by southerners for use in the south, and in many cases have been pre-fabricated in southern Canada and moved to northern Canada where they are used for homes for the Inuit people.
I should like to quote Mr. Lyberth, whom I quoted earlier this afternoon. When he spoke at the Habitat Conference in Vancouver he had this to say in respect of the Inuit people:
They are living in what we call matchboxes, five-by-twelves and three bedroom plywood houses-thin plywood houses. An old plywood house doesn't keep the heat inside. A new plywood house doesn't either, but at least it's a little better than the old one.
Overcrowding and incorrect insulation cause excessive condensation, which makes the houses deteriorate rapidly in the severe climate. The houses have a life expectancy of five to six years before they have to be replaced ... the houses, in most instances, are too small and fail to take into account the lifestyle of the Inuit, e.g. skinning of animals in many cases has to be done in the living room.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who has travelled in northern Canada and who has visited some of the Inuit communities will certainly verify that statement. Would it not make fiscal sense for the Government of Canada to spend money on research and development in order to design a house which would be suitable to fill the needs of the Inuit people, based on their climatic and cultural needs, and also a house that would have a life expectancy approaching somewhat the life expectancy of the houses we have in southern Canada? I should like to ask

November 18, 1976
Housing
the minister if he would be good enough to tell us what sums the government has spent on research and development for housing for the Inuit people, and whether or not the native people themselves were involved in this research and development. I should like him to tell us whether a suitable design has been developed and, if some research and development have not been carried on, does he intend to take steps to ensure we will get on with the job of researching and developing proper housing and accommodation for the Inuit people?
When speaking this afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) mentioned the log houses designed for use by some of the native people in the north. I am not suggesting that these log houses would necessarily be suitable for the Inuit people, but certainly I believe a fair amount of money was spent on research and design of these houses. I have seen some of them in Yellowknife, not only houses but other types of buildings. They represent good, substantial construction which would last for many years. This is one important feature of these particular buildings. They would last possibly for a person's lifetime, and when one compares that to the life expectancy of the average house an Inuit person has nowadays, which is six or seven years, then even if the initial cost is high there would be a considerable saving in the long run.
It is interesting to note that the Inuit themselves have formed an organization, the Inuit Non-Profit Housing Corporation, and on their own they have built ten experimental houses in the communities of Frobisher Bay, Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet, and Inuvik. Again I would ask the minister if the government is involved in any way in assisting this organization, either financially, with research and development or by other means? The Inuit are a skillful, intelligent, and industrious race of people. Had the government made use of these attributes we would have a different situation in the north today. But what has the government done? Recently it turned over the administration of the housing program in the Northwest Territories to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. I would suggest that this is an abdication of the federal government's responsibility. I am not criticizing the corporation; that is a good organization and I do not want to take anything away from it. The responsibility for the housing of native people, which includes the Inuit, is with the federal government, however, specifically the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I would submit that the minister should be dealing directly with the concerned native organizations in so far as research and development are concerned, and with the actual communities and their councils when it comes to the construction of houses. For too long the government has adopted a patronizing attitude toward our native people. Had we adopted an attitude of co-operation many years ago, had we developed self-help programs for them, and had we given them the responsibility of administering their own programs, we would not have the problems we face today.
(Mr. Neil.]
The north is a cruel environment in which to live, and to survive, Mr. Speaker. We have lured the Inuit people away from their traditional way of life whereby they were able to cope and have really offered no alternative; we have offered only inadequate housing and a white culture. Surely we owe it to these people to see, first of all, that they are adequately housed. I would submit it is vitally important that the government take immediate steps to relieve the situation, and I would suggest this can only be done through co-operation with the native people, and through the development of housing programs and designs by spending money on research and development. There must be an adequate and comprehensive program, one that in as short a period as possible will be able to provide them with durable accommodation.
There are only some 18,000 Inuit people in the whole of the north, Mr. Speaker. Compared to the population of the rest of Canada the cost of providing adequate accommodation would be very small in proportion. If the three-quarters of a million dollars that was spent by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in the last three years on government air travel had been used for research and development, it is quite possible that we would have had today an adequately designed house for these people.
I see my time is pretty well up, Mr. Speaker. In closing I would urge the government, through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to take immediate steps to resolve the serious problems of housing that exist in northern Canada today.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and some others, I understand, asked this afternoon why I was not in attendance for the debate. Last evening when I read the motion presented by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) I concluded that it did not deal with the Indian housing program which falls under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but rather dealt, as the motion says with "urban and rural native housing," which comes under the Department of Urban Affairs.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is only responsible for housing for status Indians-not non-status Indians or Metis or rural people, but only status Indians on or off the reserves. All the other programs, in particular the housing program mentioned in the motion, do not come under this ministry. For that reason I was surprised when I was told late this afternoon that members were dealing with the Indian housing program.
One would think that the opposition, who drafted the motion, would have drafted it to cover exactly what they meant. One can only ask if they cannot draft a simple motion, how can they ever expect to run a government? However, since the opposition has raised questions with respect to the Indian housing program for status Indians, I will deal with some of these matters. But they did not put it in the motion, Mr. Speaker.
November 18, 1976

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has, as one of its top priorities, the lead responsibility for providing housing to Indian people, that is, status Indians. It flows from the department's general mandate to assist Indians under the Indian Act in achieving self-reliance and in fulfilling their cultural, economic and social aspirations. Housing is an important dimension of these aspirations, not only because it provides shelter and related amenities but it also involves a basic component of the quality of life, of the dignity of both the individual and of the community.
Since 1966 the department has been operating three main programs. The first and largest, known as the Subsidy Housing Program, involves the subsidization of an Indian family for up to $10,000 and the construction or renovation of a house. During the five year period 1970-75, 9,700 new houses were built and 5,500 existing houses on reserves were renovated under the program, with a total contribution of $117.3 million. The current 1976-77 budget is approximately $28.5 million for this type of housing. Today about 65 per cent of the 566 bands have assumed some responsibility for administering their subsidy housing programs. Twenty-nine bands have created band housing authorities to assume full responsibility for housing in their communities.
The second program, which is in addition to subsidization, is assistance in the form of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans which were guaranteed by my predecessors under the On-Reserve Housing Program. During the same five-year period, 1970-75, such loans totalling $10.8 million were provided for the construction of 905 new houses on reserves, of which 305 were provided through individual loans, and 600 new houses were a result of 25 project loans.
Under the third of these programs, the Off-Reserve Housing Program, Indians who are able to give assurance of continuing employment off the reserve can qualify for a repayable first mortgage from CMHC and a forgivable second mortgage from the minister, up to a maximum of $12,000 over ten years. This program also assists those Inuit who have chosen to leave their communities to live in urban centres. Since 1967 some 1,716 Indians and Inuit have received this assistance toward home ownership, primarily in urban centres, through the provision of second mortgage loans in the amount of $13.3 million.
These housing programs have resulted in significant improvements in recent years. I admit what hon. members say about some of the bad projects in years gone by, but since about 1966 there has been great improvement. New factors, such as inflation and the increasing migration to and from reserves, have created new needs. Moreover, acceptable standards of living in our country have also evolved. For these reasons our existing programs are simply not adequate to meet new needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Housing


William Warren Allmand: Wait until you hear the rest. An estimated
20,000	additional houses, and renovations to some 9,000 existing homes will be required over the next five years.
Recognizing the need for a new approach, last October the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development agreed with the then president of the National Indian Brotherhood to revise jointly the housing program for status Indians. The hon. member for Moose Jaw spoke about a co-operative program. That program was co-operative, agreed to jointly by the National Indian Brotherhood and associations affiliated with it. A joint housing work group was established at the beginning of this year, and new housing policy principles were adopted with a view to considering housing as an integral part of an over-all socio-economic development strategy designed to promote both self-help and maximum Indian participation in administration, design, construction, and management after occupancy.
Further stimulus was provided last year by the United Nations sponsored Habitat conference. Canada was host to the world's first combined government and non-government conference at the ministerial level on the need to develop and adopt national human settlement policies designed to improve the quality of life in urban and rural settings.
In recognition of the acknowledged need for a more effective approach, Indian and government representatives have jointly developed a dynamic housing and community improvement policy for Indians living on reserves. This joint effort is part of the over-all approach to the government-Indian relationship which the department has been developing together with representatives of the Indian peoples through joint decision-making processes in all areas of mutual concern. I think some elements of the background to the development of the new housing policy will be useful to a better understanding of what it seeks to accomplish.
Some years ago the government and the National Indian Brotherhood began to formulate a new Indian reserve housing policy. Initially the two worked separately, and various proposals were exchanged. None met the expectations and requirements of either the government or the National Indian Brotherhood. This led to the agreement last October to examine jointly the issues involved and to develop an approach acceptable to both the Indian people and the government.
After some months of intensive discussions, agreement was reached on seven policy principles. The following is a summary of these principles which were accepted by the executive council of the National Indian Brotherhood, by my predecessor and myself, and which are to serve as a basis upon which Indian band councils can develop and manage programs designed to meet their precise needs.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will maintain the lead responsibility for Indian housing programs and a suitable mechanism will be established to assure that Indian people are involved at every level of housing policy development and program management. Furthermore, Indian bands will be enabled to administer their own housing programs through band government.

November 18, 1976
Housing
Both housing subsidies and loans will be determined according to the needs and resources of Indian individuals and bands. The methods establishing and applying the necessary regulations, and of controlling failure in loan repayment will be developed jointly by the National Indian Brotherhood and by the department.
The special status of reserve land will not be jeopardized by providing loans for housing to individuals and bands and, as minister, I shall guarantee an appropriate instrument for this purpose.
The housing and physical community development resources of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as those of other federal agencies will be made available to Indian bands and Indian individuals who require housing assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to you that the mechanism whereby the Indian people are to have direct involvement and input at every level of housing policy development and program management is now in place at the national level. The same mechanism is currently being developed on a pilot basis in Ontario.
The Ontario Indian Housing Council was established through the initiative of the presidents of the four Ontario Indian associations soon after they learned of the joint Indian-government policy approach. Representatives of these associations, together with the Ontario regional office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have already been assessing the specific needs of Ontario Indian families and have been making an inventory of local, provincial and federal resources needed to build adequate housing and related facilities.
It is particularly gratifying to note the degree of public support which the Ontario experience has been receiving. For example, the Ontario Society for Professional Engineers has been assisting the Ontario Indian Housing Council on a voluntary basis. At the national level, the National Indian Housing Council is working within the offices of the National Indian Brotherhood on the processes through which a policy, supported by the necessary authorities and funds, can be implemented on an effective and responsible basis. The council is composed of representatives from the NIB and from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, we expect other federal departments to participate in the work of the council. The new Indian housing program will involve resources from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canada Manpower can contribute job training programs to enable the Indian people to take advantage of employment opportunities in the various technical and administrative skills associated with housing and related services. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is likely to be involved in the creation of jobs and other economic opportunities.
Certainly the primary objective of the new Indian housing policy is to improve materially the appalling conditions under which too many Indian people are still living. Health conditions will be improved. Better housing will also alleviate those factors which make it difficult for Indian children to pursue their studies, thereby enabling them to reach a higher level of
[Mr. Allmand.)
education. Moreover, a decent living environment can reduce the incidence of family breakdown and generally improve relationships within the family. There are, however, other foreseeable benefits which will result from the implementation of the Indian housing program.
One direct economic benefit is the creation of jobs and the possibility of acquiring varied marketable skills. In fact as I have recently pointed out to the new president of the NIB, I view our joint efforts as a self-help venture. We will be relying on Indian participation in administration, design, construction, and management after occupancy. Training and employment will therefore be necessary elements in the program. Another important benefit will be the stimulation of economic development at the band level through the generation of activities related to construction, to building materials, to the manufacturing of house components and to the transportation of goods.
I should point out that, if we are going to involve Indian people in the delivery and management of the various aspects of the program, a major training effort at all levels, local, regional and national, will have to be undertaken. Also, interdepartmental working relationships will have to be developed together will representatives of the Indian people. Federal-provincial consultations will be necessary to ensure the proper co-ordination and planning of support facilities and infrastructures such as water distribution, sewerage, roads and electricity.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lambton-Kent asked several questions about Indian housing. I shall now try to answer them directly. He asked first this question: since the National Indian Brotherhood and the department have reached agreement in principle with respect to reserve housing, when will the minister be prepared to make a formal commitment to the NIB and the status Indians? Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that on October 13 I wrote a letter to the president of the National Indian Brotherhood committing myself to the program which had been developed jointly, and now we are putting forward for approval that agreement entered into between the department and the NIB.
In his second question the hon. member asked this: will the government raise subsidies for Indian housing on reserves to a level consistent with existing conditions? He says there has been no change in the subsidy in the past Five years. Under the housing proposals agreed to by the NIB and the department I referred to earlier, both housing subsidies and loans will be determined according to the needs and resources of Indian individuals and bands. Under the new policy, they will be increased.
The third question he put was: since the government agreed to establish a mechanism for Indian people to participate in community development on reserves, can the minister indicate what has been done to implement this policy to this point and time? I pointed out in my earlier remarks that the mechanisms had been set up at the national level and that one had been set up in Ontario as well.
November 18, 1976

His fourth question was: would the minister agree that his department should act as the single centre for responsibility and accountability to mobilize funds needed to transfer Indian housing? The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will maintain the lead responsibility for Indian housing programs and a suitable mechanism will be established to assure that Indian people are involved at every level of housing policy development and program management. I do not know if the hon. member was suggesting that the Minister of Indian Affairs should have responsibility for non-status Indian and Metis housing as well. I am not just sure on that point. However, we will take the lead with regard to status Indians which is the principal responsibility of this ministry.
The fifth question was: is the minister prepared to secure program commitments from key agencies such as Manpower for job opportunity, from DREE, from CMHC, for loan programs for Indians of no-income groups and the need for housing in related programs, and is the government committed to give priority to people in this no-income category? I also mentioned in my remarks that we would do this, that we intended to bring in these different agencies, and we agreed to give priority to those people with levels ranging from no income to $4,000.
Another question put by the hon. member was as follows: projections for 1975 are that half of the Indian population will be living in urban communities; what is the minister doing to assist the needs of Indians migrating to urban areas? I pointed out that the third plank of our housing program in the department is geared to off-reserve Indians.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize that these new approaches still require further discussions and decisions. At this stage, however, the NIB and the department are satisfied that the proposals offer a range of alternatives to bands who may choose those which best suit their own conditions and needs. We are convinced that these alternatives provide more realistic approaches to current economic and social conditions, especially in the light of our experience in Indian housing since 1966. Already more than 50 bands are giving serious consideration to the proposed options. Our hope is that an increasing number will see the solid social and economic benefits of this new Indian housing policy.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was rather pleased to see the minister in the House and entering the debate. I cannot quite understand the idea that had been put forward that a reading of the motion restricted it solely to one particular act under the auspices of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). As has been pointed out, the reference is to native housing; rural and urban were not capitalized as would be required for a specific act.
Listening to the speech of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), one suspects that perhaps the delay was caused by a need to get together the speech he read to us. I found the most interesting word in it to be the reference to Indian housing as "appalling". Were the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) in his seat, I
Housing
know he would raise a point of order at this spot. This afternoon he would have us believe that that adjective should not be applied to native housing in this country. One always hates to see a member from one's province so flatly contradicted by a minister of the Crown. I would suggest some sort of reconsideration, possibly tomorrow, to straighten that out.
I am pleased to rise on this subject of housing for native people. My constituency has two names, Okanagan and Kootenay. They are both from Indian languages, different languages. The constituency stretches through a good area of British Columbia with several Indian reservations and with acute problems of housing for native peoples.
I have had representatives come to me to discuss their problems in an endeavour to lead anything like a normal, satisfactory civilized life in the face of housing conditions in which they must live. Although they have had my sympathy, I am afraid it has been difficult to advise them as to how best to improve that situation.
It is an irony that we should be debating native housing when the native people of Canada in their own time have made such interesting contributions to housing. One can think of the long houses on the coast of British Columbia with their extraordinary ornamentation, the tepee of the plains with its adaptation to the nomadic life of the people who followed the buffalo, the long houses of the nations of the lands now Ontario and Quebec, or even the kik-willies of the interior of British Columbia, which I would not hold up as an example of great architecture, but nevertheless an interesting example of adapting to a severe climate.
One often hears two suggestions made as to the solution of the problem. The minister mentioned a couple of them. One is that the reservations, at least in my province, constitute themselves into district municipalities and operate in that way. That is easier said than done. In a way it might have something to be said for it. However, one has to remember that municipalities in British Columbia are creations of the province and come under an extraordinary amount of provincial control, whereas the Department of Indian Affairs is a national department in which the federal government has jurisdiction.
At a time when we talk about the possibility of this nation dividing into separate parts I can think of no better reason for holding it together than the fact that the federal jurisdiction is the jurisdiction that has the responsibility for native peoples. While they did not ask to be governed from Ottawa, certainly much less have they ever asked that the nation be broken up or that they be turned over to other governments within the country.
The other suggestion that goes along with that is that the native peoples on the reservations work through CMHC to solve their housing problems. Both of these ideas are very sophisticated.
I would point out that many non-Indian communities wait a long, long time before they incorporate themselves into municipalities. They know there will be problems with that course of action. I would also point out that outside of the individual

November 18, 1976
Housing
application for a CMHC loan, any group of Canadians which becomes involved with CMHC on a group basis is bound to have a very frustrating time. In this connection I recall a representation being made and sent to the former minister of state for urban affairs outlining at length the difficulties which had been encountered in building a non-profit apartment block in Vernon. These people were brought to the very depths of frustration as they endeavoured to work through CMHC.
Many other voluntary service organizations involved in the provision of senior citizens housing have had their plans rejected, rewritten, rejected and rewritten again, to the point at which they were tempted to throw in the towel. We sometimes assume it is a simple matter for native people to endure this type of frustration. But it is asking too much, and unless CMHC changes its ways that institution will not be a vehicle capable of providing native housing.
I am reminded of an experience during my first term in parliament when I was told about the difficulty experienced by a citizen in one of my native communities. Although he was well over 70, he could not get his old age pension because, apparently, he could not prove his age. I went to see my father, who lived in the town in 1912, and asked him how old Alec Jones was. My father had gone there at the age of 17 and recalled that when he first knew Alec Jones he had played baseball with the men. So he must have been already over 70 which, at that time, was the age of eligibility for the old age pension.
After making these inquiries I went to the Indian agent's office in Vernon-that was before it was so lightly closed down-I am not blaming the minister for that, of course; it happened before his time-and asked to see the file of my constituent. It was given to me. I looked through it. I had told my father to be prepared to sign an affidavit if necessary. But looking over the file I discovered the department already had proof of age. It was there on the file.
I took it out and showed it to the Indian agent and said, "You have proof of age. It is right there." He looked it over and realized that this was indeed the case. "Well," he said, "tell Alec Jones to come into the office because he can have his pension at any time". I said "He is not coming in." He asked why. I said, "Alec has been here three times now, and received no satisfaction, and he will not come in again." The Indian agent suddenly remembered he had an appointment the following week in the small town where the man was living and offered to find time to deal with the matter.
I think my story applies to a lot that goes on in connection with Indian housing and administration generally. I am surprised, in a way, that the native people keep talking at all. If the situation were not so desperate, I am sure they would not. They have gone out of their way so many times and received so little.
It seems to me that one of the few occasions on which the native housing program began to get under way was in the early years of the appointment of the late Arthur Laing, the

former member for Vancouver South, to the portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When he was appointed to that office I urged the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, to leave him there because up to that time the position had been a revolving door for ministers breaking into the ministry, and moving on as quickly as possible to something else. I do not know whether Mr. Pearson took my advice, but he did leave Mr. Laing there for some time, and in that year and the following year there was evidence of action in the field of native housing. I wrote to Mr. Laing and told him how pleased I was to see that something was happening. But not much has happened since, and the program which got under way at that time has not been matched since. That was the only time when anything positive seemed to be happening. I suspect that the main reason for the failure since then is that inflation has caught up with the subsidy program; the cost of the houses has multiplied many times and the subsidy has not kept pace.
I might say a word at this point about the government's cheap food policy. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should come into the Chamber to join the other two ministers this evening, but anyone who is concerned about the situation of our native people must be concerned about the very low prices which are obtained by primary food producers compared with what is obtainable by people in virtually every other line of endeavour. Native people are involved to a surprising extent in the production of food on the reservations, many of which are agricultural in character. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) knows what the price of beef is at the present time. He knows that a valuable source of income has largely been denied to the native people in recent years because the price has been allowed to fall so low in pursuit of a national policy which allows cheap imports. This observation applies not only to beef but to a number of other agricultural products.
At one time, the native people used to be able to obtain seasonal employment at harvest time, especially, but this is difficult for them now when the prices obtained by the growers for fruit and vegetables are so low. As we consider the insufficiency of native housing I suggest we should not entirely direct our attention away from these other aspects of native life.
We see a move to urban areas going on. This is a world-wide phenomenon and the native people are affected by it as well. Again, it is often encouraged by government policies.
I am sure every member representing a rural area has had experience with the activities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission cutting an applicant off from benefit and telling him, in effect, to move to a more populated centre. This has been one of the powerful forces working in this country to remove people from a rural setting and forcing them to compete in an urban environment. This is a further factor which should be looked into in conjunction with the motion before us this evening. The division between the status Indian on the one hand and the non-status Indian on the other is one which has been, in a sense, legalized through the Indian Act,
November 18, 1976

forced on the Indian people and not always accepted by them. But it has, nevertheless, led to a convenient situation for the federal authority, inasmuch as it can deal with one side at a time whenever the mood suits it.
We have heard a good deal in this discussion about house design. I am not sure whether the native people are so different from the rest of us in their hopes and aspirations. They too watch television, read newspapers and magazines, and have adapted surprisingly swiftly to many modern innovations, be it the trail bike, the automobile or skidoos. I think some of the things that are wanted in native housing are what we all hope to be able to find in homes of our own. 1 suggest that even the women's liberation movement is not lost on the native peoples and that there are wishes and demands there that are significant and must be met.
I recall the home in which I grew up during the thirties. There was not much difference between native housing and the housing of many of the rest of us in those sad days of the depression. We have heard about the problems of native life in terms of the kind of housing they have. There has also been reference to people skinning animals. My father skinned animals in the kitchen. My mother was never very fond of this, especially if it were weasel or muskrat, because it did cause certain problems. My father was a rather good trapper and he did add to the almost non-existent family income at the time by that ancient and very North American industry on which this nation has been built and based for a long period of time.
I realize that trapping is running into some criticism today and that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has a private member's bill that would ban the leg-hold trap. I sympathize with him and hope we can find the ingenuity to replace that simple trapping mechanism with something more sophisticated; but until we do, any abrupt banning of that instrument would mean another loss of income to our native peoples. Therefore the urge to find a replacement is a very real one.
Something has happened between the years of the thirties and today in that the gap between the housing of the native peoples and that of the rest of us has widened very sharply. This has had a lot to do with the very slow integration of our native people into our school system and the fact that during the years of the thirties the native peoples had reached a very low ebb indeed. It seemed for a while as if they might almost disappear from the Canadian scene, but they too have been resilient and are now increasing rapidly in number, and a good thing it is too. Nevertheless, we must be prepared to meet the needs of these people and catch up the lost years. The depression years were lost years for us all, but the lost years for the native people were more than that.
We must now challenge the young people. We are educating them and they are moving on to universities. 1 suggest we need more native architects, draftsmen and designers. We need to channel some of the brilliance of design that goes into native art across this country today into the field of architecture. I
Housing
suspect that given a lead they could come up with designs that would relate to their heritage, that would provide the amenities of a civilized life, and by using native materials might find housing methods that would be cheap and effective.
It is a heavy challenge, Mr. Speaker, but I urge the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take it up and to come up with a policy that will provide native housing.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in joining the debate on the opposition motion before the House which deals with the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing, I propose to comment primarily on urban housing. I think it is useful to remember that the rural and native housing program of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is essentially the special application of existing National Housing Act programs in various ways and different combinations to meet the needs of people of low income in rural and remote communities throughout Canada.
The rural and native housing program has three main objectives: first, to provide better housing for rural and native people at prices and monthly payments they can afford; second, to give eligible families and communities the opportunity to become involved in the entire housing process and to create job opportunities in the community; and third, to encourage the development and use of house designs that meet the needs of people in rural Canada and fit their particular lifestyle.
The rural and native housing program, then, was not designed for people living in an urban setting but was created to provide special application of existing programs to people living in rural and remote communities. One might have expected that, generally speaking, native people in urban centres would not require special attention to meet their housing needs as the full range of programs already in place under the National Housing Act was available to them. That is generally true, but it is also true that native families which have migrated to cities often find that the transitional period of adjustment to an entirely new environment creates unforeseen difficulties, and sometimes the problems extend beyond what one might consider to be a short transitional period.
One very useful response to these difficulties has come from non-profit organizations formed by the native people themselves. These groups were originally formed with assistance from CMHC under the non-profit housing program which provides 100 per cent financing to non-profit community organizations for the construction, purchase, or improvement of housing which can be made available to people who need it at modest rents. The program further provides for an outright federal grant of 10 per cent of the capital costs of the project. Some native organizations in various parts of the country have taken advantage of this assistance to establish non-profit housing corporations which buy housing, renovate it, and offer it for rent.

November 18, 1976
Housing
In some cases when groups purchased housing at reasonable prices it was found that the cost of renovation required to bring the house up to a good, acceptable standard tended to push the cost of the unit beyond the budget of those for whom it was intended. The native groups responsible for providing the housing sometimes had little experience or skill in construction, maintenance or property management; but because their courage and enterprise in trying to help themselves in the face of some very difficult problems were clearly deserving of additional support, temporary assistance was provided for experimental and innovative projects out of funds allocated under the National Housing Act for research and demonstration.
Among the groups which have received moneys since 1971 in this way are groups in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Thunder Bay. In all, about 500 housing units are involved. All these undertakings have involved considerable personal commitment by local native leaders, and they have been invaluable in identifying probems inherent in this kind of enterprise and in finding solutions to those problems.
After March, 1977, assistance for this kind of housing will be provided when necessary under a section of the National Housing Act which enables CMHC, under a federal-provincial agreement, to provide 50 per cent of the funds required to make up the difference between rental revenues and the costs of amortizing and operating a non-profit, low-rental project. Where there is an agreement, the other 50 per cent is contributed by the provincial government involved.
In some cases, of course, especially when the groups have gained more experience, the rental returns from projects operated by the native groups will be enough to cover operating costs, and subsidies will not be required.
Support for projects such as these is not limited simply to loans and grants for construction purposes and subsequent subsidies to cover operational expenses, but financial help is available for the start-up phase as well. Start-up funds of up to $10,000 are available to non-profit community organizations for activities such as developing and incorporating the organization, planning the project itself, consultation with other groups or government agencies, and any other appropriate activity up to the point of a firm loan commitment.
Non-profit housing projects wherever they may be-in rural or urban areas-are also eligible for assistance under RRAP. This means that non-profit housing sponsored by native groups can benefit from loans and grants to restore their housing to acceptable standards of health and safety.
CMHC funds can also be used to provide special assistance, such as training in home improvement skills, so that project managers can do much of the necessary maintenance and renovation work themselves. In addition, CMHC funds can provide the tuition and the incidental costs involved in training programs in the management of social housing, whether this training is provided by an educational institution or by a CMHC sponsored organization. In some cases management

students may be attached to an existing project for a three month period to receive valuable on the job experience.
The social and economic implications of this kind of assistance, which helps people to help themselves, are obvious. As other speakers have pointed out, many native people, of course, prefer to live in rural areas and to earn their living in traditional ways-trapping and so on-but for the native Indians who choose to try city life, whether permanently or temporarily, it is particularly useful to have the kind of supports I have described which ease their adjustment to city life so that they can have a reasonable experience and make an informed decision on whether to choose urban or rural life for themselves and their children.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that some hon. members wish to take the floor on a subject that might be extremely important to them. However, I shall make a few short comments about the important subject of housing. As the matter before us today regards particularly native housing I shall make only general comments which apply to every social category in Canada, as some other members will probably speak about social conditions concerning native housing.
Mr. Speaker, what surprises me in the housing area is the tremendous importance of the financial aspect, for native housing as well as for other groups of our society. I have here the monthly catalogue 62-007 giving the statistics of construction costs in October 1976. On page 26 it mentions the cost of housing; it says that from January 1971 to December 1975, the cost of housing money in Canada-the base figure is 100 in 1971-according to Statistics Canada, the cost of housing money in Canada had increased to 130.9 in December 1975. So, in 1971, the cost of money was of 96.5 and the cost of money for housing in December 1975 was of 130.9 which represents an increase of 34.4 per cent in the last five years.
Mr. Speaker, I must add that notwithstanding the motherhood statements made in this House from both sides, the main question that should be raised when we speak about housing for all social groups, for the natives as well as for the French, the English or the immigrants, is the financial aspect.
If we go back to 1968, we find that the interest rate for housing was a bit lower in Canada, that is 7 per cent on the average, while it is now 11.5 per cent, according to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whereas the effective interest rate, including administrative costs that the borrower must pay regularly above other interest rates, administration costs such as, for example, legal fees, notary fees for a mortgage, then the effective monthly interest rate will be of about 17 per cent, including administration costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that with such an interest rate Canadians are not very eager to become owners. It is easy to understand why Canadians nowadays would like to become owners but when they realize all the financial obligations that such a move implies, they lose all fancy for buying a home. Indeed, we can still rent a home for
November 18, 1976

$140, $150 or $160 a month, whereas the owner must pay his own way for at least double that amount. Which means that we have penalized, that we are still penalizing the small owner, the person who would like to own a small, one family house.
Mr. Speaker, these considerations bring me to statistics that have literally bowled me over. These are official figures published by the federal government on February 23, 1976. I refer to page 11151. These figures relate to the housing situation in Canada. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) had asked a question relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which had made a loan to the Quebec Housing Corporation for the construction of 38 so-called low rental units for the aged. I have here the results of an inquiry into this question, carried out very efficiently on May 18, 1976 by the staff of the parliamentary library and which gives very precise information.
Details of loans by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to Quebec Housing Corporation for residential construction in the municipalities of Saint-Damien and Saint-Vallier in the constituency of Bellechasse.
And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the figures provided by the Parliament library are the same across Canada because the rates are the same everywhere.
The loan granted to the municipality of Saint-Damien by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation amounts to $537,863 at 103/s per cent interest, repayable in fifty annual payments of $57,617.24. The answer to question No. 3,580 provided by the Hon. Barney Danson does not mention that the interest is calculated semi-annually, so that the actual rate of interest exceeds 103/s per cent and will be about 102/3 per cent (exactly 10.64 per cent). The total amount of interest will be $2,342,999. In other words, the municipality will have to repay $2,880,862-more than 5 times the amount of the loan. Table 1 shows the detail of the loan for the next fifty years.
And we are provided with a very good and clear table and at the bottom of that table we see that after 50 annual payments, the capital being $537,863, the interest is $2,342,999.
Now how can we say in the House that we want to help Canadians become owners of their own homes? How can we seriously try to make the Canadian people believe that the federal government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is willing to help small owners when we see that in all housing operations all owners have to pay five times their house before they can call it theirs?
Mr. Speaker, I must also say that that upside down financial policy with respect to housing also applies to the Untied States, and since we do not have a Canadian housing policy we must follow the steps of other countries which are often working backwards in the area of housing and others. On page 98 of the financial magazine Business Week of October 20, 1975, one can read, and 1 quote:
Demand exists for rental apartments, but high interest rates push required rentals far beyond what the market will support. Anthony Downs, chairman of Real Estate Research Corp., a First Chicago Corp. subsidiary, feels that it will take rent increases of 20 per cent to 40 per cent to stimulate apartment construction .. .
Housing
Rarely in history has there been such violation of prudent lending principles. REIT expert Kenneth D. Campbell agrees. The banks were shovelling out money as fast as they could-making them as guilty as builders...
The banks are living in a dream world.

And that from a magazine extremely close to the banks, giving us an accurate report on money and saying that those money making institutions are doing so at the expense of housing and the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable to think that the federal government is again not using the financial resources available to it because the federal government has full and complete jurisdiction over finance in Canada. Wall Street, New York, Boston or Washington are not responsible for our financial policy in Canada. And yet Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown institution lending on behalf of the federal government to help housing in general at an interest rate that only a few years ago was referred to as a shylock rate. We now have a Crown corporation which is not helping the people of Canada to become owners, be they natives, French Canadians in Quebec or others in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the first reforms in housing, I wish that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) would stop looking for ghosts and deal with the problems of finance. We see today under all low cost housing assistance programs an owner paying $125 a month while the federal government must borrow from banks to keep its budget afloat. To subsidize low cost housing the federal government must pay as much as the owner himself to allow him to pay $125, $135 or $140 a month to live in a house he cannot afford when just a few years ago the owner could pay his housing cost himself.
Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous to try to make believe we have a low cost housing policy when we know full well that the owner himself cannot pay. The federal government is paying and through taxation indirectly dipping for the money in the pockets of that same owner. That financial policy is absolute sham. Let us stop dipping in the pockets of the small owner and allow him to meet his obligations himself, and this by reducing the interest rate. I do not understand why a Crown corporation such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation cannot provide the necessary funds to develop general housing in Canada and meet the needs of the Canadian population and, thus establish an interest rate which should never be over 5 per cent.
When the interest rate will be reduced to 5 per cent, we will be able to set aside all the so-called low-cost housing programs and help those who want to own their houses in the short or long term. The ordinary citizen will then be in a position to buy his own house and to meet his obligations whereas today we are taking all the money out of his pockets because he has to pay income taxes to fatten the finance companies. At the present time, under the excuse of wanting to help the citizens buy low-cost housing, we help the finance companies make millions of dollars, we encourage them, we fatten them. We

November 18, 1976
Housing
want to help the poor and at the same time we fatten the finance companies.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, we can help the poor without destroying anything. Consequently, we should liberate ourselves from the finance companies in Canada. As far as I know, Canada is a soverign country. Canada has the powers to make laws in the field of finance. The government is not just a municipal council or a town council whose only power is to collect taxes. We have a financial power that no municipality, no provincial government has but we do not use this power.
Mr. Speaker, housing is extremely important both for the individuals and for the country. It is important to make sure that Canadians can afford to pay their own houses without asking for federal help. The federal government has only to leave the responsibility with the poor, the small owners. But, in the field of finance, the federal government should let the poor meet his own obligations instead of taking all the money out of his pockets.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion introduced by my party today regarding urban and rural native housing and to add my commendations to those expressed with respect to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) who proposed it. It is very topical in view of the present conditions in Canada.
I enter the debate to bring to the attention of the House, the minister and the government, the lack of realization of what one of the programs for rural and native housing can do for Canadians. I refer to the "Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program". The motion before the House reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's policies with respect to urban and rural native housing are totally inadequate.
In spite of that wording, Mr. Speaker, and with due respect to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, I would remind hon. members that the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is a good one. As a matter of fact it is one of the best ever produced in recent years. It can fulfil the needs of the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who fall into a category where, although they own their own homes, they cannot, because of low income, maintain or improve them. The only problem is that in the three years of the program there has been little or no money to provide the help that the program suggests.
I think it is worth mentioning something that the former minister of urban affairs, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), said in 1974. He said he was happy to report to the House that we are one of the best housed peoples in the world and that we are also a rich and successful society-which everybody knows. He indicated that in that society, in the rural and isolated areas we have some of the worst housing of any people of the world, much of it inhabited by people of native origin. He said that the proposal the government had made to the native organizations would, in his view, promote

major replacement of that housing but it would require an immense amount of work by the federal and provincial governments and the native organizations. He added that he hoped all three groups were ready to begin implementing the proposals immediately.
To implement programs and proposals requires money, Mr. Speaker. Since the program was introduced in 1973, my province received $600,000 last year and $700,000 this year.
The RRAP program came into effect in 1973 with the following criteria: those citizens earning an income of $6,000 or less could apply for a loan of up to $5,000 either under private home ownership or as a landlord, and could receive a grant of $2,500 to provide insulation, adequate heating or electrical maintenance, to improve appearance on the condition that the improvements would remain sound for another 15 years.
Since the little money invested in the program would be of such help to Canadians, this year the minister decided to increase the loans to $10,000, with a forgiveness factor of $3,750. This change, announced by the former minister, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), was even better and more commendable because the increase in the loans and grants neutralized the inflation factors that affected the increase in the cost of materials required to carry out the repairs.
The government even went so far as to prepare, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a fancy pamphlet requesting and even begging Canadians to apply for such loans and grants. The pamphlet is called, "Fix up your home with federal government money" and has a fancy caption which says, "Here's how to go about getting a free grant and/or low interest loan". Let me review this beautiful yellow pamphlet, Mr. Speaker. It is even more beautiful than the one produced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), the "Fix it kit". The back page asks the following questions:
How would you like to get some of those major repairs done on your house straight away?
Maybe you can with some financial help from the federal government. And it may not cost you a penny!
Fixing up your house is more than just making it look nice. Depending on what kind of repairs are done, your family will be more comfortable, their health will be protected, the children will play more safely and everyday living will become more convenient, more pleasant. On top of all this, you will be protecting your investment in your property... at little or no cost to yourself. This is too good an opportunity to let slip by, so find out all about this home repair program and what it can do for you.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, all we received in three years in Newfoundland was a little over $1 million, and many hundreds of people on low incomes cannot afford to carry out repairs.
The political gimmickry continues in the pamphlet when they describe some of the repairs the money can be used for. They list many features: repairs to walls and roof; provide storm windows and/or screens; siding, stairs and steps; fences and walkways; plumbing; insulation; heating system; wall finishes inside and out; floor joists; electrical wiring; founda-
November 18, 1976

tion and basement, and floor finish. They offer these wonderful things, Mr. Speaker, but where is the money?
Let us review more of the wonderful advantages of this RRAP program. Another section reads:
It's true. Up to $10,000 for home repairs.
The government wants to help you repair your house and will advance you up to $10,000 if there's that much work to be done. Up to $3,750 can be yours free. The balance can be a low-interest loan.
Later it reads:
We'll split the repair costs with you.
The purpose of this federal government repair program is to make sure that your home, given normal care and maintenance, will remain in sound condition for at least another 15 years.
And later, it goes on:
Total repair costs will be split between the government and you. Our part is a grant. Your part can be a low-interest loan.
The pamphlet goes on to say that if the grant of $3,750 covers the total cost of repairs, the owner will not have to pay anything back. In other words, if the need for financial assistance is within the $3,750 grant figure, then you get the repairs free. That is wonderful. Even if the amount required is beyond the grant figure you are given the advantage of adjusting payments to family income-to subtract $300 for each dependent child, as well as family allowance, and another $1,000 for both parents.
Let us look at the grants, Mr. Speaker. In this regard we should accept the scale that is reasonable. As I indicated earlier, they apply to minimum benefits to those earning $6,000 or less who qualify for the maximum which is reduced by $750 for each $1,000 over $6,000 until the earned income reaches $ 11,000. Even if you earn over the $ 11,000 income you can borrow at the basic RRAP rate adjusted at 8 per cent.
The program also applies to landlords where, regardless of their income, they can qualify to bring inadequate apartments up to reasonable standards. The pamphlet suggests that tenants bring the program to the attention of their landlords.
I remind hon. members of the detail of the program because I feel, as a result of the needs in my province, that this RRAP program would be of great benefit to it. But I must ask what has happened since it was initiated, Mr. Speaker? Not too much, as far as Newfoundland is concerned. In 1974-75 a mere $600,000 was allocated, and in this year 1976-77 another $700,000-just enough to tease the province into entering into an agreement to extract as much money as possible to fulfil the needs of a portion of its citizens.
Let us look at the facts relating to my own province. First of all what is not said or related in this fancy pamphlet is what are the qualifying conditions which apply to provinces. And what is typical of this federal government's huckster-like tactics is that the areas in Canada which qualify under RRAP have to be designated by the province. One of the bugbears over the years since the program was implemented has been the fact that these moneys are restricted. I have the figures before me, Mr. Speaker. In 1974-75 for all Canada over $1.5
Housing
million was allocated. In 1975-76 the size of this item was multiplied by 12 but it is still not enough.
Let me emphasize another factor showing this government's lack of common sense. The federal government keeps preaching and spending millions of dollars on conservation of energy. It pleads with us to conserve oil, but it will not invest enough funds in order to assist the many thousands of Canadians who can use the help and who, by carrying out repairs to their own homes, could save themselves millions of dollars in heating oil costs. The fact is, it is becoming more expensive to heat a home and pretty soon it will be beyond the capability of the low income earner. In the three years since the program was begun, $13.6 million has been allocated for RRAP.
Let us look at the relief which could be given to many thousands of our low income citizens, Mr. Speaker. In Canada there are one million homes which were built before 1920, and another million built between 1921 and 1945, which means that there are over two million homes between 30 and 50 years old. One can just imagine how many of these need repair, how many of them are not properly insulated and what great quantities of oil are wasted, even though the government preaches conservation. Many of these older homes are privately owned by low income Canadians.
Let us look further at the facts. Statistics for Canada indicate that 898,000 Canadians earn under $3,000 a year, 729,000 between $3,000 and $5,000 a year, and 830,000 between $5,000 and $7,000 a year. How can such people afford to maintain their homes if they cannot even get enough to eat from the incomes they earn? How can they afford to do those repairs which will conserve energy?
There are more statistics available from that front page attention-getter, Statistics Canada. Figures relating to occupied dwellings in 1971 show that over one million homes were heated by space heaters or some such method of heating. How can people who can only afford such heating take advantage of the words in the fancy RRAP pamphlet I mentioned previously? Mr. Speaker, in the province of Newfoundland alone 55,000 homes unfortunately fall into this category. In rural Newfoundland some 33,000 homes fall in this category. They are using heating equipment which is not satisfactory.
According to another statistic, Mr. Speaker, in our great and prosperous nation where everyone deserves a decent home, almost a quarter of a million homes have no installed bath or shower and another quarter of a million are without any running water at all. In the province of Newfoundland I am sorry to relate almost 30 per cent of homes fall into this category. A study prepared by the province of Newfoundland indicates that although the majority of Newfoundlanders in small, rural communities own their own homes, many of these are old homes built in accordance with the standards of the time. A great number of these homes are 30 years old, and even 50 years old and more. They were built without many of the facilities which today are taken for granted. For example, a high percentage of these homes are without water piped inside, inside toilets, baths or showers, central heating and, indeed, either without insulation or with very little.

November 18, 1976
Housing
The provincial planning task forte on housing in Newfoundland notes that with respect to facilities the housing stock of the province lags well behind that of the other provinces of Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Many of these homes today are owned by low income and welfare families who do not have the financial resources needed to make these kinds of improvements and generally upgrade their homes to minimum standards of health, safety and comfort. They cannot do what the fancy pamphlet to which I earlier referred tells Canadians to do.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and the department of social services have for the past several months been working together to investigate the housing problems of welfare recipients, with the intent of recommending new policies and programs to improve the generally poor and substandard housing conditions that a large percentage of welfare families are presently experiencing. The first phase of this joint effort revolved around planning with respect to a proposal to place a number of mobile type housing units for welfare families in small communities throughout the province.
A pilot survey of the housing conditions of a select group of welfare recipients, the severely physically and mentally incapacitated living in small rural communities, who would be in receipt of social assistance indefinitely, was undertaken. The result of this investigation was most revealing. Of the 101 families on which information was gathered, it was found that 69 families are presently living in their own homes, while only 32 families are renting. These families were located in most every region of the province and in communities as small as 78 people, and with one or two exceptions, no larger than 1,000 people. The condition of the houses these families are living in is unquestionably poor and in many cases substandard. Most of the houses are fairly old and far from wind and waterproof. Many of the complaints concerned leaking roofs, no insulation, rotting and poor fitting window boxes and doors, rotting clapboard, sagging and uneven floors, and cracking and rotting foundations. In a number of cases it was reported that in winter time ice forms on the inside walls and floors and that furniture and bedding are being ruined by rain and dampness. Twenty of the 101 families have no toilet facilities of any kind, and 44 families have no running water. Mr. Speaker, this is but one small example. You can multiply it thousands of times across this great country. I therefore wish to point out, what a grant of $3,750 under RRAP could do for those citizens.
I emphasize my next point. Since these people must rely on the government to provide them with oil for heating their homes, how can they conserve oil when they do not have enough money to buy food to eat, let alone enough to make their homes reasonably adequate? They do not have the ability to upgrade their homes so that they meet conditions which are appropriate for all Canadians. It must be a source of wonder to many why the government's lack of common sense and hypocritical reasoning would allow these situations to continue.
In this connection I think it worth while pointing out that provincial and federal governments provide on a 50-50 basis

the cost of housing or rental accommodation for welfare recipients; yet these governments are willing to turn a blind eye to conditions in which such welfare recipients must live and allow them to live in substandard homes when, with the provision of a RRAP grant, they could invest in the repairs allowed under the program and thus save millions of dollars over the long term. It must be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the governments are being penny wise and pound foolish.
Even though some might argue about the need to restrain spending, it must be evident that a reasonable investment in the repair of homes for rural and native peoples would in the long run realize a saving in government spending. Surely hon. members realize that if we provide for repairs to hundreds of thousands of our home occupiers who require such repairs we should relieve substantially the demand for housing, housing which we are evidently having difficulty providing under present circumstances. In the three years since the RRAP program was initiated for rural and native housing all we have seen across Canada is a band-aid stop-gap approach which satisfies but few of our needy citizens.
Let me return to the provincial department of social services. That department currently provides a home repair program for welfare recipients owning their own homes. The program is limited to making houses wind and watertight only. A total of $2,400 may be spent in any one year on one house without Treasury Board approval. For the fiscal year 1973-74, a total of $914,507 was spent on home repairs by the department, yet the federal government only contributes $600,000 or $700,000 a year to its home repair program. The need for a home repair program is evident when it is realized that the province of Newfoundland claims more dollars under the Canada Assistance Plan for house repairs than all other provinces combined. May I refer also to the fact that in the province of Newfoundland a good many of our native peoples are war veterans. I would like to refer to that for a moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard one of the best speeches made today. I congratulate the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for really sticking to the subject and bringing up something which is close to my heart and close to many people who are interested in saves. This country has to realize that a save actually is a start.
With rehab housing such as he has been talking about, and he has been talking about the RRAP program, I have to admit with him that definitely we have a good program, a darn good
November 18, 1976

program, one which we must admit has only been recently put on the market. As for rural and native RRAP, 1 must admit we have only two years experience. We evidently have had problems of delivery.
The program centres around a delivery system which is basically a federal-municipal oriented system. We have had some delivery problems with the RRAP program. We now realize that with the structures in place, the municipalities are more and more able to deliver this program and, of course, to cope with the existing needs which call for special attention.
I want to thank the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe for bringing this up in this debate. I thank him also for his support. He knows at this time we are looking for more funds. The program we had in 1975 was budgeted at $12 million. We are hoping for a 50 per cent increase next year. With his support, I hope we will get it.
Although I would love to speak more on this RRAP program 1 must address myself to some of the comments made in the House today. 1 will deal briefly with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). 1 must say that I am speaking personally and in no way making a statement for the government.
The question raised by the hon. member in his amendment is a touchy one. It raises an issue which 1 am totally incompetent to deal with, except to tell him that in my view it is strictly within the authority of CMHC management to decide or not to decide to rehire Mr. Rudnicki. The minister has no authority to hire or fire. We should be very careful about interfering with employer-employee relations. We should also be very careful about entertaining any move that would usurp the prerogative of management.
Even if it were within the minister's authority, I am sure he would not use it because there is a long standing tradition that the management of corporations is the responsibility of the administrators.
The record of CMHC in the matter of rural and native housing indicates that this rural and native housing program has been successfully implemented. The hon. member talked about 3,000 starts in 1975, 6,000 starts in 1976, and 9,000 projected for next year. That in itself is progress.


John Gilbert: That is very slow progress.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is slow. It is slower than some of us would wish; I agree. However, we do not intend to push inadequate housing. We cannot move faster than the native people themselves are ready or able to move.
The hon. member for Broadview called this a peanut approach. Does he want us to go to an elephant approach, to impose from on high unsuitable housing on people who have particular needs, cultural and economic? I do not think he would want to put that forth.


John Gilbert: That is not what the leader says.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is my next point. The leaders of the native people in consultation with government at
Housing
all levels, be they local, regional or national, even up to the president of CMHC, meet with these people regularly every month. They consult continuously to assess, study and dialogue with them on their needs. However, I repeat to the hon. member we do not intend to go faster than they want to go. That is the problem and he knows it.
We are committed to consultation. Admittedly consultation can sometimes be a slow, long and difficult process. As I said, we are in this continuous consultation with the regional, provincial and national associations. We are meeting with these people. I can attest to that personally.
I worked for the former minister of state for urban affairs, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). I attended many of these meetings. I can attest that we did take an active interest. The minister met with them regularly. I am sure the present minister will continue that ongoing process of consultation. Opposition members have said that consultation is not going on. I beg to differ. It is an ongoing process. It is only political persiflage to say otherwise.


Donald W. Munro: That is not the story I get.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am giving you the story from this end. These consultations are very important. The meetings that are taking place are productive. We have to recognize the reluctance of native people to accept the conditions of existing NHA programs, conditions that other low income groups accept and benefit from. We have to accept that with some of these programs the delivery system or make-up is not properly understood. However, I am confident that it is through this continual consultation process that we will succeed within our present NHA programs to build and rehabilitate housing for rural Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to deal with another aspect of the rural and native housing program that is certainly less publicized, and maybe not as well understood either. The rural and native housing program is primarily a means of providing decent housing, but is also much more than that.
If our only concern was to produce housing, I dare say I would have much more impressive figures to refer to now. We know how to go about building houses in this country, we consistently over shoot the objectives proposed by the Economic Council of Canada and other groups. If our only objective was to produce housing, we could very rapidly use prefabricated bungalows in every rural area of Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, such is not the problem, and such is not our responsibility. If that were our perception of our role, I believe I would be now rising in another kind of debate. We would be accused, and rightly so, of being colonialists and paternalists, of treating native people as children, and ignoring their cultural traditions. Such are exactly the errors we have been trying to avoid, and quite frankly at the expense of making our task much more difficult and time-consuming.

November 18, 1976
Housing
Because we have been trying to administer the program within the context of total respect for the dignity and self-confidence of the people involved. The thrust of the program indeed is not only to provide housing. It aims at reaching much vaster socio-economic aims.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe I can say that the rural and native housing program is one of the most promising and innovative, allowing as it does communities to help themselves develop. It is impossible to find anything similar anywhere in the world today.
It has been developed over several years, in close co-operation with the people concerned, especially the native people who, for a number of reasons, are removed from the main sources of social and economic life in Canada.
The final product may be a house, but the process starts long before its final realization. In many cases, before the program can be launched, we must start by helping to organize, promote and even support an association within a community, so that it will assume the responsibility for assessing and solving its own housing problems. From then on, the people of such a community are involved as directly as possible in the decision-making process as to the number of houses needed, the number of houses to be repaired, the families which will get them first and the houses which should be repaired first.
One of the basic principles of the program is to involve as much as possible the rural population in the construction of their own houses and have them devote their energies and their time to such projects. If they do not have the necessary skills or know-how, we try as much as possible to give them the necessary training. This training is not restricted to the construction trades. They are taught to acquire leadership, to show others to help themselves, to develop plans and to manage their own programs.
Many of them often leave a substandard home to move into a well-appointed house. They get instruction and advice, if necessary, on the way to run a house. Some pay a rent or make monthly payments for the first time in their life.
We can help them manage their funds. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a family which lives in a decent home, probably for the first time. These people have now the opportunity to develop and live in good health. Children find a comfortable environment to read, play and do their school work. There is enough room to ensure a certain privacy and preserve personal dignity. And I would even say, Mr. Speaker, that those are housing units that the people like, which meet their needs, their expectations and cultural traditions. It is not often a bungalow as we see them in our suburbs. As a matter of fact, a large number of log cabins have been built under this program but they are houses which meet the minimum safety and health standards and often exceed them.
In places where the rural and native people program is working well, Mr. Speaker, much more is to be said. A collectivity after organizing itself to meet its housing needs, can concern itself with some other needs. Having learned to work together, those people can take care of other things, for

instance establish medical services, build a skating rink or a recreation centre, a library, organize spare-time activities, or whatever services the community may need, according to its own decisions.
The support and financial assistance we will grant under this program also helps create a population of highly skilled young people, for instance in the fields of administration and planning. Those people who have already learned a trade when working on their own houses discover that they have other skills which they can use, other means of earning their living in addition to fishing, trapping and timber cutting.
Throughout the country, Mr. Speaker, at the national, provincial and municipal levels, well organized native associations grouped under the direction of a well informed leader have come to light during the last decade. Most of these groups first paid particular attention to housing problems and were sponsored and encouraged through a federal financial assistance scheme available to them under the National Housing Act.
I could say, Mr. Speaker, that the result obtained by the rural and native housing program is clear: some 10,000 units have been built. I would add that it is an extremely fine achievement. If I added that our specific aim was to build 50,000 units, it would also be true and 1 am confident that we will reach it.
However I would like all Canadians to understand that the long term advantages of the program cannot be viewed only in the light of the number of units built.
We will reach the figures stated, but we will do much more. By purchasing, building and repairing 50,000 units, we will help rehabilitate an entire population, most of whom the descendants of the first dwellers in our country. We will help them find satisfactory housing and also regain a new feeling of self-confidence, new pride, new skills which will enable them to meet the needs of their family, to thrive and attain their aims.
When I say that we will reach such ambitious goals, Mr. Speaker, I am not referring merely to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the federal government. We will not be able to achieve these goals without the co-operation and the involvement of other levels of government, provincial as well as regional. However, what is more important, what is absolutely critical is the fact that the involvement of rural and native people, individually and collectively through provincial and national associations, help us attain these objectives.
A program whose success depends on so many persons and institutions is bound to come up against difficulties likely to delay our activities. It is to be expected, Mr. Speaker. But on the whole, I believe we have not had to face too many quarrels and squabbles. This is a testing period as far as this program is concerned, and misunderstandings may occur.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, in accordance with Standing Order 58(11), proceedings related to this motion have now expired.
November 18, 1976



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 and again on November 16 I raised the question of the injustice done by the Canadian Pension Commission in cutting back the disability pension of ex-RCMP Constable Eugene Hale. Hale is not only disabled by multiple sclerosis but suffers frustration and worry over finances because he is trapped in the web of bureaucratic regulations-that section, sub-section, sub-sub-section syndrome of bureaucracy and legal gobbledygook. These regulations lack logic, common sense, and are unjust and cruel. Furthermore, they are wasteful not only of the few last moments of joy in the limited life of Eugene Hale but also of taxpayers' dollars.
On November 3 Hale was receiving full disability pension because he was in a hospital bed. The next day, because he changed beds-went into home care-his pension was cut by 80 per cent. He moved out of Vancouver's Shaughnessy Hospital to live out his last days of life surrounded by family and friends in Rossburn, Manitoba; his wife, Nadya, a practical nurse, caring for him, saving tens of thousands of dollars in hospital costs.
Eugene Hale is no less disabled today, nor on November 4, than he was on November 3. Hale served on the force from November 27, 1951, until invalided on February 22, 1962. He was discharged from the service as medically unsuitable and given a small service pension, a 20 per cent disability pension, and an attendance allowance.
Although multiple sclerosis is a disease of unknown cause, there is speculation that Hale's service in the north might have contributed to it. It is known that it strikes young people and that it is fatal. Thus young families are ensnared in the tragedy of this disease along with the stricken parent and spouse. At least four RCMP officers-young men-are disabled by it now and are known to be travelling along the same twisting bureaucratic road Hale has gone.
Another western case is that of Garth Hope, Westbank, B.C., father of a young family. I do not know the case well but I hope that the solution in the Hale case will prevent him and others from suffering the insensitive regulations that the Hales have endured.
The confusions are innumerable and could be simplified if the layers of lawyers in each government department were not busy justifying their existence in the backrooms of parliament. Is is as though the taxpayer and citizen is only living to support the legal structure and legal hierarchy of Canada.
Adjournment Debate
In the case of Eugene Hale the situation is ludicrous. On July 25, 1975, Harry Kryhul, a Vancouver RCMP staff relations representative, informed me of the tragic story of Eugene Hale. That was the first I had heard of it. Then, as now, Hale was totally bedridden, requiring tubes to support his body waste functions. The pension board rated this at only 20 per cent disability. Is that not remarkable, Mr. Speaker?
As soon as I received the letter, I contacted the former solicitor general and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Ray Perrault, who has been my mentor and who for years fought to correct injustice. As a result, on January 30, 1976, good news arrived. The disability status of Eugene was reclassified from 20 per cent to 100 per cent, retroactive to April 1, 1969. A cheque for $22,844 covered the six year retroactive period. It was joyful news. Hale could die in peace knowing he left a nest egg to his devoted Nadya, so that they could build a home. In fact they did start to build a home. Also his disability pension was adjusted from 20 per cent to 100 per cent that is, from $115 a month to $575. This meant that Nadya could stop work to care for her husband at home. As of November 3 his pension was raised to $640 a month.
On November 4 the Hales went home to Rossburn. The joy of reunion with the family and friends was marred, though, by worry about finances. The pension was cut back to 20 per cent, or $125 a month. Pension board chairman, A. O. Solomon, will tell us that Hale can appeal the decision, but why should the Hales be put through added stress and worry in a new fight for the 100 per cent pension that obviously his condition commanded as of November 3, or on January 30 when he was classified as 100 per cent disabled? Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay the unnecessary $36,000 a year hospital costs?
Corporal J. F. Hardy, staff relations officer, wrote on Hale's behalf: "Where is the sense in reducing the pension if Hale leaves the hospital, in view of the obvious saving in hospital care costs?" I ask that question too, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister or the pension board consider that they are serving Eugene Hale and the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers by keeping him in hospital at the rate of $3,000 a month, based on an estimate of $100 a day B. C. hospital rates? Will the minister move to change regulations so that Eugene Hale and other RCMP officers in like position will never again be further harmed by the pain of injustice on top of their suffering with multiple sclerosis? They have served our country and they deserve much, much more.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the hon. member raised the question and the minister answered the other day. I agree that this is a most important but unfortunate case to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has just referred, one that presents a number of difficulties. There are as the circumstances which I will describe will indicate, several ministers responsible for the determination of benefits payable to Mr. Hale under the RCMP Superannuation Act.

November 18, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Briefly, Mr. Hale is entitled to two main types of benefits under the RCMP Superannuation Act. One is his basic disability pension payable under that act which is related to salary and service. Other benefits are determined under the Pension Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs treatment regulations as if Mr. Hale were a veteran with disabilities attributable to military service.
It is my understanding that with Mr. Hale's release from the hospital on November 4, 1976, came the suspension of a portion of these other benefits. He is still, however, in receipt of certain basic benefits, and further, he will be entitled to a substantial increase in the attendance allowance which has been payable to him throughout his hospitalization and which will of necessity have to be increased by virtue of the care he will require at home.
The Canadian Pension Commission is presently examining Mr. Hale's situation and assessing the grade of attendance allowances under the Pension Act which would be payable to Mr. Hale under the RCMP Superannuation Act. Under these circumstances the minister will be in a position to reply fully on this matter within the next few days when all the departments together have assessed the situation fully, and I hope the answer which will be arrived at will satisfy the concern expressed by the hon. member this evening.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN LOCATION OF AIRBORNE REGIMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this evening because of the non-answer I received from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) to my question which is reported in Hansard for November 8, 1976, at page 835. My question had to do with the alleged reorganization of the Canadian Airborne Regiment now located in Edmonton, Alberta, and its proposed move to several separate locations in eastern Canada.
The reports from the media indicate that the future goal of reorganization and relocation of the Canadian Airborne Regiment remains uncertain, and it is also reported that a specific recommendation has been made by the Department of National Defence to the cabinet.
The implication of any major reorganization or relocation of the Canadian Airborne Regiment creates many significant implications, the most important of which are as follows: operational effectiveness, morale, training problems, relocation costs, and economic impact. Let us look at these items individually.
The Canadian Airborne Regiment as currently organized is a balanced combat-capable force comprising a balance of arms and services which are trained in parachute and air mobile operation giving the regiment a quick capability to reach any threatened area of the Canadian Arctic or any other location where its operational capability may be required. The Canadian Airborne Regiment parachute capability enables the regiment to be employed operationally in the Arctic without reliance on over-land or over-sea lines of communication. This

unique capability is the primary justification for the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
With regard to morale, constant uncertainty surrounding the future of the Canadian Airborne Regiment which has resulted from media leaks during the past year and a half has created and continues to create serious morale and motivation problems in the regiment. Because of its uncertain future it also appears that postings to the regiment have been restricted. Therefore the force has become seriously under strength. This combination of factors, in light of its previous top priority 100 per cent manning rationale, has seriously upset all ranks of the regiment at Edmonton.
With regard to training, since World War II, over 30 years ago, it has been the aim of military planners to concentrate all the components of an airborne force into a single location for the most economical, effective, and responsible training. These components include Canadian Airborne Regiment Hercules transport aircraft, an airborne training centre and a parachute packing and maintenance depot. After many studies and a great deal of analysis it was finally agreed in 1967 to concentrate all airborne elements at a single location in Edmonton. It is therefore only in the last few years that an effective training program has been achieved in Canada. To plan to dismember this Canadian airborne regiment concentration would appear to be foolhardy and expensive.
With respect to relocation costs, the present location in Edmonton includes a complete range of satisfactory hangars, training buildings, class rooms, offices, etc. for a complete airborne force. To move out of these highly satisfactory buildings and relocate elsewhere will undoubtedly involve enormous costs, probably exceeding $20 million. It must be borne in mind that to replace the current ideal situation would also require a comparable air base facility with runways, 24-hour flying capability, hangars, maintenance facilities and so forth.
Not only are the relocation costs in dollars but also in hardships for individuals who must buy new homes and place children in new schools, and for the working members of families to find new jobs if this is possible in a new location.
The CAR is the third largest employer of personnel in the city of Edmonton and the consequent loss of this very large and influential consumer force will cause serious distress to many merchants and businessmen in the Edmonton communities affected. To date there has been no satisfactory explanation, or indeed any explanation, given to explain the rationale behind the alleged proposal to re-organize and relocate the Canadian Airborne Regiment to some unknown destination in eastern Canada. It is only by a full and honest exposure of the reasons put forward by the department for such a move that an intelligent analysis and criticism of the implications can be made, and the answers better damn well be forthcoming.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's threat as being a figurative one. In the first place he
November 18, 1976

refers to a non-answer he got from the minister. I do not see how anyone could term the minister's answer a non-answer. I shall quote briefly from it. He said:
I have not made a decision so far. I realize the uncertainty. All options are open and I want to remove that uncertainty as soon as possible. I do not want to shoot from the hip because 1 know many people arc concerned about the move.
That is about as precise as one can be. Certainly had the minister, within a few hours of taking on his duties, stood up in this House and given a yes or no answer to that question he would have been criticized for not knowing the full ramifications of the decision. There was no way he could have made a decision in such a short period of time.
As I said this afternoon during the question period, the minister had to represent the government and the Department of National Defence this week at the Nuclear Planning Group meeting in London. I assure the hon. member that as soon as he returns the force's structure review or the base rationalization review, whatever one may call it, will be top priority with the minister and the decision will soon be forthcoming. 1 might state, however, in closing that the minister and the department are well aware of the hon. member's concerns but before any such decision can be made all the ramifications of the decision must be studied in order that a rational decision can be made. It is for that reason the minister is taking a couple of weeks to look at the situation before coming to a final decision.


ENERGY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH URANIUM REFINERY IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I again raise the question of the possible establishment of a uranium refinery in the province of Saskatchewan. I may appear to be persistent in respect to this particular inquiry. Quite frankly the reason is that I have not received what I consider to be a reasonable answer. The parliamentary secretary is here and I am most concerned about obtaining this information because I do not want anyone to accuse either the minister or his parliamentary secretary of misleading the people of Saskatchewan. It is in this frame of mind that I raise the question again tonight. I know the parliamentary secretary would not want to be accused of misleading the people of Saskatchewan.
The fact of the matter is that when 1 asked the question on a previous occasion, as I did on November 16 during the question period, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) indicated that he was not prepared to reveal any information with regard to the establishment of this refinery near Saskatoon, or in any other part of Saskatchewan. Rather than reveal the nature of any agreement between the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan on this matter he keeps referring to Eldorado's press release relating to the establishment of a refinery.
It is fine for the minister to answer that way, but the press release does not give us any information about the plans of Eldorado about which I have been asking, time and time again. I say to the minister now that if he persists in this some people-not myself-will accuse him and his parliamentary
Adjournment Debate
secretary of misleading the people of Saskatchewan. If the parliamentary secretary does not want to be accused of misleading the people he should let us know details of the plans the government has in this area.
Let me read from the press release where the minister and the parliamentary secretary indicate they are giving full details of their plans in Saskatchewan. This is a four-page release dated July 21, and one paragraph referring to a refinery reads as follows:
A probable outlay of $50 million or more on a new uranium refinery. Eldorado now is actively considering a number of potential sites for a refinery that would employ 150, and begin production in the early 1980's. Detailed planning of this chemical plant awaits economic, engineering and environmental studies now in progress.
Another press release stated that a decision respecting the selection of a site would be made in a matter of weeks. Months have gone by, Mr. Speaker, and I have been unable to obtain any indication from the government of the sites being considered other than the one near Saskatoon. I have not been able to get any details of environmental studies carried out near Saskatoon or other areas, either. I say that in this case there is the appearance of a conspiracy of silence between the federal government, and the provincial government of Saskatchewan. The provincial government came under the most severe censure from its party membership at a provincial convention last week-end when its policy with respect to the establishment of the refinery was called into question.
I again ask the parliamentary secretary not to leave the impression that he or the minister is attempting to avoid answering this question. I ask him, in the spirit indicated in the Speech from the Throne of a new government approach of openness, to please give the details. We were led to believe that there would be full information available on government activities and that we would have participatory democracy.
In this situation it is most important that the people of the area have full opportunity to examine the facts and the alternatives, including the environmental studies, so that they can reach a meaningful decision based on facts rather than be apprehensive due to the silence of the government. I am receiving many inquiries on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I do not raise this from any selfish motive but because my constituents and the people of Saskatchewan would like to know what the government has in mind. I intend to continue raising this matter until such time as we get the answers.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if it is true indeed that the hon. member has already raised this question, and an attempt was made last November 8 to answer it, I hope that this time Hansard will report more information than it did on November 8 when only part of my reply was included in the official report. However I had hoped that 1 had succeeded in dispelling the anxiety of the hon. member and reassure him as he seems very concerned over the province of Saskatchewan.
1178

November 18, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member suggested that perhaps the minister or the parliamentary secretary has been deceiving the population of Saskatchewan. I do not know about that; I have not been accused of that by others. The hon. member has so accused me, but I have not been accused by the people of Saskatchewan, as he has been. I am thinking, for instance, of the position of Mr. Messer. I wish that I did not have to repeat what I said previously. I said on November 8 that Jack Messer, the provincial minister of natural resources, said that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was trying to mislead the people of Saskatchewan and create a commotion over this matter.
I refer again to the press release issued on October 14 by Eldorado Nuclear Limited. Again I am forced to read some parts of the press release. It says on the first page:
Gordon Burton, director of corporate affairs for the company, said the purpose of the options is to allow Eldorado Nuclear to conduct detailed environmental and engineering studies of the site to determine whether it would be suitable for a refinery.
Let us not jump to conclusions. It seems that a decision has not been reached. I continue quoting from page 1 of the press release:
'It is emphasized that the company has not yet made a decision to proceed,' Mr. Burton said. This decision is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is the assurance of a supply of concentrates from proposed new mines in the northern part of the province.'


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What other sites are you looking at?


Maurice Dupras: I will return to that. According to the press release, plans have been announced for a new refinery in Ontario to begin production by 1980. If the hon. member had
read page 2 of the press release issued on October 14 he would have discovered that other sites were considered.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What are the other sites?


Maurice Dupras: I will pursue the matter for the hon. member's benefit, if he will allow me to do so. I shall try to enlarge the hon. member's knowledge of the subject.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That will be a first.


Maurice Dupras: According to page 2 of the press release:
Mr. Burton, who recently opened a new Eldorado office in Saskatoon, said arrangements now are being made for detailed studies of how such a refinery would impinge on the natural environment of the Warman site. These studies will take approximately a year.
Does the hon. member want the results now? The studies have only just begun, and they will take one year.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It has been going on for two years.


Maurice Dupras: Perhaps the hon. member knows something 1 do not know. I continue quoting:
At the same time, the company will be examining thoroughly the economic and engineering possibilities for such a plant.
The environmental studies as well as a large amount of other data will-if they support a decision to proceed-be made public before any construction begins.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Burton went on to say that the environmental impact statement is subject-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, November 19, 1976