1977-12-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the Auditor General's condemnation of the financial documentation procedures of the Canada Council and the revelations that the Canada Council is supporting, with public money, individuals to write what anyone in this chamber would term as offensive and demeaning pornography, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Secretary of State request the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to completely review the Canada Council's mandate, accountability, financial procedures, performance to date and that this same committee then issue a report of recommendations that will assure Canada Council accountability to the minister and to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact the Montreal Gazette has quoted the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) as saying "I have told the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that in the next cabinet shuffle I would like to become Minister without Portfolio", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House supports the request of the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: The Liberal party must have had a Christmas party last night or something.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: What did you have, a New Year's party?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. The Auditor General's report points out that confidential data stored electronically in computers is yet another instance where the government has been totally lax in fulfilling its responsibility to protect the security of these confidential data. Given the seriousness of this problem, can the minister tell the House what special measures, if any, are being taken by the government to ensure that private and confidential data will no longer be within the easy reach of those who might profit or misuse such data.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. member and other hon. members the seriousness of the necessity for utmost confidentiality. I disagree with some of the adjectives he has used which overstate the case with regard to access to confidential records on computers. Nevertheless, we are concerned about them. We join the Auditor General in his efforts to identify areas where more security and more effective and efficient methods of using computer techniques and computer instruments is going to be forthcoming. Indeed, much of that work is underway now throughout the various departments. We use a great quantity of computer techniques throughout the government as does any large institution today. It is still an imperfect art or science, whichever you want to call it. There is still much to be done.


Harvie Andre: The Auditor General's report states that the RCMP upon request conducted a number of security reviews of outside service bureaux which process government data.

December 2, 1977
Oral Questions
While none of the outside service bureaux so reviewed have been cleared by the RCMP to process such data, the Auditor General points out there are a number of instances where private and confidential data have been processed by these bureaux which have not been cleared in terms of handling highly confidential data. How long has this been going on and what types of confidential and classified data have been handled by these outside bureaux which have not been cleared by the RCMP?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 would not be able to give the hon. member on this occasion such detail as he is requesting. All these measures are being brought to our attention. Indeed, effective correctional measures are being taken in almost every case. There will be the odd one that the Auditor General has developed in his report which may be fresh to us and which we will act on as quickly as possible.


INCOME TAX
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Has National Revenue contracted with or have any of these outside service bureaux which have not received RCMP security clearance been used to handle or process income tax data?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say I certainly appreciate the comments of the Auditor General because everything he said pertaining to my department has already been rectified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am pleased indeed that he brought these matters to our attention. With regard to the other point concerning the use of computer services, yes, we do make use of computer service: there is one firm in Ottawa with whom we have an arrangement and I would point out that when we turn the material into the computer there are no names or social insurance numbers attached; the material is coded and we have a man there at all times who is the only person who can decode it if and when we need him to do so. So there is no problem there. Everything is in good hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT WITH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON LEAKS OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Two days ago the minister told the House
[Mr. Andre.J
that after two weeks of intensive investigation into the leaks from his department of personal and confidential information relating to individual taxpayers the only cases he has been able to turn up where this has happened were the four cases reported two weeks ago by Charles Templeton and Pierre Berton. In view of the fact that there have been a number of radio interviews with chartered accountants from various parts of the country indicating that his department for years has given out personal and confidential information over the telephone, why did those engaged in his investigation not consult with those accountants to determine how extensive this practice has been and whether or not the privacy of individual taxpayers has been violated?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member keeps getting up and repeating the same thing at all times. I should like to repeat to him again-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -that one of the reasons I am not giving a report pertaining to the RCMP is that I do not wish to interfere with the investigation which is taking place and spoil it-that is about the size of it; that is what members over there would like to see happen. If hon. members opposite have any names, anything specific to give me so that I can investigate those cases, I can guarantee that I will make the inquiries. It is all right for you and your group on the other side to make all kinds of allegations. There is nothing in them-


Mr. Clark:: The IQ of a rock!


REASON FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS THEY OBTAINED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: hope the minister will try to keep himself under control. We can accept on this side of the House that the minister needs all the help he can get and we are pleased to assist him in any way possible. In view of the fact that on Wednesday of this week, following the minister's statement in reply to me in the House, he was not able to uncover any cases besides the four presented to him two weeks ago, may I ask the hon. gentleman why he has not been able to get one of his 9,000 employees to listen to broadcast reports, including the one on Wednesday by News Radio which quoted a chartered accountant in Toronto that despite the minister's claim that security had been tightened up he was still able to get information about individual taxpayers over the telephone? Why has the minister failed to look into these widespread broadcast reports?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Once again, the allegations are not factual at all. I should like the hon. member to give me the name of the firm involved. I should like to have it. It is easy for members on the other side to make these allegations.
The hon. member for St. John's asked me the other day whether or not we were giving information to the RCMP or receiving it from them. My answer, according to my belief at
December 2, 1977

the time, was "No". I want to rectify that, Mr. Speaker, by saying "Yes, we do". We did it even before 1972 and we continue to do it, benefitting taxpayers by collecting the money which rightfully belongs to the treasury, because that is all we are, collectors, and we should collect the money and we should do it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister has asked me to cite specific instances where chartered accountants have said they were able to get this information over the telephone. Is the minister aware of an interview which took place on the "As It Happens" program on the CBC on November 18 of this year with Mr. David Ingram, a tax consultant in Vancouver with CEN-TA Tax Services, who indicated in the interview that it has been a long standing practice in the minister's department to give this information out over the telephone. Mr. Ingram indicated that he had had this information himself over the telephone, and so had his officials for a long period. He also indicated that the security practices in the minister's department have been totally inadequate for years, and that although Mr. Ingram has raised the matter publicly before nothing has been done about it. Why is the minister not aware of that broadcast interview with an individual saying that he had been able to get this information?
[DOT] din)


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me a name; I will certainly look into the matter. I do hope that it will be better than the other name of Thompson which he gave me before, regarding which I indicated by letter that what the hon. member said was not true. However, I am willing to look into this case and I will give the hon. member an answer shortly.
As for whether I listened to the program, no. I was too busy in my office until about 11.30 at night to look at any program. Perhaps I should look at a program once in a while.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has had in his hands for a number of days now a report on the dangerous state of aviation safety in northwestern Ontario and that subsequent revelations have disclosed that top officials in Ottawa have blocked attempts by regional officers to enforce safety standards, will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House that his government is prepared to institute a full public inquiry into this matter so that we can find out why safety regulations have been disobeyed?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport indicated before the com-
Oral Questions
mittee, first of all, that the message which went out from the Ottawa office was not at his request. He did not agree with that particular approach. He felt that a decision should not be taken arbitrarily but that both sides of the issue should be looked at before a licence was in fact taken. I would commend to the hon. member the minister's answer to the committee. In addition to that, the department is in fact studying the report and will make its appropriate decision after it has studied the report.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding what the acting minister has said I would put a further question. In view of the revelation that one of the criteria regional aircraft inspectors were to consider in suspending a licence, to quote the memo, was "the possibility of embarrassment to the minister and any other potential political implications", does the minister not consider that statement alone sufficient grounds for a public inquiry? Surely the minister does not believe that political expediency takes precedence over public safety?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Very definitely not, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely what the Minister of Transport said in the committee. He did not authorize the message to be sent. He did not agree with the conclusions reached by the individual who sent that particular message, and he spelt out very, very clearly that the report would be studied most carefully and any appropriate action taken, be it an inquiry or simply a tightening up in some areas.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I still have not had an answer regarding the public inquiry, a question which I have asked twice. We cannot get to the bottom of who is responsible for issuing such orders and what the results have been. Again I ask the minister, can we expect a full public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of this and the travelling public in northwestern Ontario can be protected? It is not good enough to say that some procedures will be tightened up. Obviously for too long something wrong has been happening, and we deserve to know who gave the orders and to clean up this mess.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I simply mentioned that as an alternative. Again I would commend to the hon. member a careful reading of the Minister of Transport's answers before the committee, when he said that the report would be studied and the appropriate action taken, be it a public inquiry, the tightening up of regulations, or whatever action seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the study, which is an excellent study, should be looked into before conclusions are reached.
80027 -25Vz

December 2, 1977
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Beliechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of the report submitted by the Auditor General which indicates among other things that in 1976 the Unemployment Insurance Commission had made overpayments of $95 million, could the minister explain how the commission intends to recover that amount without victimizing the persons who were eligible and what steps will be taken to put a stop to so many mistakes?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my French teachers and to the hon. members but I must answer in English.

The Auditor General has performed an excellent service for us. He has indicated he will continue to do so. The commission has worked very closely with the Auditor General. In fact, he did not say there was an overpayment. He said that it was possible there could have been that kind of an overpayment, and that control mechanisms had to be tightened up. Some of the recommendations of the Auditor General are already in place. We have asked him to monitor the action we have taken on the administrative or the control mechanisms to see to it that it is made as perfect a system as possible. We do not want to expand the number of man-hours required to meet all the requirements of the Auditor General in order to make it a perfect control mechanism system.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his report, the Auditor General indicated also many deficiencies in the administration of the Canada Manpower Centre programs. He emphasized for instance that the master client registration forms were not employed effectively, that there were no verifications required of the number of dependents claimed by the client, and that overpayments resulted from the policy of assumed attendance by those who supposedly take training courses sponsored by a manpower centre. Could the minister advise the House of the steps he will take to correct these weaknesses found in the administration of these services, which account in fact for 55 per cent of all the payments made by his department?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, true to his word,
(Mr. Cullen.)
monitored the actions taken by the government last year, and complimented the government for many of the moves taken. Needless to say, as a result of the honest and unbiased report which he has made, in so far as my department is concerned, we will look into those particular areas and will expand on them somewhat when we appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I do not think I can give all the responses the hon. member would like during oral question period. I can assure him that very, very close attention will be paid to the recommendations of the Auditor General.


REQUEST FOR MORE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATORS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Hundreds of people have been on the waiting list for 18 to 24 months to be trained as heavy equipment operators. Is the minister prepared to increase the number of training centres providing this kind of training to give those people, particularly the younger ones, the opportunity to qualify for heavy equipment operators which will give them a better chance to get a job?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the initiative in this particular area must be taken in fact by the provinces. I should like to commend the Turner Valley operation in the province of Alberta. It is a private enterprise initiative taken by a gentleman there, when he could not find the appropriate number of schools and professors who would stay on the job, or when he could not get heavy equipment operators. In fact, he used the old Canadian private initiative system and established an excellent school. I would recommend that to all provinces that have waiting lists of people who want to become heavy equipment operators.


CANADIAN SALTFISH CORPORATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Auditor General has stated that his examination of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation accounts for 1976-1977 show evidence that the corporation has engaged in questionable trade practices by paying out something like $400,000 in kickbacks. In some cases these kickbacks were deposited in bank accounts outside the country of the recipient.
In view of the fact that this corporation comes under the direct control of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and therefore the direct control of the government, did the government authorize this practice? Will the government take any disciplinary action against the chairman responsible for this practice under the Financial Administration Act? Will
December 2, 1977

the government make available from the books of the company the names of those receiving the kickbacks in order to clear the good name of the many hundreds of citizens who do business with this corporation?


Robert Knight Andras: The government did not authorize these practices. In fact, when they were brought to the attention of the government by the Auditor General, who is the auditor of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, and has been for several years, action was taken. The action which the President of the Treasury Board took was to consult with the minister to whom this Crown corporation reports, and indeed the Auditor General and the Minister of State for the Environment, who is the minister to whom this corporation reports, took the necessary action to see that this practice ceased. As to disciplinary action, I am not in a position to give the precise nature of that yet. As to the disclosure of the exact names of the recipients, I would prefer to deal with that when we are before a committee and after consultation with my colleague.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the Auditor General's report states that this practice was followed last year as well as in previous years, can the minister say how much money was kicked back in total and what action the government plans to take in determining whether there is evidence of tax evasion, and that this information be provided to the tax authorities in the countries concerned to enable them to collect taxes that are due, since the minister knew about the kickbacks as long ago as August 4, 1977?


Robert Knight Andras: The date of August 4 to which the hon. member referred may be accurate. It strikes me as being quite likely. That is the time when these practices were brought to our attention by the auditor of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation who is the Auditor General. With regard to the exact amount of money, I do not have that figure in my mind at the moment but I will undertake to make sure that the hon. member is informed of it.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. The Auditor General also called into question the payment of $508,000 by the Department of External Affairs to landlords in host countries. Can the minister inform the House which countries are involved, why the government has accepted this as normal practice over the past 20 years and how much money was paid in such a manner over this 20 year period?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: I think the amount of money has already been identified by the hon. member in his question. As to naming the countries, I will not do so for very obvious reasons.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Robert Knight Andras: For reasons which I think any hon. member would anticipate.


An hon. Member:: Tell us. This is Canadian taxpayers' money.


An hon. Member:: What reasons?


Robert Knight Andras: Some measures are being taken to discuss this in the Public Accounts Committee.


An hon. Member:: What are the obvious reasons?


Robert Knight Andras: It will be discussed in the committee with, I hope, a prearranged understanding of the delicacy of dealing with practices in other countries. The hon. member has spoken about this practice having gone on for 20 years. The fact is that this has been a fairly standard practice in almost every country in the world where there is a diplomatic representation, such as in certain of the countries involved. Indeed, the action we are taking now may be somewhat unprecedented. I think hon. members would recognize that.


Mr. Gillies:: Is it unprecedented to be honest?


Robert Knight Andras: It is not unprecedented. The practice may be unacceptable, but it has been the practice of every other country we know. No benefit has been conferred on any member of the Department of External Affairs. It is a practice that has been going on for years in almost every other diplomatic mission in the countries involved.


James McPhail Gillies: That makes it all right. That justifies it.


Robert Knight Andras: As a matter of fact, this issue arises because we are probably one of the few countries, if not the only country, that has established new guidelines in that respect. In fact, I have enunciated them on behalf of the government on December 16. I also said at that time that it will cause some difficulties. If we establish the principles under which we want to operate it is going to be expensive, but our action is unprecedented in changing this practice. This is not a question of the practice up to now having been different from that of other countries.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it is not obvious to me why the government will not reveal the names of the countries. I think it is quite important to the taxpayers of Canada to know which countries are involved and how this practice is going to effect our relationship with those countries now that it has been exposed by the Auditor General. Considering the fact that the Auditor General has revealed that both cash and cheques were involved, and that the payments were made both within a host

December 2, 1977
Oral Questions
country and outside that country, and since there is considerably more to this than initially meets the eye, will the minister assure this House that a thorough investigation of this matter will be made, especially in respect of the possibility of kickbacks to members of the department who made such payments in the unsavory way the Auditor General has now exposed, after a 20 year period in which the government of Canada has allowed this.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I really regret that the hon. member would go so far as to make allegations about kickbacks to members of the Department of External Affairs, but that is exactly what he has done.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Knight Andras: The Auditor General has clearly indicated in describing his concern about this practice that all such payments were fully accounted for; there is no question about them not being accounted for, and there have been vouchers and all the necessary documentation involved in this. He has not said there has been any discrepancy in that area. Therefore, to leap from what we all say is a practice we want to see stopped, and hope other countries will join us in stopping it-a situation which we say is unacceptable-to the allegation implied that there was a kickback, when it has been clearly indicated that there was no such kickback, is regrettable.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, 1 would finally ask the minister whether he will assure the House that a thorough investigation will be made precisely because of the strange nature of payments in this matter which were made outside the host countries involved, and because the fact that payments were made in cash as well as by cheque does lead to some interesting questions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, over and above the actions by the Auditor General such an investigation and analysis of what has taken place is under way.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development having to do with ministerial responsibility imposed upon him not only by practice but by statute. The minister is, of course, aware of the action of his Yukon commissioner in causing certain charges before a judge of the supreme court of the Yukon to be withdrawn, a gross intrusion into the administration of justice in the Yukon. Will the minister tell the House whether this highhanded interference with the judicial process by his commissioner was on the instruction of the minister, and how does the minister explain this highly improper conduct of one of the officials of his department?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it was not on my instruction. I do not accept the explanation of the description of the events offered by the hon. member for Yukon. He knows as well as I that on November 8 the commissioner made a rather complete explanation of the actions that led to the withdrawal of the charges. He also knows that yesterday the commissioner launched an inquiry under Justice Stratton where all these issues are going to be examined. It seems to me that the proper course now is to let that commission of inquiry complete its work and respond to the sort of charges that have been floating around the Yukon for the past several weeks.


REASON MINISTER DISALLOWED BILL TO AMEND YUKON INQUIRIES ORDINANCE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister also, I believe, instructed the same official, his Yukon commissioner, to refuse to assent to a bill to amend the Yukon Inquiries Ordinance which had passed all three stages of the Yukon house, which bill would have enabled the elected members of the house to request the setting up of an inquiry into the conduct of this commissioner. In view of the fact the bill itself in no way encroached upon his powers or those of his commissioner, will the minister explain his aggressive action toward the Yukon through this rather savage and raw use of his powers?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon is becoming rhetorical, if not almost poetical. He knows perfectly well, and we seem to have a disagreement on what the powers imposed on the minister are under the Yukon Act. The refusal of assent by the commissioner is not a customary practice and not even a desirable one but when the members of the council clearly in their own minds go beyond the powers vested in them under the Yukon Act, and if I am to observe the law which this parliament itself has established, it seems to me I have only one course of action, and that is to instruct the commissioner to refuse assent. I do not enjoy or like doing this, but when I am faced with that choice it seems to be my obligation as a member of this House of Commons to uphold the law this parliament has passed.


An hon. Member:: Then change the law.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, we have a useful suggestion from the NDP and I think we should follow it up, and that is that we should change the law. The hon. member for Yukon knows that when I was in the Yukon three weeks ago I met with the council and proposed to it then that instead of getting at the constitutional issues in this sort of piecemeal approach I was prepared to engage with them in a discussion of what sort of process we could set in place to review the natural evolution of constitutional development in the Yukon. That seemed to strike at least the chairman of the Yukon committee dealing with it as a positive suggestion. I offered it in good faith and I plan to follow it up. I think through that process we will get at
December 2, 1977

some of these rather nasty issues. I would tell the hon. member for Yukon, and I am surprised he would not support me in this, that when 1 am faced with a choice of upholding the law passed by parliament or acceding to what may be a legitimate request which clearly is ultra vires, 1 have only one responsibility as a minister and as a member of this House and that is to uphold the law, but that has to be seen in the context of also being prepared to change the law.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since this action taken by the minister is taken for the first time in the 70 year history of the Yukon house and is a precedent setting action, and since under section 20 of the Yukon Act passed by this House, clearly all bills that pass the three stages of reading in the Yukon house would be tabled here, and because this bill now will not see the light of day in this House, will the minister at least table the report of the standing committee on rules, elections and privileges of the Yukon house dealing with this matter so that all members will have full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these events?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look at that suggestion and 1 will get back to the hon. member. I think it is important to recognize that on this side, and clearly on that side as well, there is a disposition to move toward natural constitutional development, although there may be some difference between this side and the Conservative party as to the pace and immediate goals. I understand the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition, but I made it quite clear to the people of the Yukon when 1 was up there, and to their elected representatives, that I was anxious to engage in a discussion now as to what are the next logical steps. I think it is unfortunate if these incidents of refusal of assent confuse, confound or compromise that process. My ultimate goal is to respond to their needs up there, and I am committed to doing that. I have to reiterate that there is a law which was passed by this parliament. That law may need updating, and I am not disputing that, but as long as it remains the law of this parliament it seems to me my fundamental obligation is to interpret it with the advice of the law officers of the Crown as best we can and to insist on it. I am surprised there is some dispute about that on the other side.


EXCEEDING OF DEPARTMENTAL APPROPRIATION-POSSIBILITY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has just enunciated his duty to uphold the law. I should like to ask what action he has taken when an appropriation for his department of $1 million has been exceeded by $400,000 on a deliberate basis? Has he taken any disciplinary action on that matter?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have taken disciplinary action. He was told that in the committee.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
*

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as the minister in charge of the decentralization program. I presume he still has that job. Could he give us some idea when the 310 jobs that were announced for the industrial area of Cape Breton are actually going to be put in place there, because we are in a desperate situation, as he knows, from an unemployment point of view?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to the statements that were made at the time of the announcement in Cape Breton. If the hon. member is not aware of the precise date, I will forward the information to him. This announcement was made a few months ago and I do not have the precise date for Cape Breton. In any event, we are anxious to move as quickly as possible.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the date announced was 1981. Will the government try to push that up a little and add at least 300 jobs to this area of the Atlantic provinces as a recent economic study found that among women of workforce age, this area had the lowest labour force participation rate in all of Canada. Will he give us at least 600 jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member clearly makes a representation rather than asking a question.


HOME INSULATION PROGRAM TO CONSERVE ENERGY-MINISTER'S POSITION ON CHANGES REQUESTED BY PROVINCES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the minister met with energy ministers across Canada. For the first time he actually drove them into a united front. I understand that eight provinces put forward suggestions for changes in the home insulation program. One suggestion which the minister accepted was to remove the precondition to all provinces joining. One submission made by the provinces is that the home insulation grant should be non-taxable in the other eight provinces of Canada as well as in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and that the program be decentralized. What is the minister's position on these requests from the eight provinces?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that yesterday the citizens of Alberta and Quebec became eligible for the national home insulation program. The reasons for the preconditions have now been removed. I am also pleased that the provincial ministers were able to put forward a number of constructive proposals for most of the national home insulation program.

December 2, 1977
Oral Questions
These are now being considered by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The hon. member mentioned several points in his question. One was with regard to non-taxability of these grants. That was handled yesterday by the Minister of Finance. As to questions on regionalization with regard to inspection services, monitoring and administration of the program, that is under consideration. I expect the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to make an announcement very shortly.


John Carnell Crosbie: In taking away these pre conditions, the minister has engaged in the greatest surrender since Premier Regan forced him into the program for Nova Scotia. The provinces suggested to the minister that the grants be contingent on an energy cost basis. They suggested that grants be greater in higher energy cost areas of Canada rather than selecting electricity as the only energy cost and that they be non-taxable. Is the minister stating that the government is not going to consider the non-taxability in the other eight provinces, that the grants will continue to be taxable in all provinces other than Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island? Is that the final decision, or is he going to consider changing it to a higher energy cost basis?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is going over the same ground he went over yesterday in question period. It was made very clear to him yesterday by the Minister of Finance as to the government's position with regard to taxability. It was also made very clear that the reason for the difference in the two systems, that is the system that applies in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia and the system that applies to the rest of the country, is that over 60 per cent of all the electrical energy which is developed in Nova Scotia and 100 per cent in the case of Prince Edward Island is generated from oil. It is because of that one factor, the dependence on oil with regard to electrical generation, that there are two systems across the country.


HOME INSULATION PROGRAM TO CONSERVE ENERGY-POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had his wings clipped by the provinces and rightly so for intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Since the minister responsible for housing is not in his seat, I will direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. One area of criticism yesterday, and rightly so, was the administration of the program. A number of provinces complained about the way it is now being administered. Indeed, the location of the bureaucracy for administering in Montreal was criticized. What steps is the minister taking to improve the administration of the program? Will the administration be decentralized? What further steps can we expect to encourage Canadians to take advantage of this program, even with all its shortcomings?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the hon.

member with regard to the administration question. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has taken note of the representation of the provinces and will be making an announcement very shortly. The hon. member seems far more interested in continuing some kind of a dog-fight in which some provinces wish to engage with regard to federal-provincial matters. I do not think the people of Canada are well served if we get into jurisdictional disputes, quarrelling, squabbling and that kind of thing. It is far more important for the Canadian people to see that the two levels of government can work together co-operatively, that we can both attack problems of conservation. Now that a new sense of urgency has been made manifest by the provinces, I hope we can get on with it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, all of this could have been avoided if there had been proper consultation in the first place. The minister knows that. That is why he is in trouble with this program. What is the position of the six provinces which had to meet the unfair conditions imposed upon them by the minister which was a direct interference in provincial sovereignty? Now that Alberta and Quebec have forced the minister to sign by dropping these preconditions, what is the position of the program now, especially in those provinces which have already started implementing some of these unfair conditions?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad that the hon. member has asked that question because it makes a point that I was trying to make to him a moment ago. They have accepted the need for these kinds of policies. They have put into place policies which in many instances they would not otherwise have put in and would not have put them in as quickly. That is the reason.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the case of Robert Epp. I think the minister had some notice and knowledge of this situation, since it has gone on since June of this year. This Canadian has moved back to Canada. One of the children of his American wife by a former marriage has some kind of learning disability. This Canadian who is now in Canada has three children in the United States, one of whom is the subject of this investigation. Why has it taken all this time to determine whether this child should be brought into Canada or be refused? Can the minister tell us what has happened in this case because the personal tragedy for this family is very great?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details of why it should take so long. Frankly, I do not like to discuss individual cases of this kind. Quite often it is necessary to have consultation with the provinces because in the final analysis, charges
December 2, 1977

and expenses may go to them. As I said, I do not like to discuss individual cases. I am prepared to check the matter out today and I will get an answer to the hon. member today.


FINANCE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the most recent scandal regarding the distribution of bilingualism subsidies, can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he seriously considers correcting the unfair formulas which enable the province of Quebec to get the lion's share of subsidies for official language teaching, and whether he will correct that procedure so that such subsidies will be used to support, develop and help the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec to survive?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 take due notice of the hon. member's question. This program is administered by the Secretary of State, and I shall discuss the matter with him.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Auditor General in his report produced yesterday indicates that the Unemployment Insurance Commission lacks sufficient control procedures and often even those are not followed, resulting in overpayment of some $100 million. I would like to refresh the minister's memory of what was actually said because in an answer earlier today, the minister indicated that it was not an actual but possible overpayment. The Auditor General said and I quote:
Based on a statistical sample of claimants to whom benefits were paid in 1976, the amount of overpayments not previously identified by the Commission's regular control activities is approximately $95 million.
That is in addition to the $5 million in overpayment identified by the department. What steps have been taken to improve the procedures and when will an adequate system be in place?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First of all, 1 would commend a careful reading of that section. The Auditor General says "based upon"; that is why I indicated it was not an actual figure.
Oral Questions
We have put in place many control mechanisms but we have to balance the application of those mechanisms against the fact that people pay unemployment insurance premiums and they are entitled to get their cheques as quickly as it is possible for us to make them available. This is important because very often individuals who are unemployed have no money in reserve. So we must concentrate on making every effort to get these cheques out to those who are entitled to them while keeping a protective mechanism in place. I would point out that we deal with between two and three million people each year involving an expenditure of some $3.6 billion. This will give the hon. member some idea of the scope of the problem with which we have to deal.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I quite understand the minister's problem and I certainly agree that the cheques have to go out to the people who are entitled to them. I should like to ask now what steps are taken once it has been determined that there was an overpayment, and, in this instance, what steps will be taken to recover the $95 million or whatever the figure is?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Those steps have been taken. We in the department, using our own resources, did find there had been an over-expenditure of about $65 million and $60 million of that has already been recovered. So the recovery mechanism is already in place. What we want to do is head off this situation in advance, thus obviating the collection procedure. Those who are ripping-off the system are representing only a small minority of the claimants concerned-I ask the hon. member to check the media, to check the newspapers, for reports of the number we are catching and the fines which are being imposed. 1 might add that we are now getting much more co-operation from members of the public who are prepared to tell us who is working while still collecting unemployment insurance. With the co-operation of all, we shall have a better system.


CANADA COUNCIL
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the Canada Council acts under a legislative mandate from the Parliament of Canada and in the light of the concern expressed by the Auditor Genera! regarding inadequate financial documentation, and having regard to the unfortunate pornographic documentation you have in front of you associated with a grant by the Canada Council-and I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could quote this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: 1 am sorry. Will the minister recommend that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts review the mandate of the Canada Council
1496

December 2, 1977
Oral Questions
with particular attention to the accountability of the Council to the minister and to parliament?


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The hon. member will recall that when a similar question was asked of the minister yesterday before that committee the minister indicated to him quite clearly that parliament has directed the minister, in a general way, to administer the funds under votes and estimates of the Canada Council but has withheld from the ministry the opportunity in an administrative way of prejudging or judging after the fact the way in which the Canada Council, or the Film Board or similar bodies, have handled the money. If parliament should decide that the department ought to be second-guessing where grants should be going, or for what projects, then parliament can give that kind of authority to the ministry.


VIEW OF MINISTER OF FINANCE ON GRANTS FOR MR. BISSETT'S POETRY
Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the former Secretary of State that the Canada Council has given assistance to Mr. Bissett because he is recognized as a fine, creative artist, that the Canada Council based its decision on the advice of experts, and, further that Mr. Grace of the Canada Council had recognized the talent and excellence of Mr. Bissett, and having surveyed the disgusting and pornographic exhibits of Mr. Bissett's published works, sponsored by the Canada Council, which are now before the minister on his desk, may I ask whether the Minister of Finance supports the granting of public tax dollars to this poet and to the publishing houses which have printed such outrageous abuse and affront to the Canadian parliament?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker,
I must tell the hon. member that I have here a document which I left unopened because I was following the oral question period. I am going to open it now but not without some apprehension.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or for the Minister of National Revenue, but I would prefer to address it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Prime Minister in 1974, in a pre-election speech, referred specifically to members engaged in the purchasing of tax refunds and old-age security cheques. Since some of these loan sharks are making between 400 and 600 per cent profit on these transactions does the minister propose to
[Mr. Wenman.J
take action to deal with this situation before the new tax filing year which is fast approaching?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: It is our intention to reintroduce a bill dealing with depositors and borrowers. We hope to do that soon. But I would point out that part of the problem referred to by the hon. member comes under provincial jurisdiction and I understand the provinces are prepared to take action as well.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister contact and help the community income tax service of Alberta which is part of the student legal service in Edmonton, a non-profit organization providing low-cost tax preparation and tax advance services? Maybe he could make available some of the offices in the federal building which are not in use by his own department in Edmonton?


William Warren Allmand: I am pleased to say yes to the first question. I will look into the second.


INCOME TAX
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I have given him notice. May I ask whether in light of the documentation I have provided to him he has had an opportunity to review the activities of OXFAM Canada and whether he has decided that OXFAM Canada is not a charitable organization under the terms of the act?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I have prepared an answer for him. OXFAM Canada has not requested that its registration be revoked nor has it requested a registration order under another name. In 1972 its name was formally changed from OXFAM of Canada to OXFAM Canada but this did not entail a new registration. OXFAM Canada is a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. Registration is an ongoing status until such time as the charity ceases to comply with the requirements of the Act concerning registered charities. A charity which ceases so to comply may have its registration revoked by the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I should like to thank the minister for his epistle and turn, now, to the gospel. In the light of the fact that OXFAM has indicated that it would set out to deceive some segments of the public in obtaining its funds, would the minister now tell me, in the light of the documentation provided him, whether or not he intends to cancel OXFAM's registration as a charitable organization?
December 2, 1977


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am not able to give any details with regard to the position of OXFAM bearing in mind the secrecy provisions contained in the Act. I cannot make any comment on that matter.


PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Revenue which relates to the state of knowledge of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: On November 18 the minister was asked by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo whether he could tell the House why he, as minister, was not aware of the practice referred to in the broadcast by Messrs. Templeton and Berton. The minister went on to say-and this is where the confusion arises-"I do not accept the statement made by the hon. member in the first place as to whether or not I was aware of it". What 1 should like to ask the minister is: What did the minister know about the ease of access to confidential files prior to the broadcast revelations? The question is quite simple-


Mr. Lalonde:: "Yes or no".


Charles Joseph Clark: It is, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You would do better to read your question again!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister is a little confused, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, you are confused.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not we who have to read questions, it is the minister who has to read answers. My question is quite simple: What did the minister know?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In spite of the hon. gentleman's long preamble, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to receive a pie in my face.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In regard to the other part of his question, I must sincerely say that before the program came on the air I did not know anything about the case to which the hon. member is referring, and that is the truth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knew something about it before but he failed to let me know.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister's memory is short. He knows we have been through this before and he knows he has been proven wrong in connection with that particular allega-
Privilege-Mr. Wenman
tion. Knowing he is wrong does not prevent him from repeating it. The minister for once was quite careful. He said he did not know about that particular case before it was brought to the attention of the Canadian people. Our question is: Did he know of the practice? Did he know in advance of that revelation about the ease of access on the part of unauthorized persons to the confidential tax files of Canadians?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not know of that practice. If there is such a practice the hon. member would be helpful to me if he divulged the type of practice he knows of. In fact, if anyone is aware of the ease by which one can get information from the department, I should like to know so we can make a better investigation and benefit the Canadian people as such. In fact, sir, it is the hon. member's responsibility to do just that.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I find it curious for ministers of this government to be telling anybody anything about responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATION INTO BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Charles Joseph Clark: So that we might help the minister get to the bottom of this matter, and I am referring to the departmental investigation which the minister says is now underway, will he tell the House of Commons the nature of this departmental investigation? For example, has he requested his public officials to get in touch with major chartered accounting firms across the country? Has he requested his officials to monitor broadcast or other allegations, including those on "As It Happens" and other programs, and to follow up any allegations which might have been made? What is the precise nature of the departmental investigation which the minister has ordered?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the investigation conducted both by my departmental officials and the RCMP is a very good one. We are going into every detail. If I were to start giving the details to the House, I would probably jeopardize the investigation that is taking place. There is no reason why I should make a report at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did indicate over the last 48 hours that I would hear argument today on dollar items. I think we should get to orders of the day first, and then to it at that time.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hope I have not already offended
80027-26%

December 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
my privilege as a member of the House by forwarding to Your Honour copies of pornographic poetry which is now in front of you. My question of privilege is to ask whether, by repeating this particular poetry from my place in the House of Commons, I would be abusing my privilege as a member of the House of Commons. Therefore, 1 ask Your Honour, would 1, as a member of parliament, be offending the House of Commons and my privilege as a member by repeating this kind of garbage in the House of Commons?
to Standing Order 75C, I wish to give notice that 1 shall move, at the next sitting of the House, that three additional days be allocated to the study of the said bill in the committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not, of course, the kind of judgment that I would make in advance, since I have not seen the documentation to which the hon. member refers. I think his difficulty is that in any case it would not seem to be very relevant to any particular matter before the House at this time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 105, 106, 107, 108, 228, 269, 399, 436, 437, 438 and 439.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that it has not been possible for the party representatives to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 75A or 75B with regard to the allocation of time for the study in the committee of the whole of Bill C-l 1, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide authority for the raising of funds. Therefore, pursuant
Year ending	Total Loans
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


CMHC-GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL STOCK
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the government's investment in capital stock in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Was any money loaned by the government to CMHC in the past five years and, if so, by year, what was the amount and what is the total amount outstanding?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	$25,000,000 at March 31, 1977 (Reference, Public Accounts of Canada, 1976-77, Volume I, 10.7, A-l).
2.	Loans and advances
March 31
1976/77
1975/76
1974/75
1973/74
1972/73
Total
and Advances

Reference (Public Accounts)
1977 Vol. 1, 10.39, A-2 1976 Vol. 1, 10.56, E-26 1975 Vol. 1, 11.40, E-24 1974 Vol. 1, 10.44, E-24 1973 Vol. 1, 10.40, E-23
Year ending	Loans and	Mortgage Loan and	March 31	Advances	Purchase Fund	Total1976/77	$9,144,877,017	$3,348,710	$9,148,225,7271975/76	8,307,235,053	3,992,762	8,311,227,8151974/75	7,250,465,894	3,238,941	7,253,704,8351973/74	6,515,239,570	3,471,270	6,518,710,8401972/73	6,140,518,065	3,690,529	6,144,208,594
Reference (Public Account
Vol. 1, 1977, 10.7 A-l, 2 Vol. 1, 1976, 10.20 E-25, 2 Vol. 1, 1975, 11.6 E-19, 20 Vol. 1, 1974, 10.12 E-23, 2 Vol. 1, 1973, 10.10 E-22, 2
Amount outstanding


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL STOCK
Mr. Herbert: (Mr. Wenman.]
1.	What is the government's investment in capital stock in the Export Development Corporation?
2.	Was any money loaned by the government to EDC in the past five years and, if so, by year, what was the amount and what is the total amount outstanding?
December 2, 1977


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	$85,000,000 at March 31, 1977 (Reference Public Accounts of Canada 1976-77, Volume I, 10.7. A-3).
2.	Loans
Year ending March 31
1976/77 1975/76 1974/75 1973/74 1972/73
Total
Amount outstanding
Year ending March 31
1976/77 1975/76
Total Loans

Total Loans

Reference (Public Accounts)
Vol. 1, 10.40, A-3, A-4, A-5 Vol. 1, 10.57, E-29, E-30, E-31 Vol. 1, 11.41, E-27, E-28, E-29 Vol. 1, 10.45, E-27, E-28, E-29 Vol. 1, 10.42, E-26, E-27, E-28
Reference (Public Accounts)
Vol. 1, 10.7, A-3, A-4.A-5 Vol. 1, 10.20, E-29, E-30, E-31
Order Paper Questions


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL STOCK
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the government's investment in capital stock in the Farm Credit Corporation?
2.	Was any money loaned by the government to FCC in the past five years and, if so, by year, what was the amount and what is the total amount outstanding?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	$85,700,000 at March 31, 1977 (Reference Public Accounts of Canada 1976-77, Volume 1, 10.7, A-6).
1974/75 1973/74 1972/73	775,879,803 687,737,805 546,262,298	Vol. 1,11.6, E-27, E-28, E-29 Vol. 1, 10.12, E-27, E-28, E-29 Vol. 1. 10.11. E-26, E-27. E-28	2. Loans	Year ending March 31	Notes	Farm Syndicates Loans-funds	Total	Reference (Public Accounts)1976/77 1975/76 1974/75 1973/74 1972/73	$348,400,000 353.800.000 290,000,000 232.100.000 111.500.000	$2,100,000 4.200.000 5.050.000 3.140.000 1.650.000	$350,500,000 358,000,000 295.050.000 235.240.000 113.150.000	Vol. 1, 1977, 10.40, A-6 Vol. 1, 1976, 10.58, E-32 Vol. 1, 1975, 11.42, E-30 Vol. 1, 1974, 10.46, E-30 Vol. 1, 1973, 10.42, E-29Total	$1,335,800,000	$16,140,000	$1,351,940,000	Amount outstanding	Year ending March 31	Notes	Farm Syndicates Loans-funds	Total	Reference (Public Accounts)1976/77 1975/76 1974/75 1973/74 1972/73	$2,140,554,171 1,873,202,691 1,589,008,085 1,358,628,705 1,196,004,891	$11,629,001 12,499,202 10,807,904 7,822,106 6,525,108	$2,152,183,172 1,885,701,893 1,599,815,989 1,366,450,811 1,202,529,999	Vol. 1, 1977, 10.7, A-6 Vol. 1, 1976, 10.20, E-32 Vol. 1, 1975, 11.6, E-30 Vol. 1, 1974, 10.12, E-30 Vol. 1, 1973, 10.11, E-29


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT
[Stage Direction]
2.	Does interest accrue on repayments (referred by order in council and, if so, what is the applicable rate of interest?
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was any money loanded by the government to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the past ten years and, if so (a) by year, (i) what was the amount (ii) what amount has been repaid (b) what is the total amount outstanding?
	Loans	Loans and Advances for
Year ending	Capital	EducationalMarch 31	Expenditures	T.V.1976/77	$ -	$ 149,5061975/76	-	700,0001974/75	-	310,0001973/74	55,934,000	-1972/73	22,000,000	-1971/72	33,040,000	-1970/71	5,300,000	630,0001969/70	24,700,000	-1968/69	22,200,000	-1967/68	21,300,000	-Total	$184,474,000	$1,789,506


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	(a) (i) Loans
Total	Reference (Public Accounts)	
$ 149,506	Vol 1, 1977, 10.46, A-29	
700,000	Vol.	1, 1976, 10.53, E-6
310,000	Vol. 1, 1975, 11.37, E-6	
55,934,000	Vol.	1, 1974, 10.41, E-622,000,000	Vol.	1, 1973, 10.38, E-633,040,000	Vol.	1, 1972, 10.38, E-65,930,000	Vol.	1, 1971, 10.38, E-624,700,000	Vol.	1, 1970, 7.43, F-622,200,000	Vol.	1, 1969, 7.40, F-621,300,000	Vol.	1, 1968,7.41, F-3$186,263,506	
December 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
(ii) Amount repaid
			Loans and			
		Loans	Advances for			
Year ending	Capital	Educational	March 31	Expenditures	T.V.	Total	Reference (Public Accounts)	1976/77	$31,500	$31,500	Vol. 1, 1977, 10.46, A-29	1975/76	31,500	31,500	Vol. 1	1, 1976, 10.53, E-61974/75	31,500	31,500	Vol. 1	l, 1975, 11.37, E-61973/74	$9,316,905	31,500	9,348,405	Vol. 1	1, 1974, 10.41, E-61972/73	8,216,905	31,500	8,248,405	Vol. 1	1, 1973, 10.38, E-61971/72	6,564,905	31,500	6,596,405	Vol. 1	1, 1972, 10.38, E-61970/71	6,299,904	-	6,299,904	Vol. 1	1, 1971, 10.38, E-61969/70	5,064,905	-	5,064,905	Vol. 1	, 1970, 7.43, F-61968/69	3,954,905	-	3,954,905	Vol. 1	, 1969, 7.40, F-61967/68	2,889,905	-	2,889,905	Vol. 1, 1968, 7.41, F-3	Total	$42,308,334	$189,000	$42,497,334	nount outstanding	Loans	Loans and Advances for	Working	Year ending	Capital	Educational	Capital	March 31	Expenditures	TV.	Advances	Total	Reference (Public Accounts)1976/77	$197,880,410	$1,600,506	$9,000,000	$208,480,916	Vol. 1, 1977, 10.46, A-291975/76	197,880,410	1,482,500	9,000,000	208,362,910	Vol. 1, 1976, 10.53, E-61974/75	197,880,410	814,000	9,000,000	207,694,410	Vol. 1, 1975, 1 1.37, E-61973/74	197,880,410	535,500	9,000,000	207,415,910	Vol. 1, 1974, 10.41, E-61972/73	151,263,314	567,000	9,000,000	160,830,314	Vol. 1, 1973, 10.38, E-61971/72	137,480,219	598,500	9,000,000	147,078,719	Vol. 1, 1972, 10.38, E-61970/71	117,305,028	630,000	9,000,000	126,935,028	Vol. 1, 1971, 10.38. E-61969/70	112,005,028	-	9,000,000	121,005,028	Vol. 1, 1970, 7.43, F-61968/69	92,369,933	-	9,000,000	101,369,933	Vol. 1, 1969, 7.40, F-61967/68	74,124,838	-	9,000,000	83,124,838	Vol. 1, 1968,7.41, F-32.	Payment of principal and interest on loans from Canada due after March 31, 1974, has been deferred until March 31, 1979, in accordance with Orders in Council P.C. 1974-633, P.C. 1974-704 and P.C. 1974-856. Interest on repayments deferred by order in council is accrued in a memo account held by the Secretariat of State and not recorded in the Accounts of Canada. The applicable rate of interest on the 31 loans on which repayment is deferred varies from 5 Vi p. 100 to 8 Vi p. 100. The cumulative interest since March 31, 1974, not recorded in the Accounts of Canada, is $42,159,582 of which $14,053,194 is the interest for the year.


NUMBER OF PERSONS UNDER CONTRACT TO NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE BUREAU OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY-PERSONNEL OBTAINED FROM PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
Mir. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Bureau of Intellectual Property obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Bureau of Intellectual Property in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?

Question No. 228-Mr. McKenzie:
1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Arts Centre and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. There are 111 persons under contract to the National Arts Centre and, of this number, none are retired public servants.
2.	Contractual employees engaged by the National Arts Centre during 1975 and 1976 did not include any retired public servants and total amounts paid were $1,078,086 and $1,084,791 for those years respectively.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) (i) British Columbia, Nil; (ii) Alberta, Nil; (iii) Saskatchewan, Nil; (iv) Manitoba, Nil; (v) Ontario, five employees (three employees for periods ranging from two days to three weeks and two employees for periods exceeding three weeks); (vi) Quebec, six employees (for periods ranging from two days to one week); (vii) New Brunswick, Nil; (viii) Nova Scotia, Nil; (ix) Prince Edward Island, Nil; (x) Newfoundland, Nil. (b) Not applicable. The Bureau of Intellectual Property hires its full-time employees through the Public Service Commission.
2. Main Estimates.
December 2, 1977

3.	(a) Ontario (i) $5.89, (ii) $6.88; Quebec (i) $5.89, (ii) $5.89; (b) Not available, (c) Ontario (i) $2,182, (ii) $3,311.65; Quebec (i) $2,518.23, (ii) $1,337.89.


NUMBER OF PERSONS UNDER CONTRACT TO MERCHANT SEAMAN COMPENSATION BOARD
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Merchant Seaman Compensation Board and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. There are no persons under contract to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board.
2. There were no persons under contract to the Board in 1975 or 1976.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACT NO. 06SU.CD3237008
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Was McGill University awarded contract number 06SU.CD3237008 for wheeled vehicles for off-road performance, evaluation and prediction and, if so (a) for which vehicles (b) which Department at McGill is performing the tests under the contract?
2.	Were there personnel in the Department of National Defence who were competent to perform such tests?
3.	Does the contract cover (a) tests of activities in the field (b) laboratory or simulator type tests (c) other forms of tests or activities and, if so, what are they?
4.	Has any of the work been sub-contracted to any other person or agency?
5.	Under which of their four main roles is the contract designed to make the Armed Forces more efficient?
6.	Is the performance, evaluation and prediction contracted by DND for operations or training (a) in (b) outside of Canada and, if so, in which locations or countries?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes. (a) The work is technology base research and hence, is not related to any specific vehicle, (b) Geotechnical Research Centre.
2.	No.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) The contract covers field work, laboratory tests and analytical investigations such as study of relationships between properties and tractive effort for at least three sizes and types of flexible tires, investigation of the influence of tire tread and sidewall stiffness on tractive performance, requirements of tire performance and inflation pressure data for the improvement of the wheel/ground interaction etc.
4.	No.
5.	Sovereignty, defence of North America and NATO.
6.	(a) and (b) Primarily operations in Northern Canada, but also applicable to the rest of Canada and other parts of the World.
Order Paper Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACT No. 02SU.3237005
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was the University of British Columbia awarded contract numbered 02SU.3237005 for $29,467 to perform a study of terrain analysis for off-road vehicle mobility and, if so (a) for which vehicles (b) which department at the University is performing the study?
2.	Were there personnel in the Department of National Defence who were competent to perform such a study?
3.	Does the contract cover (a) field work (b) laboratory or simulator type tests (c) other forms of activities and, if so, what are they?
4.	Has any of the work been sub-contracted to any other person or agency?
5.	Under which of their four main roles is the contract designed to make the Armed Forces more efficient?
6.	Is the terrain analysis for off-road vehicle mobility contracted by DND for operations (a) in (b) outside Canada and, if so, in which locations or countries?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. (a) The study is technology base research and hence is not related to any specific vehicle, (b) Department of Soil Science.
2.	No.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) The contract covers field work and analytical investigations such as terrain parameters affecting off-road mobility, the relative importance of the various terrain parameters as it may change with the time of year etc.
4.	No.
5.	Sovereignty, defence of North America and NATO.
6.	(a) and (b) The work relates primarily to DND operations in Canada, south of the perma frost line, and is also applicable to Europe.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACT No. 07SU.3237006
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was the McGill University awarded contract numbered 07SU.3237006 for $40,025 to perform a study of terrain evaluation related to Canadian Forces vehicle mobility and, if so (a) for which vehicles (b) which department at McGill is performing the study?
2.	Were there personnel in the Department of National Defence who were competent to perform such a study?
3.	Does the contract cover (a) field work (b) laboratory or simulator type tests (c) other forms of activities and, if so, what are they?
4.	Has any of the work been sub-contracted to any other person or agency?
5.	Under which of their four main roles is the contract designed to make the Armed Forces more efficient?
6.	Is the terrain analysis for off-road vehicle mobility contracted by DND for operations (a) in (b) outside Canada and, if so, in which locations or countries?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. (a) The study is technology base research and hence is not related to any specific vehicle, (b) The Department of Geography.
2.	No.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) The contract covers filed work and analytical investigations such as the applicability of remote sensing techniques to vegetation and terrain analysis, in parts of NWT, the use of colour infrared and thermal infrared to

December 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
analyze surface vegetation imagery, maximum depth of the active terrain layer and the occurrence of permafrost, etc.
4.	No.
5.	Sovereignty and defence of North America.
6.	The work relates to DND operations in northern Canada.


ENVIRONMENT-PCB RELEASES
Mr. Leggatt: 1.	In what locations, on what dates and how have P.C.B.s (polychlorinated biphenels) been significantly released to the environment from supposedly closed systems?
2.	What methods and procedures were used to contain the releases?
3.	Has the government or any provincial government prosecuted anyone who has released P.C.B.s to the environment and, if so, what convictions resulted?
4.	What methods has the government recommended to the provinces for the disposal of P.C.B.s?
5.	Are there P.C.B. disposal sites in Canada and, if so, in which locations?


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: 1 and 2. (a) Sheridan Creek, B.C.: between 1972 and June 1976 an unknown quantity of coolant escaped from buried capacitors. Discarded capacitors and contaminated earth were removed and sent to approved disposal area in the U.S.A. (b) Dowling, Ontario: November 9, 1973; train-truck collision caused derailment and rupture of cargo transformers; approximately 1000 gallons of transformer oil spilled onto the ground. Contaminated earth was initially removed in two stages and disposed of by encapsulation. Later sampling revealed high PCB levels in the vicinity of the original spill. In July 1977, the Ontario Environmental Appeal Board issued an order to excavate contaminated soil and to hold it in leak-proof containers until final disposal can be arranged, (c) Crookston, Minnesota: April 3, 1976; while pumping out a flooded powerhouse, one transformer was found to be leaking. An estimated 70-90 gallons of coolant were pumped with the flood water into the Red Lake River which meets the Red River 60 miles downstream at Grand Forks, North Dakota. Pumping into Red Lake River was stopped; contaminated flood water remaining in the powerhouse was removed for disposal in the U.S.A. (d) Regina, Saskatchewan: August, 13 1976; a pipeline, from a coolant storage tank to an electrical manufacturing plant, broke and 1500 gallons of coolant spilled onto the ground. Interceptor trenches and sumps were dug to collect water-coolant mixture. Contaminated liquids and earth were removed for disposal in the U.S.A. (e) Prince Rupert, B.C.: January 21, 1977; it is alleged that a transformer ruptured and approximately 200 gallons of coolant entered Porpoise Harbour via a water drainpipe. Contaminated sediment will be covered carefully to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet and then capped for scour protection. (Dredging is considered to be environmentally unacceptable).
3. In the Prince Rupert case, the Crown has proceeded against Canadian Cellulose Company Limited on (16) charges of violations under the Fisheries Act. The intentions of or actions taken by provincial governments with respect to PCB
(Mr. Danson.]
spills are not known. Provinces are not obliged to report hazardous material spills under their jurisdiction to federal agencies.
4.	The federal government has prepared interim guidelines for the management of waste materials containing P.C.B.'s. The guidelines recommend storage of the materials until such time as environmentally acceptable disposal methods have been approved or have been developed.
5.	At the present time there are no licensed P.C.B. disposal sites or facilities in Canada.

[English)


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated two days ago, it is our intention to raise a point of order to the propriety of two items included in Supplementary Estimates (A). In particular, I served notice on the House at that time that we took exception to vote 31a of Regional Economic Expansion and vote L56a of Transport. The point of order has to do with the general question of what are called $1 votes, which has been dealt with a great many times over the years and was dealt with very extensively in March of this year.
At that time you made a ruling on the matter which was very clear and precise and with which we agree. May I quote from the March 22, 1977, issue of Hansard, where at page 4221 Your Honour said:
On the general question, it is my view that the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item, in my opinion, ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.
That was a very clear and precise decision taken by Your Honour in March after a great deal of debate on both sides of the question by a great number of learned experts on House of Commons procedure. In light of that ruling, I should point out that vote 31a under Regional Economic Expansion, dealing with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, contains two parts. The first part of that appropriation calls for payment to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to be applied by the corporation in payment of the losses incurred in the operation and maintenance of the coal mining, related works and undertakings required by the corporation under section 9 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
In my opinion, that is a very proper, normal type of vote. It is an accepted part of estimates of the House. We have no objection to that vote. If the government wanted to appropriate more money to open up new mines in Cape Breton, indeed we would consider that as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The vote continues by indicating "and notwithstanding section 31(2) of the act for grants to municipalities on Cape Breton Island not exceeding the amount equal to the
December 2, 1977

taxes that might have been levied for their 1977-78 fiscal year by the municipalities in respect of the personal property in the corporation, if the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty".
In other words, by use of the conjunctive "and", a $1 item has been attached. It is a legislative item, and it is calling for a minor change. It essentially changes the words "any lands" to personal property. It is a change to legislation and therefore it is a legislative item which is improper, according to Your Honour's ruling on March 22, 1977. Prior to your ruling, under the old system that probably would have appeared as a separate vote with the $1 attached to it. By use of the conjunctive "and", it has been attached to a very proper, legitimate appropriation.
Also, I should like to draw attention to vote L56a under the Department of Transport which has a similar type of circumstance. This vote is divided up into (A) and (B). Rather than using the conjunctive "and" to associate two parts, (A) and (B) have been used. Part (A) is a ligitimate, normal type of estimate which would be part of an appropriation act. We have no procedural objection to that part.
Part (B) indicates that all borrowings by VIA Rail Incorporated be exempted from the interest rate limitation of 6 per cent per annum imposed by section 72(5) of the Railway Act, and all such borrowings for a term of more than 12 months be subjected to the approval of the minister of finance. Part (B) of that vote is in direct contradiction of Your Honour's ruling of March 22 because it effectively legislates. It has the effect of causing people who want to know the law with regard to VIA Rail to root around in appropriations to discover which law applies. I believe that was a basic reason behind Your Honour's decision in March. We find this particularly offensive in view of the fact that VIA Rail was created by a $1 vote in Supplementary Estimates (B) of 1976-77. In my opinion, that is an improper use of the estimates and appropriation procedures.
These two votes in particular are a violation of Your Honour's ruling. The substantive proportion of those appropriations is legitimate. Therefore, if Your Honour rules that those two votes are improper and should be struck down, certainly we would be willing to grant unanimous consent to add back the proper and substantive portions of those votes, since we have no desire to effect the appropriation that Devco requires, nor do we have any desire, on a procedural ground, to try to eliminate the 5100,000 appropriation for VIA Rail.
We would be amenable to finding some way to ensure that these proper appropriations become part of the appropriations Act. In view of Your Honour's ruling in March, we submit, respectfully, that these two votes as presented are out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 almost feel like saying that this is where I came in, because a long time ago I became interested in and concerned about $1 items. However, as is clear, what we are discussing this morning are not items for only $1; they are items of more
Order Paper Questions
substantial amounts, although the hon. member for Calgary Centre has made the point that in his view the effect in two cases is the same as if we had $1 items before us.
I have fought a good many of these items. I hope the struggles of many hon. members in this House have had their effect. In fact, I believe they have. Certainly, there are far fewer items in these supplementary estimates that can be attacked procedurally than has been the case for a long time.
I have studied both of these cases. I am ready to support the hon. member for Calgary Centre with respect to the item on page 142, namely, vote L56a of the Department of Transport. However, I shall take the opposite view to the one he has taken with respect to the item on page 108, namely, vote 31a of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
From the rulings that other occupants of the Chair have made, as well as Your Honour, as I see it what we do when we pass a supply bill is, of course, to enact legislation. A supply bill is just as much an act of parliament as any other act that is passed. Practice and tradition have made it clear, however, that a supply bill should not be used for purposes other than the voting of money for specific purposes. In other words, a supply bill should not be used, especially by means of a $1 item, as a way of smuggling in an amendment to some other statute on the books, in other words as a means of avoiding all the procedures necessary for that kind of amendment.
The act has been cleaned up a good deal and a good deal of that credit goes to Your Honour for the rulings you have made in the last two or three years. In the case of the Transport item, I suggest the drafters of this vote were not as careful as they were in many other respects. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre indicated, vote L56a has two parts. Part (A) calls for the payment of $100,000 and the $100,000 is there. There is no problem; that is clear. Part (B) has not attached to it any money for the purpose involved, but in effect is an amendment of section 72(5) of the Railway Act.
Section 72(5) of that act is the part of that legislation which enables the railways to borrow money and pay interest thereon. Very clearly it is indicated in the statute that the rate of interest shall not exceed 6 per cent per annum. Part (B) of this item removes that limit. It does not remove it on a one-shot basis; it does not remove it for some stated purpose; it removes the ceiling on the rate of interest. Presumably, these borrowings can be borrowings that may take 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years or 100 years to pay back. Thus, for a long period of time the act is being amended. It is declared by (B) of this item that section 75(2) with its ceiling of 6 per cent per annum does not apply. I think Your Honour will have to look very carefully at that item.
I am on the opposition side of the House and have a long history of opposing legislative items in the estimates, but 1 have to say that I do not feel that way about vote 31a under Regional Economic Expansion which provides for the payment of $21,976,000 to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. My friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, says-if he

December 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
can prove this point, I wish him the best-that the use of the word "and" makes the latter part of that long sentence just a $1 item.
As I read the wording of the vote, we are being asked to provide the sum of money I just indicated to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to cover certain losses and a few other things, and also to make payments in lieu of taxes to the municipalities on Cape Breton Island in a manner slightly different than is provided in the act. The act says that Devco can make grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes only on lands that are owned by the corporation. This is being expanded by the terms of this wording to cover what is called the personal property of the corporation. But there are two things that seem to make it different from other kinds of votes, the kinds that Your Honour has properly ruled out of order. In the first place it is not just a dollar put there in the legislation; it is a huge sum of money. I take it that the money which Devco is to be allowed to pay to the municipalities in grants in lieu of taxes is included in that $21,976,000.
The other thing that is significant is that it is not an ongoing item, as is the case with the Transport item; it is a one-shot item; it is for the year 1977-78 only. I am sure my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, is not objecting, nor is my friend down the way, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, objecting-


Mr. Muir;: The hon. member heard what the hon. member for Calgary Centre said. He has no objections whatsoever to the vote for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In fact, we want to increase it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will say that if the wrong means was being employed to achieve the end, we would have to object, but I do not think there is anything wrong with this means of granting the extra money to Devco to make these payments in lieu of taxes. If it was a $1 item amending the act, I think that would be questionable. If if was being amended for all time, that also would be questionable. But in fact it is a grant of a certain number of dollars that are right there in the estimates which are to be used for this purpose for this year only.
Just as I feel very strongly that the Transport item is a piece of ongoing legislation which changes the act, so I feel that this is not ongoing legislation, this is not a $1 item but a grant of an actual number of dollars for a specific purpose.
My friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, said to me-and I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys feels the same way about it-that some other corporations down there, such as Atomic Energy, and so on, ought to be doing the same thing, and that the municipalities on Cape Breton Island which are suffering because the Crown corporations there are not paying taxes should get the compensation or the reimbursement they need. This has been mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, and by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys in his interjection.
No one is opposed in principle to what is being done, and I am ready to say that if I thought the means were wrong we

would have to propose that this item be dropped and that a special one be brought in. But I will simply repeat the point I made. It seems to me that this item is not in the category of $1 items which we have opposed so relentlessly time and time again; it is not a $1 item but a $21,976,000 item which is a proper matter to be contained in a supply bill.
Therefore, my submission to Your Honour is that you should find the item on page 142 out of order with respect to the (B) part and that the necessary piece of legislation separate from this bill should be brought in. We will then give it quick passage. But, I see no reason to object to handling in this way the extra money to Devco to make these larger grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities on the Island of Cape Breton.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: The legislative items rejected by you were generally amendments to statutes and were not in any way related to the granting of authority for expenditure. The item under consideration has as its purpose the granting of authority for the expenditure for the support of the coal mining and related industries in Cape Breton and for grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities in that area; that is to say, to give assistance to an economically distressed part of the country. The municipalities which I think would be affected are in the constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys and Cape Breton-East Richmond, and would include Glace Bay, New Waterford, Sydney, Sydney Mines and the county of Cape Breton. They would lose in the amount of close to $1 million, that is, $978,616.23.
The amendment to the act is limited strictly to the purposes of the proposed expenditures and it is not a general amendment to the act, as well stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is merely incidental to the purpose of the item. The intent in your ruling was to proscribe the legislation from estimates that properly belong in ordinary bills. It was not your intent to eliminate from the scope of the business of supply a large number of items the purposes of which are restricted to expenditure. Scores of items every year must contain similar phrases that have a strictly limited amending effect to statutes other than appropriation acts. For instance, items that would grant funds for agricultural support programs incidentally amend the Senate and House of Commons Act so that MPs and senators who are farmers are not putting their seats in danger by accepting funds available to all farmers. I think this example illustrates well the point I want to make.
To extend the prohibition against items the purpose of which is to make general amendments to statutes other than appropriation acts, to incidental and strictly limited phrases in items that are for the purpose of granting authority for expenditure would be, in my view, a misapplication of an important parliamentary principle.
As far as the second item is concerned, Transport vote L56a, I should like to ask that the remarks I have made be extended to that item, and I just add that this item is merely incidental, and of a financial or expenditure nature dealing with a Crown-owned company. What I have said in respect of the first item discussed here today I would suggest should apply to the second item, and I would merely add that we are dealing with a Crown-owned company and it is merely incidental, and of a financial expenditure nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am grateful to hon. members who participated in the argument today. The argument and the references will be of great help. We did go through a rather thorough review of this about a year ago. I will, of course, draw rather heavily on the rules I attempted to set down to the House at that time in attempting to determine whether the two items that have been put in question today offend those guidelines I set forth to the House; that is to say, whether they seek, through the supply process, separate legis-
Housing
lative authority from that which already exists, or whether they are simply another application of funds under a program for which legislative authority is already in existence.
That is basically the test I had in mind, and I will take some time to examine it. That was the purpose of inviting these arguments for the first time in advance of the final supply day, to take away from it the eleventh-hour atmosphere with which we have been faced before. I certainly hope it is as big an improvement to our procedures in the minds of hon. members as it seems to be to me, because it is a great help to me to have a little time to reflect on this question before prejudicing or jeopardizing, as it were, the very vital process of supply which has to take place on the last day of this part of the session. Therefore, I will examine the matter and try to rule on it as expeditiously as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton) moved:: That this House condemns the Liberal government and, in particular, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, whose policies have failed to meet the critical needs of housing, urban transportation and energy conservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Members will be remembered that proceedings on this motion will expire in accordance with Standing Order 58(11).


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry we kept the minister from Quebec City today, but it is delightful to have him with us. I am very grateful I can speak on this motion, because I am concerned about urban living and also about the particular aspect of housing. I think the great Irish poet, William Butler Yeats said, "In dreams begins responsibility"-and housing is an important part of every Canadian's dream. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs bears a responsibility for helping to achieve this dream.
Housing has become a major socioeconomic issue of the 1970s. Housing is now everybody's business. That simple fact could be easily illustrated by reciting virtually lists of programs and agencies which affect housing. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, from the extent of federal, provincial and municipal involvement in housing that all three levels of government must work together in this field. It is equally important that co-operation exist between the various governmental levels and the private house building, development and financial sectors. Their resources, know-how and diversity are necessary to make the housing wheels turn. Most important in the housing equation is the co-operation and support of Canadians at large

December 2, 1977
Housing
whose attitudes and actions make housing succeed or fail as a valuable part of the quality of Canadian life.
Federal involvement in housing began with the Dominion Housing Act of 1935 and accelerated after the federal task force on housing and urban development in 1968, culminating in the establishment of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. Housing, however, is a provincial responsibility in law and a regional responsibility by virtue of its character. Above all else, the business of urban affairs is not just to improve the supply of houses and roads; it is to improve the lives of the people who use them. Perhaps a story will illustrate how difficult it is. At a conference on the urban environment, discussions covered many related topics. After an hour or so the talk began to set specific problems in a wider context and to seek their fundamental causes. Eventually some long-term solutions were suggested. During lunch, two members of the group, one a politician and the other a senior official, began worrying about the more immediate concern of surviving the day to day pressures of re-election and red tape. The interesting thing is that they did not think to relate their ongoing lives and the specific problems of their responsibilities to the earlier discussion. Their goal was not improvement of the urban environment but maintaining their position of authority.
Mr. Speaker, it was Sir William Henry Beveridge who said:
The object of government in peace and war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.
It is critical to relate questions of urban affairs not to statistics about housing starts but to the extent to which we foster communities in Canada. Being community minded in urban planning is not a folksy experiment; it is the encouragement of an environment that makes possible and in fact promotes individual growth.
I wish to speak for just a moment on how real this is to me as the representative of the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton, because Ottawa-Carleton is basically a necklace of neighbourhoods to the south and to the east of this great city. One thing I have discovered, not only in walking the streets of Ottawa-Carleton but also in meeting every Wednesday night with community associations, is that people are genuinely, honestly concerned with the environment in which they live. They do not wish to make a final decision-that is left to the elected people-but they do want to have input. They do care about the use of public buildings within their communities. They do care about where roads go. They do care about clean air, sewage, water, garbage-about all of these things, because it does affect not only the assets they own but also their neighbours and the quality of life they have.
A community is so much a way of life; it is not merely houses, stores and streets. Its people enjoy feelings of security, pride, self-respect and hope. It may have different interests: spiritual, cultural, political, business, industrial, educational and social. It may have a number of problems such as shabby housing, inadequate street lighting, overcrowded schools and hospitals, and low health standards. However, the good com-
[Mrs. Pigott.J
munity is correcting these things through redevelopment, conservation, industrial expansion, rising standards of living, promoting racial harmony and ever-widening ideals of what that may be. It takes the wants and aspirations of its people and writes them into terms of action.
The quiet, stable pattern of the small community in Canada has been disrupted and people are discontented with the emptiness of life aboard commuter trains and buses and in crowded buildings. An example which I would like to put on the record concerns an event which happened last year during the by-election. I was standing in a shopping centre when an elderly couple came by, and they asked for one of my political buttons. When I went to pin it on, the old gentleman said, "Would you mind pinning it in the middle of my back?" I was a little dismayed but I pinned it in the middle of his wind-breaker. Then he said, "Would you do the same for my wife" The lady turned around and I pinned the button in the middle of her back. They then said, "Now we can be travelling billboards for you" and I said, "Really, what do you mean?" The gentleman answered, "You see that old age home up on the hill? We live there. We come down here to the shopping centre every day and walk up and down 24 times. In that way, you see, we can touch people. It is very lonely living in only one room in a senior citizen home." Although we can provide decent homes for older people, it still remains that people have to touch people. Therefore, the quality of our communities are very vital and very important.
When an urban development is allowed and encouraged to become a community, the commuter leaves the anonymity of the city and becomes a person intimately associated with his neighbours and keenly aware of his dignity and his worth. Imagine working downtown in a large Canadian city. How often are you likely to get home for lunch? If you work downtown in a large city, it is almost impossible and most of the time you do not even try. 1 drive to work here at the House of Commons every day, and my heart is often very heavy when I look across at Place Portage. It is not that I dispute the fact that public servants should live and work in the great city of Hull, but how can we-when we have such wonderful neighbourhoods in Ottawa-Carleton-place 25,000 public servants in a ghetto like that?
Why could we not have taken those buildings and placed them in our nice communities, such as Lucerne, Gatineau or out in Kanata-the kinds of places where public servants could live and work near theircentre. We must think more about these matters, rather than just placing people in a group of buildings like that, far away from their families and unable to go home for lunch.
Another incredible problem we have concerns cars; the multitude of cars and buses in our core areas. Not only do we shape our cities, they shape us. One of the greatest cities in the world is London, England. I once asked an urban planner why London was still a city where people wished to live. He said that the secret about London is its 1,000 years of history and the fact that it has always had the boroughs' system, where people could live in a community. Then he said a very interest-
December 2, 1977

ing thing, "In a borough you get to know the policeman, the postman, and you don't need a postal code; they know whether you live there or not. Also, you know the grocer." But the last sentence was the one which was so revealing. He said "When you die, someone mourns you." I believe it is so important that as we create urban cities and as we build houses in clusters in neighbourhoods we remember that what we are basically doing is to make certain that our great cities and our small cities will have 500 or 1,000 years of history.
It has been suggested that in the Middle Ages western man learned to think systematically about the realm of the personal. From the twelfth to the eighteenth century western man learned to think systematically and to manage the material world. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we learned to think systematically and to manage organic things. We have not yet learned to understand persons as persons; we are still treating persons as things. To accomplish anything worth while, people working together with similar objectives and principles must replace programs and the erection of buildings.
Let me just tell you one very interesting experiment that happened in the heart of this city, which I think is perhaps one of the best things because it points the way. With respect to the Alta Vista Medical Health Centre in this city, the governors of the University of Ottawa after heart rending debate decided to take their medical faculty and put it out in the complex instead of keeping it in an educational ghetto in centre town. They are moving it out, and there the young medical students will be in touch with the community in which they will eventually practice. This is what we must do.
A philosopher once said, "We are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids". True co-operation co-ordinates the various parts for the general welfare of the community. It is through joint discussion and planning that we achieve action. In pioneer Canada, effort was co-operative. A home was built locally in a "house-raising". Tragically, today we inhibit local community-based action. We have almost come to the point where all help must be institutionalized and made part of some government structure. We establish a particular program with offices, a building, a budget, and everything starts to become impersonal and controlled. On one hand we urge responsibility and private initiative, and on the other we develop a society which is institutional and crushes human initiative.
One of the things I am most concerned with is this amalgamation of the ministry of housing and urban affairs with CMHC. It concerns me that we take what was to be structured, in my reading of the original act, as a think-tank, as a group that would bring together the forces in this country which plan urban development and housing, and suddenly it becomes, to use the Ottawa expression, the buzz word around here-something that has clout and can talk to the ministries and to some of these large urban centres. I do not think that is what it should have been and what it should be. The kind of clout that ministry should have is the clout of good ideas, the clout of bringing together all the forces which affect housing and urban planning. This ministry should have the clout of
Housing
vision and co-operative thinking, not the clout of some large ministry.
I would like to talk about some of the things that disturb me in connection with this part of government. The government has become institutionalized. It is too far from the real world. Changes were recently announced for 400,000 Canadians who have already invested in the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. This was done in midstream. Perhaps the alleged loopholes which are now closed were unjustified. Nevertheless, these changes impose hardships upon Canadians who have already invested in RHOSP's to purchase furniture or to engage in other purposes which were quite legal until April, 1977.
If you wish to buy furniture before the deadline, you must remember that only certain types of furniture and furnishings qualify. But these rules are vague. According to the regulations "eligible furnishings" means "furniture, appliances, curtains or carpeting, but for greater certainty does not include listed personal property or outdoor furniture or equipment." There are, however, many inconsistencies. Stair carpeting or wall-to-wall carpeting qualifies, apparently because of the word "carpeting". Bathroom or kitchen tile does not. That is a funny distinction. There is something that worries me. People who have lived and worked in this city are quite used to broadloom. The officials are used to large broadloomed offices. They forget that in other parts of Canada there is an awful lot of good old linoleum.
I often worry about those in the glass house across the way who are supposed to plan our industrial strategy. I do not know of many small or medium sized offices which have broadloom. Members opposite are so used to thinking in terms of football field offices with broadloom that they forget about the rest of Canada. They forget that most houses in this country have linoleum.
I now wish to talk about land. In my analysis of the challenges and problems of economic housing for Canadians, I found that the basic commodity is land. Five years ago in this city it was possible to buy a lot for less than $10,000. Today a 60-foot lot costs between $25,000 and $30,000. While it can be argued that this is a provincial and municipal responsibility, the federal government should take a leadership role involving all parties in order to be certain of an adequate supply of land on the market. We must address ourselves to the land question.
I understand that a joint study is now in progress. I recognize that the cost of land is a very complicated issue. I hope the minister will address this whole area of land costs in order that there will be a meeting of minds and we can bring forward all points of view and philosophies. We cannot meet the future expectations of the Canadian people unless we address ourselves to what can be done about land costs.
Many of the programs of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs have been directed at numbers. I can understand that. In September of this year the president of Central Mortgage and Housing looked forward to 1978 and expressed the hous-

December 2, 1977
Housing
ing future of Canada in terms of an anticipated 240,000 starts. It is very important that the department not evaluate this in terms of starts, or evaluate all our programs in numerical numbers. We must look at the 25 or 30 programs of the department to see whether they address the deepseated problems of housing. It is not right to think we are curing our housing situation by enumerating starts.
The AEIOP program has been a considerable success. However, we must recognize that there are some problems. Because of the economic conditions in the country, there is a bit of a glut. People are finding that the cost of real estate fees and repainting often represent more than their equity. The spectre of a significant number of mortgage defaults must now be faced. I understand this is particularly troublesome in the eastern provinces.
I now wish to deal with the RRAP program. Regulations have recently been changed in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. These changes seem likely to lead to smaller loans and smaller applications, since the program has been changed from one of rehabilitation to one of patching up. For example, it is no longer possible for an applicant to replace dilapidated ancillary buildings.


Mr. Blais:: Hold your breath.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I will not hold my breath, not with the mails the way they are today. I am sorry; I could not resist that.


An hon. Member:: The minister's whisper is quite loud.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Never mind my conversation with my confrere.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: There is the very fine Housing and Urban Development Association. These people have put forth very constructive programs. I was in association work before coming to this great chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to express some of my concerns about what is happening in the housing and development market at the present time. One of them relates to the apparent flight of some of our developers to the sunny climes. I believe they have a long list of good reasons for deciding to take their development money south of the border, and I think it is important that the ministry take the time to inform itself about those reasons. I am sure the Housing and Urban Development Association could be very helpful in identifying the reasons for this flight.

We must not only address ourselves to eastern Canada and to the Montreal area; we must look at what is happening to the Toronto market. I understand that unemployment in the industry is around 50 per cent and will probably climb to around 60 per cent in the course of the winter. There is great concern that no housing starts are taking place at the moment. I sense that the ministry is preoccupied with just one jurisdiction and that it is more concerned about organizational charts than with the real world and the fact that we need more development in our major urban centres.
Another area I wish to address relates to the intrusion of the federal government into provincial capitals and municipal centres, areas which really belong to the jurisdiction of the provinces. Housing is a provincial responsibility, but over the years the federal government has taken over the provincial responsibility of deciding land type and housing competition in urban projects.
The recently announced Canadian Home Insulation Program is one more example of federal entry into provincial jurisdiction. Other speakers from my party will be addressing this question in more detail later. Why are CHIP grants given directly to individuals, rather than to the provinces, when housing is under provincial jurisdiction? Why were representatives of the various provinces moved to say that no meaningful consultation took place before the program was put in place? Why was it only yesterday, three months after initiation of the insulation program, that meetings took place? It is a sad commentary, too, that the one province which did not agree to participate in the program at the beginning was given the head office. That was another example of intrusion into provincial rights before they had expressed a willingness to accept the program.
One cannot but be very concerned about the people who live in such areas as are represented by my hon. friend, the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who face a very bleak winter in houses which are in need of repair as well as insulation. But applications for this necessary work are held up because of the heavy workload in local CMHC offices.
The growth of direct federal entry into municipal affairs began with CMHC involvement in urban renewal. Federal assumption of real estate around harbours, airports and railways within its jurisdiction followed. Then Ottawa began to see urban problems as being in the national interest. Here I would like to remind hon. members of the fact that in 1970, when the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was formed, it was vowed that the federal government intended only to co-ordinate urban activities relating to its jurisdiction over federal property. At the same time as the government was talking about national objectives, the phrase "urban problems" which was felt, somehow, to be federal, replaced "municipal affairs" which had a provincial connotation. In June, 1971, when the motion proposing the establishment of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was presented, it was said-and here I want to quote because I think it is very important to note that we are straying from the original concept.
December 2, 1977

-its direct operational role is non-existent. The ministry's role will be co-ordina-tive as between federal policies and their departments ... It will be consultative with the provinces and their municipalities in achieving, hopefully, with the co-operation of the provinces and the municipalities an integrated approach to solving urban problems that one of the three areas of jurisdiction can solve on its own.
I urge the government to return to its mandate and renew the co-ordinating and consultative role that was outlined in 1971. This ministry could be so supportive with research and development concepts, working with the trade associations and financial institutions to find answers to these problems.
I want to talk about one specific area, the cost of mortgage funds. In Canada today, a $40,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years at 12 per cent carries a monthly rate of $413. In order to repay this mortgage and stay within the guidelines of 25 per cent of a family's income, it is necessary to earn $19,800 a year. The same mortgage with an interest rate of only 6 per cent will cost $256 a month on an annual salary of $12,300. Has the government considered alternative forms of mortgage financing? Has the government explored the possibility of measures to encourage small investors to enter the private mortgage market? Has the government considered measures to reflect the wide variety of needs found in our country and to respond in a flexible way to regional housing problems?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, we have.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: No, Mr. Speaker, they have not. I am being heckled by the other side. The hon. member knows perfectly well that he is not being accurate. May I mention one other area where cost has an effect on housing construction. Has the government investigated abolishing the federal sales tax on building materials? I realize that this is an old one, but it is a very important one. Would the minister also put pressure on the finance department to review the double taxation which has plagued municipalities in regard to sales tax on electrical supplies for subdivisions? Do the priorities include aid to the provinces to deal with the needs of urban transit?
Housing is not merely a matter of shelter, Mr. Speaker. Urban affairs is not just a question of logistics in crowded cities. Part of the current unrest in Canada can be traced to the effects of the urban environment on Canadians. Decent, reasonably priced housing, just like food, clothing and warmth during our long winter, helps raise morale. Good housing raises hopes and aspirations. The children of today's houses will be the adults of Canada's future.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 would like to remind the hon. member who just sat down, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), that it is rather surprising that she be the one to introduce such a motion to deplore the Canadian government's achievements in housing, especially since she lives in one of the ridings that has very likely benefitted more than any other in that regard. Of course that riding is home to thousands of Canadians who live in very decent and in many
Housing
cases luxury units, or again in accommodations which meet the needs of low income families or, in an infinite number of cases which would be too long to list here, in homes for the aged which have been built in the Ottawa-Carleton riding. I merely want to say, Mr. Speaker, that obviously all these things have not been achieved by the present member of this riding, but rather by her two Liberal predecessors, Messrs. Tardif and Turner, who greatly contributed to the development of this electoral district.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the hon. member has shown good disposition toward the housing and urban affairs problems, and I want to congratulate her for the seriousness of most of her remarks. Furthermore, I do appreciate the number of very appropriate suggestions she has made; I shall be happy to consider them and I hope to follow them up. Nevertheless it remains that her speech was so far removed from the motion introduced today that I am wondering if she really wrote it. I find her much too charitable and too just to draft such a motion. Perhaps her colleague in front of her wrote it, it is more his style than that of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred to certain problems in the housing field, and, of course, to certain difficulties concerning the role played by the Ministry of Urban Affairs in Canada.
I do not have to remind the House of the basic role that the Ministry of Urban Affairs must play in this country. The ministry was established following requests from all parts of the country and the wishes expressed by members on both sides of the House, and it is quite natural for the Canadian government to be interested in urban affairs, even though this interest is unfortunately often misunderstood and badly misconceived by certain provincial authorities and I was disappointed to see that the hon. member, who is the urban affairs critic for the official opposition, has failed to understand the importance of the Ministry of Urban Affairs to serve the best interests of all Canadian citizens. We must realize that the majority of Canadian citizens now live in urban centres. This situation involves many problems and it is obvious that the Canadian government cannot ignore the welfare of the increasing number of urban residents who need government help.
There is a second reason that justifies the existence of the Ministry of Urban Affairs within the Canadian government: In addition to the natural interest of the Canadian government in the welfare of all Canadians, most federal government projects, policies, programs and activities influence the lives of urban Canadians and the quality of the cities where they live. For instance, our immigration, transportation and economic expansion policies as well as the activities of the Department of Public Works certainly have considerable influence on the urban environment. We must therefore play a coordinating role to ensure that the activities of the Canadian government, through its many departments and agencies, does not hinder

Corporation which describes a series of programs set up by the Canadian government to answer the needs of Canadians in the field of housing. This information kit features the Assisted Home Ownership Program and the Low Rental Housing Assistance Program which has enabled us to get more apartments built by private enterprise in the great urban communities of Canada in order to raise a vancancy rate which was too low and so as to provide people who want to get housing with the possibility of a greater choice in the type of apartment they want to rent.
Let me mention programs that work quite well namely the Non-Profit Housing Assistance Program and the Cooperative Housing Assistance Program which are another aspect of the various activities of the Canadian government which aim not only at helping and supporting private enterprise in the crucial role it can play regarding housing construction, but also enable people with middle or low income to get together in a housing cooperative or a non-profit corporation precisely to benefit from grants from the Canadian government there inhabiting housing which cost much less than similar housing which can be found on the conventional market.
We have tried through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to put forward a series of programs dealing with the development and the improvement of urban and municipal environments. We have noticed that one of the greatest difficulties presently encountered by municipalities has to do with their financing, the result of which being that provincial governments are subsidizing them to a certain extent but also that all the funds they are getting are always associated with particular conditions in such a way that Canadian municipalities do not truly enjoy the freedom of action they should have. So, the Canadian government in an important effort to help and support municipal priorities has decided to create the Municipal Incentive Grants Program for the municipalities, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the Land Assembly Assistance Program as well as the Municipal Infrastructure Program which are precisely designed to help municipalities to better serve the needs of their citizens, especially the Municipal Incentive Grants program which provides a grant given directly to a municipality which does not have to be accountable for the use it decides to make of these funds except before its own citizens so that this annual injection of several thousand dollars in municipal finances is a way through which the Canadian government acknowledges the legitimate and fundamental role played by municipal governments in Canadian society. There is, of course, the provincial level of government which plays a priority role which we acknowledge but no one should be under the impression that if there are administrative difficulties with certain programs one must necessarily entail that they should be handed down by the federal government to the provincial level.
I say that the idea that there is an absolute need to decentralize from the federal to the provincial level is wrong. In several cases it would be much better to decentralize from the provincial to the municipal level. We agree that we would be better able to carry out a certain number of our respon-
Housing
sibilities at the federal level and that they would be carried out better, in the better interest of the people, at an another level of government than the federal level, but not necessarily the provincial level. If it is true that the grassroots people would be better served by the government which is closest to them, what does this mean? It means the municipal level. Through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs we have fully recognized this important role that municipalities have to play vis-a-vis the people and we want through those programs to give them large grants to enable them to take their full responsibilities at the municipal level. I think that this uttering of accusations that the government of Canada is getting into provincial jurisdictions will have to stop because that is not where the problem is.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that provincial authorities are too jealous of their responsibilities. Every time Ottawa does something they start crying that Ottawa should not be doing it. So I am very disappointed at the attitude of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, and to see that they are opposed to the government of Canada trying to help municipalities fully assume their responsibilities in the area of the development of master plans for municipalities and urban development. I think there is an absolute need to give the municipalities more financial resources and immediate responsibilities so they will be able to assume a role they can fully play and much better than the provinces themselves.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We want you to do some work. Never mind being a campaign manager for Quebec. Do what you are paid to do.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: No wonder you are in Mr. Levesque's black books.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Because of you the Parti Quebecois won the last election. We know what happened on November 15.


André Ouellet: I think hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party do not like to hear the truth but I think they have been caught in their own trap by trying to criticize the Canadian government, simply repeating the same nonsense we have been hearing for years from some provincial politicians who are fundamentally overly jealous of their responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say once again that the Canadian government does not make it its ambition to take up responsibilities not given to it by our constitution. The Canadian government, through the Ministry of Urban Affairs or through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, only wants to help those who have a direct responsibility in this field, namely the municipal authorities, to play their part and to provide Canadians with better services by co-operating with municipal and provincial governments. This is our part and we want to play it.
As a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only come back to the criticisms passed on by the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to the Canadian Home Insulation Program; they

December 2, 1977
Housing
tried to make us believe that there had been no consultation with the provinces. The facts, Mr. Speaker, are that before my hon. colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) asked the Canadian government to establish this program, a meeting was held where all his provincial counterparts asked for the establishment of such a program.
The provincial ministers themselves wanted the implementation of a national energy conservation program and specially a home insulation program. Now what has the federal government done about it? The government said: Here is a program ready to be implemented. We would give up to $350 to any Canadian who would want to insulate his house according to a seven-year plan. The provinces, on the other hand, must do something tangible as well to show that they are serious in this collective effort toward energy conservation. The provinces were asked to take concrete steps, or what has been called conditions to allow the residents of the provinces to be eligible for this program.
The conditions that the provinces were asked to implement are not impossible to realize, they are simple and natural conditions; first, to implement reduced speeds on highways; second, to install in new constructions what is called "block meters" which replace central systems in apartment buildings and gives each apartment its own individual system, as a means to save energy and reduce excessive heating cost; third, the provinces were asked to accept new building standards which would enable people to build not for the past but for the future so that the new residences be better insulated. Many people are forced today to spend money to improve residences which initially were badly built and badly insulated, a mistake which we should not make again.
The provinces were asked to raise insulation standards as part of home construction standards. What they were asked was not out of this world. But now the opposition seems to object to the provinces being asked to do their share in energy conservation. This is what is happening. The Canadian government gives $350 to anyone who wants to insulate his house, and now that the provinces realize it is a good program they would like to use these $350 to improve the program and let people believe that our program was not that good and should be improved. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in any program there is always room for improvement.
But to the hon. member and the provinces which have criticized our program I say that if they want to improve it they should use their own money; they should not try to take the money the government of Canada wants to give out to citizens, leading people to believe that they are going to offer that program themselves.
I think the Canadian Home Insulation Program is exceptional and that it meets the present needs when it comes to energy conservation. I am pleased to see that all Canadian provinces, after a lot of shuffling, finally understood that their people wanted it and that this program will now be available in all parts of the country and not only in a few provinces.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Do you know what consultation means, Andre?


Mr. Whiteway:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Out of respect for the minister I let him finish his speech without interrupting him, but on five occasions I could have called a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The point of order is that five times-and the record will show me to be correct-he used the word "consultation". Specifically, he said "consultation with the provinces and municipalities".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order; it is a difference of opinion. The hon. member will have an opportunity to seek the floor and make his point.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member has a real point of order.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: My point of order is not on a difference of opinion but on a difference of fact. My point of order is that the minister was misleading the House. I will quote him to prove that he deliberately misled the House in reading this document in front of me, the report of the western premiers' task force.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be the one responsible for the point of order if he uses the language he has used right now. I think he can make his point when he speaks in the debate. He has a difference of opinion with the minister. I do not think this point of dispute is a point of order. If he wants to, he can make a charge and then he will have to suffer the consequences of that charge.

Is the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine rising on a point of order?


Mr. B6chard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would allow me a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House, as the allotted time has expired. Does the House give its unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No.


André Ouellet: Paproski said no.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP welcome the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) and we wish her well in her
December 2, 1977

new position as the Conservative party critic on housing. One might have hoped that in her first speech she would not only have thrown creampuffs but would have added a few brickbats. Probably in the next speech she will do so.
The motion condemns the government in three areas, that of housing, that of urban transportation and that of energy conservation. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is in charge of housing, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is in charge of transportation, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is in charge of energy conservation. I say without any hesitation that the policies and attitudes of these three ministers are cruel, crass and cocky. Those are the three adjectives that best describe them.
The housing policies of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs are the result of bowing and begging and giving land speculators, developers, builders and financial institutions almost complete control over the number and types of housing, the interest rates, the land costs and the financing of housing in Canada, with the result that 80 per cent of Canadians cannot afford housing today. This situation is imposing hardship on young married couples and elderly people who wish to obtain reasonable housing accommodation. Mr. Speaker, this really amounts to criminal cruelty. I read the speech the Minister of State for Urban Affairs delivered in Toronto on November 2 before the Property Forum and this is what he said as the commitment of the government:
We, as a government, have a commitment to the people of Canada. We have undertaken to ensure that all Canadians-wherever they may live-have access to good housing, at an affordable cost, and in a safe and satisfying community environment.
That commitment, or statement, really amounts to fraudulent advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: When we take into account the three components of housing, which are land costs, building costs and interest rates, what is the picture of this government and, specifically, the job this particular minister has done and is responsible for? Let me quote from a study of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which contains 2,000 pages with regard to housing conditions in Canada. These are some of the highlights of the housing picture today in Canada. I am quoting from the Montreal Star of March 29, 1977, which is commenting on the report.
About 7 per cent of city households have serious problems, says a Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. study ...
The corporation yesterday released a summary of a bulky 23-volume, 2,000-page report on housing conditions in the country's 23 metropolitan areas in 1974.
It goes on to say:
But 40 per cent of households face at least one of the major housing problems of overcrowding, poor housing conditions and housing cost, the report said. Of these, 7 per cent or 225,000 households are burdened with at least two of these problems and are in serious difficulty.
Housing
The CMHC report concludes that "renters appeared to be worse off than home owners-they constituted about three-quarters of the 225,000 households with serious difficulties."
The survey report says the largest single housing problem is cost.
About 547,000 households are paying more than 25 per cent of total household income in rental or mortgage payments.
About 298,000 households are overcrowded and 198,000 are living in substandard housing.
Then the CMHC report draws this biased view and says by almost any measure Canadians in the urban part of the country are well housed. It just indicates, from the attitude of the minister-and he displayed it this afternoon-that Canadians should be mighty thankful to the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: When he criticized the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton for her remarks concerning housing conditions, he said that in her particular riding she should be very proud because of the actions of the two previous Liberal members. The only inference to be drawn from that is that unless you are a Liberal member you do not get any money for housing or anything. Mr. Speaker, this just indicates the crassness and cockiness of this particular minister.
I would like to point out to the minister just what housing costs in Canada. These figures are from the Globe and Mail of November 19, 1977, showing the cost of a three-bedroom bungalow with one garage. These are the costs across the country: Cornerbrook, Newfoundland, $55,000 this year compared to $54,000 in 1976. In a province with roughly 25 per cent unemployment, can you imagine a worker paying $55,000 in Corner Brook, Newfoundland? In Montreal, in one area, $47,500; another area, $43,000; and yet another area, $39,000. In Toronto, in the Thornhill area, $83,000 this year compared to $76,000 last year; Scarborough, $67,400 compared to $65,000 last year; Richmond Hill, $65,000 compared to $60,000 last year; Ottawa, $62,400 compared to $60,300 last year; Calgary, $78,000, compared to $72,000 last year; Vancouver, in one area, $94,000 compared to $93,000.
These are examples of what it costs for houses across the nation, knowledge of which the minister should have. I say to the minister, "How can young people afford to pay those prices-


An hon. Member:: They have other types of houses they can buy.


John Gilbert: -so they can establish themselves?" I can appreciate that the truth really hurts this particular minister.


An hon. Member:: That is why they lost the November 15 election.


John Gilbert: All these homes have an average mortgage of $50,000 to $60,000 and an interest rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, just what the payments are for the particular house they purchase.
The second component is land costs. For an NHA single, detached lot in 1977 the cost is $9,918. The Malvern Project-

December 2, 1977
Housing
all the Toronto members are very familiar with because it was supposed to be utopia concerning housing in Ontario-in 1972 the book value, which is the cost of assembling, servicing and holding the land, was $6,100 per lot. In 1976 the book value was $11,760. More important, the market value is $26,000.


An hon. Member:: For a lot?


John Gilbert: Yes, for a lot in the Malvern area. In Edmonton, in the Mill Woods development, which is land owned by the government of Alberta, lots sell for between $10,000 and $15,000. In the same city, lots owned by private individuals sell for between $20,000 and $30,000.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


John Gilbert: With regard to land assembly programs in Ontario, where they assembled land for the purpose of reducing the cost of land, they have now scrapped that program and are selling the land. In Kitchener they sold some lots with a $3 million profit on a $5 million investment-which is a 60 per cent profit. On that basis, if they sell the 23,000 acres which they possess, they will make $540 million.


An hon. Member:: Which company?


John Gilbert: This is the Ontario government. I am drawing it to the attention of the Conservative party, because one of the main costs is land. Is it any wonder that we have high cost of housing, when governments put profits before people? With regard to vacancy rates, the latest report indicated there is a 2.3 per cent vacancy rate across the country, which is a shift from the 1.6 per cent vacancy rate in October. The experts indicate the vacancy rate, to have any impact, should be at least between 3 per cent and 5 per cent, and we are a far distance from that. In fact 18 of the 24 countries included in the survey are under the 2.3 per cent. It just indicates the importance of that.
My time is running very short, but I want to cover three areas. With regard to the transportation policies of the government, may I say that the Minister of Transport is cruel, crass and cocky. His policies have been disappointing and deceiving.
In Toronto on June 17, 1974, the Minister of Transport made the statement that $270 million would go for transportation. Shortly after the Liberals were elected as the government, what did they do? They scrapped that $270 million program on the basis that they had to show government restraint. The Toronto members screamed because of the serious problems of grade separation, commuter traffic, and rail relocation, but it fell on deaf ears.
What does the Minister of Transport do now with regard to housing? He announced a new urban transportation assistance program. It merges the moneys for the programs of railway relocation and crossing programs and commuter service programs. There is no new money. All he is doing is merging the moneys of those two programs and calling it an urban transportation assistance program. There is a need across the

country for a transportation policy which will take care of the grade separations, rail relocations and commuter traffic. However, we have no direction or financial assistance from the government.
The Ontario minister of transportation, Mr. Snow, said that the recent program is nothing but stunting and does too much for too little. In Ontario alone, $72 million is needed to take care of grade separations. The minister has offered $49.5 million over three years to take care of grade separations, rail assistance, urban transportation and relocation. Is it any wonder that I say his policies are cruel, crass and cocky? If there was ever a time for job creation in the field of transportation it is now, and the government has failed.
The home insulation program refers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With a great deal of fanfare, the government announced it would spend $1.4 billion over seven years, which amounts to $200 million a year. We can appreciate the special case of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island because of their high energy costs to produce electricity. Therefore the $500 non-taxable grant is justified. However, all of us on this side believe the other eight provinces should not be restricted to two-thirds of the cost of the insulation with a limit of $350 which is taxable.
When you look at the $1,400 million over seven years, which is $200 million a year, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said last night if it were not taxable they would lose $560 million, subtracting that from the $1,400 million, it amounts to $120 million a year in energy saving across the country for insulation.
Looking at Bill C-l 1, the government has given $1.2 billion in tax savings and incentives to corporations and high income individuals, and is only prepared to give $120 million to people who indulge in energy conservation. All I can say is that the government is not serious about energy conservation. Ministers are not serious about insulation and the insulation program. If they were, they would be putting a tight check on the manufacturers of home insulation materials and insulation installers other than a mere government monitoring department.
The government should have included within the insulating materials such things as storm windows, storm doors, and double glazing, which would help many people with regard to this problem. It should have consulted with the provinces with regard to the increased assessments and increased taxes people have had as a result of participating in the home insulation program. Is it any wonder that we in this party condemn the government and these three ministers in particular for their policies on housing, conservation, and transportation? It is really a cruel, crass and cocky approach that these three ministers have taken.
I notice I have a few minutes left. I am going to take advantage of them. If we are serious about housing we will set forth programs to produce reasonable housing for all Canadians. That can be done by government initiatives with regard to public housing, co-operative housing and non-profit housing in the social housing fields. Instead of paying more than 25 per cent, the target should be 20 per cent at the very most.
December 2, 1977

When I think of how young people are struggling today with housing, it does not make me feel very happy. When I think of the interest rates and the high amounts that people are paying, and the total over-all payments with regard to their $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 mortgages, I feel we have a social responsibility to have interest rates of no more than 6 per cent. That is with regard to housing.
With regard to transportation, surely that should be the easiest job creating function of the government. It should be putting in millions of dollars to update the railway system across the country to develop a commuter system and to develop the relocation of railways. Then we would have an up-to-date policy. We would be saving energy and we would be leading the way.
With regard to the home insulation program, the so-called CHIP program, it really is a chippy program. Three thousand grants have been made under it, to date. Is it any wonder people say the government is not indulging in principles of equality and equity but is doing otherwise?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, opposition days may seem like wasted at times to the public. However, if our procedure provides for such opposition days, it is to allow parliamentarians to scrutinize a particular subject, and the procedure calls for this to be done by a motion censuring the government-it is a tradition that exists in all British-type parliaments and since our parliament adopted that procedure, it is normal that we should proceed in this fashion but in a rational and objective manner. Generally the motions are debated on those opposition days, but those motions deal with very specific issues, and they are generally serious motions.
I heard this week on another allotted day a member on the government side complain that the opposition often raises economic matters, unemployment. Mr. Speaker, members cannot be blamed for raising those issues very frequently, since it is a current problem-inflation is eroding the savings of those who worked hard all their lives, inflation is getting young people into debt for the rest of their lives, and those issues must be dealt with in order to find a solution, to change the methods used, as the speech from the throne suggested. Unemployment is the same thing, there are causes for it. One of the consequences of inflation is that in the area of construction under consideration today, in the area of housing, young people are concerned all across Canada and particularly in Quebec, in Montreal.
After the Olympic follies last year, the situation is much worse there than in the rest of Canada. Unemployment increased dramatically because construction declined both in my riding and elsewhere, and skilled workers are unemployed. Plumbers are out of work, electricians as well, young people can no longer borrow to build a home because they fear for the future. It costs four times the cost of a house to build a hopefully stable home.
Housing
It is not because the government does not have any housing policy, the CMHC has several excellent programs, but in order to implement them, non-profit organizations, individuals and municipal corporations must absolutely have the money required to take advantage of those housing programs, of those environmental public utility programs designed to make access to ownership easier and allow people to become homeowners without having to commit themselves for 40, 50 or 60 years. That is the flaw in our present system. Mr. Speaker, I will just give this one example not to criticize or for the sake of criticizing, indeed not, but because if we are to consider this issue, we should do it carefully.
What is happening in the area of housing? First of all, I wish to say this: Housing is a need for everybody and every family and it is also a right just as important as clothing and food. Therefore, if it is such an important right, I believe it is quite proper to take appropriate means to make sure every individual and every family of this country enjoy this right. As I said earlier, the Canadian government, the provinces and municipalities have taken all means available to them to enable Canadians to emphasize this right. But as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said in his remarks, municipalities have not got enough revenues to be able to take fully their responsibilities, to provide services that go along with housing such as water and sewage systems, highways and so on. He was right to say that municipalities cannot afford it and that there should be a provincial decentralization in their favour. I fully agree with that.
Not so long ago, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with its policy on housing, dealt with the Quebec Housing Corporation-I speak of the province of Quebec- and the latter dealt with municipalities for the building of nursing homes or low cost housing. Today the situation has changed. Why? Simply because municipalities did not have enough money to meet the obligations which were imposed upon them by the provincial government. Therefore, Quebec municipalities have given up their responsibilities, and today the Quebec Housing Corporation is responsible for the implementation of programs concerning nursing homes or low cost housing for middle or low income families.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker? I will give you an example which is taking place throughout Quebec, and not only in one specific case, but I believe it is the same throughout Canada. In order to build a nursing home three years ago the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation contributed up to 90 per cent through a loan of $537,863 at an interest rate of 10% per cent-if at least it had been simple interest but it was compound interest. The Quebec government has undertaken to reimburse the federal government the amount of $2,880,862- five times the amount of the loan granted. Why? Because of the interest over a period of 50 years. Interest is therefore too high.
Many projects have been shelved; plans and specifications are ready, the population is waiting for the construction of those homes to start, but nothing is done because it costs too much. People who are to live in those homes have to pay

December 2, 1977
Housing
increasing rents, and even though old age pensions are raised every three months through the Department of National Health and Welfare, people are forced every six months to pay rent hikes to allow the Quebec government to collect the money needed to reimburse the loan granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We cannot go on like that any longer. We must absolutely change our financing system if we really want to revitalize the housing industry. In the past, and I think it is still true, it was said that if construction was going well, so was the whole economy. Today, many builders operate on a slow-down basis, bidding on smaller contracts, mainly maintenance contracts, but actually there are no new developments.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and my colleagues' to another excellent program, RRAP. In my riding, there is an RRAP project that has been going on for two years and the program is doing well when there is money but gets stalled whenever there is no more money, and it has been going rather slowly for the better part of the year because there were not enough funds for all the applications that were received, to carry out all the rehabilitation projects in that community. Some people may say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a long-term program, a five-year program. True enough, but I am satisfied that the program is now being implemented, but because there is not enough money, many municipalities in the province of Quebec and in my own riding have filed applications with the Quebec government because they wanted to become designated areas where RRAP programs would apply. Those municipalities are still waiting for an answer and as long as the provincial government will not respond to their application, the RRAP program will not operate.
However, as it has been said, this is the best program. Why is it the best, Mr. Speaker? Because, under that program, any owner of a dilapidated house or housing unit could benefit from a very special advantage. Let us say you have to borrow $10,000 to repair your home, to rehabilitate it, under RRAP the federal government will allow a grant of $3,750. This amounts to granting a loan at a rate of interest anyone could afford. This is called a grant, a rebate, or whatever you want, as long as the owner is taking advantage of it. But as things are going, there will not be many grants of $3,750 because few projects are allowed and few muncipalities can take advantage of the program. So, that generous program is not being raised, people do not take advantage of it, and those programs which are expensive, people go for them when they have to, but then they must pay five times more.
Mr. Speaker I have five sons. My children have learned to work, or at least, I have tried to show them that work is a tool for success in life, and they want to have a home, like the sons of all other Canadians, but they find that it is very expensive to build a frame on a good foundation if you must borrow money at the present high interest rates.
We cannot impress too much on the government the fact that this is the source of the problem and that we do not have to look elsewhere for it. If we could solve this, we could make some progress, and even though interest rates would sometimes
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
be excessive, there would be new housing starts and new homes would be built. The plumbers who are now on unemployment insurance would find work and so would the workmen, the carpenters, the electricians and the roofers. That is the secret, Mr. Speaker. The construction sector is among those who provide the most jobs in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the reply given this week by the right hon. Prime Minister to a question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), who wanted to know if the government was planning to introduce amendments to the Bank of Canada Act to enable the government to provide loans at lower interest rates. The Prime Minister is aware of the problem and is an intelligent man, but he evaded the question by replying: "If the hon. leader of the Social Credit party can convince many Canadians to make interest-free loans to the government, we, in turn, will provide interest-free loans." But this was not the essence of the question. The Prime Minister knew this. In my opinion, there are other alternatives. If the Prime Minister was really serious in his reply, Mr. Speaker, there are 8,600 million banknotes now circulating in Canada and the money supply represents more than $80 billion. The issue of banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank of Canada. Again, there are 8,600 million banknotes and a money supply of $80 billion. Who created this difference?
This is where the Prime Minister should have talked about the issue of the nation's credit which is today between the hands of private institutions that are getting richer than any other economic sector in Canada because they have the privilege to issue the credit of the nation at their advantage. I encourage all hon. members to review that issue further. One might say that financial issues are quite difficult. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult because we make it difficult to the benefit of those who take advantage of such a system and the Prime Minister knows it as he himself declared recently that bankers are the most demanding in Canada and he said himself that under his administration they became richer than anyone in Canada and that he was ashamed of that situation.
Mr. Speaker, we should make some effort, we the members of this House, to help the Prime Minister go further and ask him to bring back before the House Bill C-206 that I already tabled.
This bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act so that our bank could issue the credit of the nation in the same way as chartered banks but it would grant loans to provinces and, through them, to municipalities at administration cost. If we did that, Mr. Speaker, there would be a recovery in the building sector, the RRAP program would be operating and unemployment decreasing. We could applaud this government not only for its good programs but also because it would allow us to implement them without further delay.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, today I do not intend to make any reference to the Minister of State for
December 2, 1977

Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) since I have no time for a minister who has no time for his job. The minister had known for several days that today was going to be an opposition day, that we were going to deal with housing, transportation and energy, matters falling within his area of responsibility. Yet today he left the House early. Why, Mr. Speaker? To go to Quebec City for a political function. 1 realize that he is the lieutenant for the Liberal party-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I hope unintentionally, is misleading the House. The notice of motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) was tabled in the House some time after three o'clock yesterday afternoon. Unless the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had some sort of intuitive knowledge of the intentions of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, I fail to see how he should have known of the nature of this particular motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway).


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I certainly do not want to mislead the House. If the minister did not know for several days, I stand corrected. He has known for an adequate length of time, however, and surely his first responsibility is to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) does not know what ministerial responsibility is I will give him a lecture on that, but I assume he knows it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 find the comment of the hon. member quite distasteful. I must remind the House that the minister was in committee yesterday when the hon. member was present, and he was in committee again this morning when the hon. member was present. The hon. member knows very well that at five o'clock yesterday afternoon when we learned about today's motion, the minister had planned a trip outside the city and had to cancel it in order to accommodate the hon. member this morning in committee, and this afternoon in the House. Let us be fair.


An hon. Member:: Where is he now?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite will have to get their act together. One knew at three o'clock, the other did not know until five o'clock-I cannot help with the problems on that side. The fact is, the minister is not in the House. He is a Quebec lieutenant for the Liberal party, but judging by his performance in the provincial election a year ago he ought to be a buck private. For his performance as
Housing
Minister of State for Urban Affairs he should receive a dishonourable discharge. From the way he spoke today, however, you would think he was a general.
I should like to deal specifically with two areas, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to deal with Liberal lies, but that is unparliamentary language so I shall call them Liberal "misleadings." I shall quote from certain documents on that score. Secondly, I shall deal with the question of federal-provincial relations and how the minister deliberately misled the House today. He had a document in front of him which I saw-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the words "deliberately misleading" are not parliamentary. We hope he will not use unparliamentary language.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw that. I do not want to be unparliamentary, but I shall prove that what he said was not in accordance with the facts, and let members attach their own definition or colloquial expression to it.
The minister gave us some of these facts this afternoon. Given that 75 per cent of Canadians live in urban centres and that 12 years from now the figure will be 90 per cent, given that most of these people will be concentrated in four major urban centres in Canada, given that 50 per cent of our energy consumption takes place because of intra-city transportation- given those background facts, I should like now to recall June 17, 1974. Hon. members opposite will recognize the occasion immediately. It was in Vancouver during the election campaign when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claimed the Liberal government "will pay"-note the word "will"-he did not use the word "may" or "should"-he said the Liberal government "will pay 100 per cent of the cost of new commuter vehicles." Has that been fulfilled?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He also said the Liberal government "will pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of all vehicles purchased." Has that been fulfilled?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He went on to say that financial support "will be made available to encourage Canadian design and engineering." Has that been fulfilled?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He then said that the Liberal government "will offer assistance" and that Canadian industry would be encouraged to develop "off the shelf' standardized systems and equipment. Has that been fulfilled?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Next he promised that the Liberal government "will encourage" urban transit systems. He said that the Liberal government is "committed"-mark that word, Mr. Speaker-is "committed." Now this is what they were com-

December 2, 1977
Housing
mitted to-"committed to removing the 12 per cent sales tax". If that was a commitment I would hate to see a promise. Then he went on to say that the Liberal government "will offer" the best use of existing railway rights of way and that the Liberal government "will rapidly implement" the railway relocation act.
Those were Liberal promises-commitments-the clear, unadulterated policy that the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people in Vancouver on June 17, 1974. What has happened since? The $270 million promised for this program has been withdrawn. A former minister of finance, no longer a member of this House, withdrew those funds and reneged on the promise. We have nothing, and we do not see the prospect of any action.
There is a matter of more grievous concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is in the area of housing. I should like to quote something for the record and give hon. members opposite five seconds to guess the source. If the Minister of State for Urban Affairs were here he might help hon. members opposite, but he has left them to hold the fort so they will have to fend for themselves. I would ask hon. members to listen to the following statement:
When 280,000 families in Canada pay more than 50 per cent of their family income for housing and 500,000 families in Canada pay more than 35 per cent, and 820,000 families pay more than 25 per cent, and when two-thirds of those Canadians in need of housing cannot afford to buy or rent a home without a government subsidy, we have a problem of fundamental proportions. We must take decisive action now or face unparalleled problems later.
The five seconds are up and hon. members opposite have not guessed that statement was made by the deputy minister of urban affairs, William Teron, chairman of CMHC, only one year and two months ago in the city of Calgary. I was there and I heard him. He talks about taking "decisive action now or face unparalleled problems" in the future. Since then the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has been going about his political activities in the province of Quebec-and not too successfully. He has been alienating the municipalities and provinces.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) interjects with some figures pertaining to our representation in this House from certain parts of Canada. If he is as bold and confident as he appears from his seat, why does he not call an election now? Then we will see who comes back with the corporal's guard.
The Prime Minister is also in Quebec politicking for the next election, whenever it comes. There is a critical problem in Canada which is being intensified by the attitude the minister expressed in the House today. We have a conflict between the provinces, the municipalities which are the creatures of the provinces, and the federal government. We have to determine who has the constitutional right to act in the various areas relating to housing and urban affairs. Some provinces take block funding, unconditional grants, non-designated equalization payments, and then there is the federal government taking the federalist attitude.
Today in committee I quoted from the Financial Post, but the minister objected that it was not an accurate recollection
[Mr. Whiteway.1
of what he said. I have the paper here and should like to quote from the Financial Post of October 8 where the minister is reported as saying "I am not prepared to see federal funds used in Quebec without making the population aware that it's thanks to their Canadian government."
The attitude of the minister is clearly that he wants to get credit for federal moneys spent in the provinces. The minister wants his name up in lights for everyone to see his wondrous works. I am not a shorthand writer, but I believe this afternoon the hon. minister indicated that the intervention of federal government into urban affairs is natural, that his department helps to co-ordinate activities, and that their role is complementary. He went on to explain that this complementary role makes for a better general plan. Approximately five times the minister used the word "consultation", and that nothing was done without consultation with the provinces.


Mr. Andres:: That is right.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I will prove to the hon. member how wrong that is. I should like to tell him not to get excited. I realize the little fish bite even before the hook is baited.
Particularly in Quebec there is a new developing hostility between the provincial government and the federal minister. Let it not be said, or thought even for a fleeting moment, that members on this side of the House take the position of the Parti Quebecois on any issue. Members on this side are clear federalists. The minister violates the constitutional authority of all provinces and the Parliament of Canada.
The situation in Quebec has developed to the point where a document called the black book or the black file is being compiled. It contains all the instances where the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has lied. That is not my language. It is the language of Mr. Jean Foisey, who is the special adviser to the minister of municipal affairs in Quebec City. This black book will be made public. I hope the minister will refer it to an appropriate committee of the House in order for us to see if there is any substance to the allegation that the minister has somehow wrongfully misled the province of Quebec.
The fight among the provinces, the municipalities, and the federal government is not restricted to Quebec. I should like to refer to a report entitled "Report of the Western Premiers Task Force on Constitutional Trends". The minister had that document with him today in the House. Referring to page 31 of that report, I read as follows:
As a rule, consultation by the federal government has never preceded major changes in legislation or regulations. Consultations at the officials' level are usually in the vague context of "policy research." In the broad areas of housing and urban affairs, consultation has been virtually nonexistent.
How can the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres) defend the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who told this House that nothing took place among the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government without full consultation with the provinces? Clearly that is not so; clearly it is wrong.


William Andres: You are misguided.
December 2, 1977


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It is the Canadian people who are being misguided because of the government in general, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in particular. Has the hon. member not heard what 1 have said this afternoon? Does he want to stand in his place now? I will yield the floor to him to defend the promises made on June 17, 1974. I say to the hon. member: defend them if you can, defend them if you will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In fact I see there are three ministers present in the Chamber this afternoon. I will yield the floor to them if they want to defend the Liberal promises of June 17, 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The performance of the hon. member this morning reinforces the fact that Manitoba is still ahead in some respects. I see none of the members opposite have risen to defend those promises. In fact I should like to have one Liberal rise to defend the statement that there has been always full consultation with the provinces. That is not so. 1 will provide hon. members opposite with a copy of this report. They can attempt to defend that, if they wish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It is easy for members opposite to speak from their seats. I want them to stand and put their comments on the record for everyone to read.
Several of my colleagues want to speak today, therefore I will end my remarks. Before doing so, I should like to summarize for the benefit of hon. members opposite. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, while singing his own praises, attempted to give the notion that matters among the federal government, municipalities and the provinces are in complete harmony, and that it was to the benefit of Canadians to have the federal government doing the job which has to be done, rather than not at all. Should the rights of provinces under the constitution be ignored? It is blatantly wrong and misleading to indicate that there is harmony among the provinces.
In so far as energy is concerned, the minister has attempted to tell us what has been done. In my opinion, what has been done is a dismal failure. The least the minister can do is resign his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) brought out a very good point when she said at the commencement of her remarks that housing is the dream of every Canadian. 1 agree totally with the hon. member that a family, whether it is a young family or a middle aged family, puts priority on the purchase of a house in order to raise a family. I would say also
Housing
that as a result of government policy, whether it be the former Conservative party or the present Liberal government, we have now made that dream a reality for the majority of Canadians who wish to own a house.
If I may reminisce for a minute, I recall growing up in Saskatchewan in the early 1930's and 1940's. In that period of time it was the exception rather than the rule for a family to own a house because, before purchasing a house, you pretty well had to have the full amount in your pocket. At that time banks did not give loans for that purpose, nor did financial institutions. You had to save for a period of perhaps 20 or 30 years, at which time you were in your late forties or fifties, before you had a sufficient amount of money with which to buy a house. That was the way the system went. Now when I look around in my riding I see people who are 19, 20 and 21 years of age getting married and purchasing homes under AHOP.
Some hon. members may say that in Toronto, Vancouver and some other larger cities this is pretty difficult because the price of houses in those large centres, especially single family dwellings, is very high. I am pleased to inform hon. members that in my own area of Comox-Alberni on Vancouver Island, in cities such as Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Courtenay, Campbell River or Port Hardy, we are able to build single family dwellings at around $38,000. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), who is not here at present, was quoting prices of houses in Vancouver. I have no doubt that in Vancouver the average price of a three bedroom home is $60,000 or $70,000.
I must say that I myself am opposed to the concept of people in Canada congregating in three or four large centres. If you look at Vancouver, you find that the city cannot expand any more. Fraser Valley is under a land freeze and there is no more room available for the city of Vancouver to expand. I say that is sad. It is not for the province or for the federal government, nor is it anyone's wish, to stop expansion. The city is surrounded by mountains on one side and the ocean on the other, and inevitably the cost of housing is high. Perhaps the solution to that problem is not to encourage industry, business and government to locate in Vancouver. What we should be talking about perhaps is having government, industry, etc., locate in other parts of the province where land is available and cheap and where houses can be built, and not have everyone congregate in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto.
Instead of criticizing governments for allowing the price of housing to rise in these large cities, what we, along with provincial and municipal governments, should be doing is to make plans for the future to decentralize away from large centres such as the greater Toronto area.
I think there should be some rationalization in housing. We cannot keep making plans for Toronto which will bring in more people and drive up the price of land when there are places in northern Ontario which would welcome the establishment of more industries. People there would be able to live in uncluttered communities, close to nature, and they could hunt and fish. I am sure there would be less crime in such areas and
1520

December 2, 1977
Housing
less stress upon the people who live there. Also, this would help the taxpayer in the smaller communities.
It is obvious to me that there must be some rationalization in cities such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. I say that with all due deference to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). I did not realize that he was so knowledgeable about urban transportation, coming as he does from a largely rural area. I think that governments would serve the public better if, instead of starting massive projects in Toronto and Vancouver, they would seriously consider whether that is in the best interest of those areas, or whether it would not be in the interest of the provinces to build better homes in the more isolated areas so that people would stay there instead of converging on the large centres.
Let me give you an example on Vancouver Island. We do not yet have a highway connecting communities such as Port Hardy with the rest of the island, and in most cases people do not have television either, yet we have the largest copper mine in British Columbia. We also have several large pulp mills. We are trying to keep people there but we are not providing them with transportation or communication. Then we say that we should be spending many more millions of dollars in the larger areas. I submit to you that one of the answers may be to improve some of the rural areas. If we spent more money on transportation and communications in the more remote areas, perhaps we would not have such a problem in the larger cities and the core areas.
I would like to make a few remarks now regarding energy conservation, but first let me give you as an example the case of my daughter who was married a few years ago at the age of 23, and she and her husband purchased a home. When I was 32 or 33 I thought myself fortunate to be able to purchase a house. The young age at which my daughter could purchase a house made very apparent to me how fortunate we are in Canada. Obviously you want to have a house when you are raising a family-you do not need a house when you are 40, 50 or 60 years old. AHOP has done a great deal for Canadians.
I recall the time when I went to Europe for the first time in 1974 to attend the Law of the Sea Conference which was held in Geneva. I was surprised to find that in Geneva banks do not lend money for mortgages. If you wish to purchase a home, you must pay for it in cash. I asked about the price of houses and was surprised to learn that a house which would normally cost $30,000 or $40,000 in my area, in Switzerland costs approximately $160,000 in Swiss francs. A person buying a house in Switzerland is supposed to pay for it in cash because Swiss banks do not make loans on mortgages. People in Switzerland, as well as in Germany and many other European countries, do not approach home ownership the way we do. They do not expect to own a house. It is only in exceptional cases that people own a house. We in Canada consider it our right.
With AHOP and the government's policy to construct a million new homes over a five year period we have taken a step in the right direction to assist younger people especially to purchase housing they can afford. If they require assistance,

we provide it in the form of a subsidy. This has also been true with regard to single parents. Before AHOP there was no chance for a single parent to purchase a single family dwelling. Now they can do it under AHOP. I am not taking credit for it. I think that the ministers, the government and the various people who have worked on this program for many years deserve the credit. This is progress. If you had listened today to some of the comments you might have believed most Canadians were living in caves, rubbing stones together to make fire. I assure you this is far from the case.
Regarding energy conservation which is mentioned in this motion, I think that over a period of years Canadians have been used to an abundance of cheap energy which has allowed all of us the luxury of wasteful ways. I believe sincerely that it will be a wrenching experience for most Canadians to adopt less wasteful ways because of the disruption and confusion that the increased cost of gasoline for their cars and fuel oil for their furnaces will cause. I believe also that as a result, government, industry and various institutions in our country will be severely criticized because people have to pay a very high price for a commodity which previously was cheap. We have been very wasteful.
May 1 quote an article which is apropos, and although it applies to the United States I think in many ways it can also be put in context in Canada. This is from the New York Times and the quotation is from an editorial:
Our political leaders have the formidable, almost impossible task of convincing over 200 million Americans, living in the midst of an apparent abundance of energy, that the catastrophes of energy exhaustion are lurking just around the corner... In a democracy, the government cannot dictate energy policies. The American electorate has the ultimate power to choose either to accept on faith that the energy crisis is real (if it does not want to verify personally the technical details on which the predictions are based) or to ignore the warnings, thereby hastening the exhaustion of energy resources and its inevitable catastrophic consequences. If the public cannot be convinced of the seriousness of the energy crisis, the necessary actions (energy conservation and development of new energy sources) cannot be taken. If we wait for the tangible evidence of energy crisis, it will be too late.
Indeed, perhaps future historians will point to the failure of our nation to respond to the warnings of an energy crisis as an example of the obsolescence of the democratic form of government in a modern world with limited resources.
In my opinion that summarizes what we as Canadians are facing. It is important to treat this as seriously as possible and to convince, not only members from this House because I believe most members of this House are aware of the crisis we are facing, but to get this message across to the people of Canada. And also to get the message across that it is not necessarily a question of good guys and bad guys that have caused this situation, but perhaps the depletion of a renewable resource and our cartel which has quadrupled the price of world oil over the last three or four years. Maybe it is a good thing that a cartel of this sort did come in, because it has made us realize that we cannot continue the wasteful practices which in the past we have been justly accused of practising. I do not think we should be proud of the fact that if we wanted to go to the store for a package of cigarettes, there was no thought-
December 2, 1977

we would just take the car and run down. If you have forgotten something, you just run down to the store again.
Many times we can be accused of wastefulness. What do we do about it now? One of the ways a government can react to a situation like that is to discuss the issues with the people of Canada, but I suggest that without an increase in gas prices very little heed would be paid. I am not sure if this is the total answer in conservation, education, plus a demonstrable increase of bills both for fuel for homes, and fuel for cars. We talk about energy and the federal government's responsibility, but the provinces have a fairly large stake in the energy field because it comes under their constitutional responsibility. For example, hydro, if we are actually serious about conservation, why would hydro throughout the various provinces, say British Columbia, not give a lower rate for those people who consumed less hydro energy rather than giving a lower rate to the individual in his home the more he uses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Is that really the way of telling the people of Canada that we have an energy shortage, a crisis? Governments are aware of it. That is fantastic. I can see industrial companies that spend thousands and thousands of dollars on energy perhaps they should be given some break because of the quantity of energy they are using. But I am talking about the homeowner. What incentive has been given to him to turn his lights off? To conserve on his electricity bill, when most companies say the more you use the better the rates. Why not the other way around? It is not only the responsibility of the federal government, I think it is the responsibility of all levels of government, and especially the people of Canada who must realize the importance of curtailing our energy uses otherwise the situation as far as employment is concerned will worsen, and certainly our balance of payments will not improve and thus affecting our standard of living.
It is a wrenching experience, and I know many people resist the prices of fuel oil and gasoline. They express the opinion it is not Arab oil, but oil from Alberta. Why do we have to equal the world price?
There is another side to it that whatever energy we obtain from programs such as Syncrude, the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea, from the High Arctic, or if we bring natural gas from the maritimes, this is not going to be any cheaper than the world price of oil now. I understand the predictions are we are at the cheapest level that we will have in our history. Prices will continue to rise. The Arctic gas oil is our next source of energy. The Alberta fields will gradually diminish, and we will be going into programs such as those mentioned before, but it is not going to be inexpensive. To develop it it will be expensive. To transport it to southern Canada it will be expensive, and the people driving eight cylinder cars now, when they have no conception of energy, are going to be paying a much higher price in the future. I believe it is our job to make Canadians aware that with the non-renewable resources we are dealing with, we would be foolish to count upon foreign sources of oil and not develop our own.
Housing
In order to develop them, we have to pay a price and more money must be funnelled into the oil companies. I completely agree they must be regulated to make sure those extra profits do go into Canadian exploration. If it does not, tax it back. We will take it and use it some other way such as the insulation program. It is important that the concept of good guys and bad guys regarding this crisis be removed. Look at the problem and try to solve it to the best of our ability without playing games, whether it be federal, provincial or between political parties.
We have, through a variety of incentives in the research and development field, sources we can tap which we are not using now. I have been a strong proponent, as many members know, of the development of methanol to blend with gasoline. This progam has been tried out in Germany using a fleet of one hundred cars over a period of a year and it has proved satisfactory. In fact from a pollution point of view it is extremely satisfactory. With all of the wood and wood products we have in Canada, we have a renewable resource that can be blended with gasoline with approximately 85 per cent gasoline to 15 per cent methanol that can be put into the tanks of cars of every Canadian. It will burn better and could be put into effect today. That would result in a 15 per cent saving immediately, and that 15 per cent would extend our resources over a longer period of time.
In the maritimes where they have the horrible problem with the spruce budworm and the forests that have been deciminat-ed, that could be converted into methanol. To convert methanol, the kind of wood you use does not matter. It does not matter whether it has worms in it or is diseased. It can be converted and burned in the tanks of cars in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate on the motion presented by our housing critic. I see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is leaving. I want to commend him on some of his statements. He said that the government or the powers that be should not spend too much money on urban transportation and should try to keep the cities small. As a representative of a rural area, I cannot agree more. I go further and say they should blow up some of the roads and not let the people in and out of the cities. That might help the economy in some of the rural areas, certainly industry and housing.
The hon. member made a very good point when he stated that if industry gets into the rural areas, jobs and housing will follow. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but it is easier said than done.
80027-27'/*

December 2, 1977
Housing
As a member of the DREE committee, I have worked to try to attract industries to rural areas and then help them to succeed. To our sorrow, a good many industries have gone into these remote areas but, to put it mildly, they are having pretty tough sledding.
I have listened to speeches made on both sides of the House. Some members on this side took exception to certain statements by the minister and members opposite. Members on that side have taken great exception to the fact that we have even raised our voice in one word of criticism about the wonderful Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. I am aware that the department has accomplished certain things. It certainly should have.
I had the privilege of attending the housing committee meeting last night and early this morning. I was able to get some figures from the minister. A great deal was said about the AHOP program. So far, a total of 39,000 homes has been built under the program. That is all well and good for those who have their homes, but it is a far cry for those who feel they should qualify under that program.
The minister also gave figures with regard to defaults as far as AHOP is concerned. He stated the figure is about 2.2 per cent. That seems within reason.
Something I am interested in seeing enlarged is the RRAP program. 1 questioned the minister about this program because many people do not qualify for regular housing under CMHC, AHOP and so on. They do not have the income required to be able to qualify. Therefore the RRAP program is their only hope for better housing. This is one case where the government should go the third or fourth mile, or even further.
These programs are of particular interest to areas outside the cities. I admit there is bad housing in some cities, but there is much more need for this plan in the rural areas. I plead with the minister and his department to channel more money there and to do away with a lot of the red tape.
1 have received telephone inquiries from my constituents who were turned down under the RRAP program. 1 admit you have to be in a position to repay the amount that is borrowed. I am also aware grants are available under that plan. Earlier this week I was told of persons who had made application under the RRAP program. I mentioned this to the minister. I want to put this on record because he and his deputy minister, Mr. Teron, stated it was not correct.
Certain people applied for loans under RRAP. They had certain ideas about what they intended to spend. For example, they may have intended to spend $5,000 to upgrade the worst features of their homes or to make other renovations. When the inspector visited their homes, these people were told there were other things that had to be done and it was an all or nothing deal. I feel that is wrong. I intend to get back to that branch office in North Bay, in the area of the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), to get a ruling and to tell them that I have heard differently from the powers that be. The RRAP program is doing a job in the rural areas in this country.

There is a requirement for homes that can be put up in a hurry on land that does not cost a great deal. I listened earlier to current lot prices. I do not dispute those figures. Lots costing $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 are absolutely prohibitive.
The Canadian Mobile Home Association has been making presentations to the government to try to get some assistance. 1 brought this to the attention of the minister in committee this morning. He gave me the impression that something would be done. A great many people could purchase a mobile home which could be set up in a mobile home park without having to pay a very high land cost. There could be a rental for the land which would be within their means.
You can go from one extreme to the other. Mobile homes are suitable for the young and the old. For many retired senior citizens, their homes are now too big. They would find a mobile home much more economical. In addition, their homes could be put on the market and available to those with growing families. This is one phase of housing which would suit lower income people.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) referred to the prophetic statement made a year or so ago in Calgary by Mr. Teron. He stated that only a very small percentage of people can look forward to owning a home. That is a tragedy in a country like Canada. This is a reasonably well housed country. Most of us are very lucky to have good homes. However, that is small consolation to a great many people still looking for adequate housing.
Something else has been very much to the fore this week. I refer to the government's insulation program. 1 am delighted to learn that the two provinces which had not joined the insulation program have finally been brought into the fold by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who recanted and allowed them in without any strings attached. In other words, he did not use the rubber hose on them that he used on the other six provinces. I commend the government on having removed that obstacle.
I hope the government has learned its lesson. When the matter of provincial jurisdiction is again involved, I hope the government will not try to use strong tactics to get its way. The key word with the provinces is co-operation, and consultation instead of arbitrary decision.
The federal government certainly has a role to play in the area of housing. To a very large extent the federal government determines the environment, or the conditions of the housing market, because the housing market is so dependent on the current economic situation. It is the federal government which has a major part in creating the economic conditions-perhaps in the present circumstances I should say in the destruction of the economic conditions prerequisite to a healthy housing market.
The government has abused its role. Instead of creating an environment of co-operation between the federal department and the provinces, it has played blackmail games. Surely the government must be aware, as everyone else in Canada is, that
December 2, 1977

we have entered a period in which the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces vis-a-vis the federal authority are subject to severe strain. The relationship is a tenuous one at best.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is fond of analogies. He once told the Americans our relationship with them was like being in bed with an elephant. 1 wonder how he would describe our relationship with the provinces. More important, I wonder how some of the provinces would describe their relationship with the federal government. 1 do not think it is an exaggeration to say that it is not the cosiest of relationships at all times.
It is probable that the government does not like to hear this. Members on the cabinet benches like to think they are experts in federal-provincial relations. It is a fact, though, that there is tension in this country with respect to areas of jurisdiction. I am not saying that all the complaints are justified. There is one province whose government wishes to opt out completely from the federal framework. I would not support that and neither, I am sure, would the majority of Canadians. The fact remains, though, that provinces are resorting to extremes because the government has been too rigid and uncompromising.
Housing is an area in which more real consultation and co-operation are necessary and desirable. There are, of course, areas in which the federal government could and should take the initiative. I have mortgages in mind. The cost of mortgages is far too high in Canada. In the United States the cost is considerably less-below 9 per cent-and for longer periods, up to 50 years I believe. Also, in most states mortgage interest payments and expenditures on home improvement are tax deductible as are municipal taxes.
Our housing committee has suggested a number of alternatives to present policy and these items are worthy of close consideration by the department and by the government as a whole-I am aware that the approval of other departments would be required. Under RRAP, federal funds are available to assist in improving substandard dwelling, but except by special agreement with the provinces assistance is available only to those living in a NIP district. In some localities boundaries are often so close that one house might be eligible for assistance while another on the next street is not.
To be a successful applicant, one must live in an approved neighbourhood. This presents no difficulty in certain areas, but I am in a position of representing federally two provincial ridings, the territorial district of Parry Sound and the regional municipality of Muskoka. In Muskoka, an area must be approved as a NIP area before a RRAP grant can be made. A great many people have written to me complaining that such and such a municipality had not felt it worth while to obtain approval as a NIP area. In the district of Parry Sound, which is part of Northern Ontario, this condition does not apply. I am not sure what arrangements exist in other provinces, but with regard to rural areas and small towns and villages especially, it would seem to me the government could say, "If a municipality does not wish to act on its own we shall lend the money on an individual basis." To my mind this would be a
Housing
step in the right direction and this would lead to better and more housing.
I am aware that time is going by, Mr. Speaker, and that there are others who wish to take part in the debate. While the department of housing and urbain affairs has accomplished certain things we feel it still has a long way to go. Consider the insulation program in the light of the $350 grant now available to regions outside Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. A great many of us were disappointed. I am not denying the statements made by the minister and by other members of the government that Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island face certain very high costs. But this is also the case in other parts of Canada where, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is darned cold. Try telling people in Northern Ontario and Northern Manitoba anything to the contrary. Yes, Prince Edward Island does have to bear high costs, but I am sure those who live in the Northwest Territories, for example, or some of the other areas I have mentioned, would be willing to compare their heating costs with those in Nova Scotia.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) categorically turned down a suggestion made by me, in the course of a question put to him, that the $350 grant be made tax-free. It does not seem likely, now, that the government will ever agree to that proposal.
There is one other matter. The $350 is supposed to cover up to two thirds of the cost of the material. Well, two thirds of a loaf is better than none, but we must bear in mind that because of the high cost of insulation and service the average cost per home runs at about $900 on the basis that 1,000 square feet have to be insulated. Possibly the government could say "Although we cannot agree to making the grant tax deductible we will at least cover the cost of the total amount of insulation."
The minister gave us an interesting figure in committee yesterday. I believe the average grant already paid out amounts to $211, not $350. I assume some of the people who occupy very modest homes are the ones who need as much money as possible. Could the grant not be paid regardless of the percentage of the total expenditure which it represents? I do not think this would cost the treasury a great deal. The response to the program has not been as good as the government anticipated, and I am sure those in charge of the program would admit that. I have figures here which show that as of November 25 some 60,000 kits have been distributed; slightly more than 5,000 applications have been received for grants, and 2,270 cheques have been mailed out to a total value of $508,619. It has not been a great bonanza with, as the government thought, people lining up for it.
Speaking of people lining up brings another thought to mind. As most of us are aware, anyone who is interested in an insultation loan must write or telephone Montreal and get a kit. We are also aware that Her Majesty's mail does not always move as fast as some of us would hope, but I will give the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the

December 2, 1977
Housing
Department of Urban Affairs credit for forwarding to each member of parliament 25 or 30 of these kits. I think that is a very good idea. I drive back to my riding on Friday afternoons and this is a much speedier way of getting these kits into the hands of my constituents. I would suggest that CMHC regional offices be assigned the task of information centre, where people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that my hon. friend is unable to conclude his very interesting remarks this afternoon. From my own point of view, owing to the shortage of time I intend to try to limit my remarks in order to give my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and another hon. member opposite the opportunity to participate in what has turned out to be a very interesting and worth-while debate.
I should like to deal very briefly, though I may not even be able to do it briefly, with four particular points this afternoon. The first is federal housing policies in general under this government; secondly, housing policies as they affect and have affected my home province of Saskatchewan; thirdly, urban transportation policies under this government; and fourthly, the programs and the steps taken by the government, particularly by the Department of Transport, relative to implementing the Hall Commission Report in so far as it relates to energy conservation in serving transportation needs in the prairie provinces.
1 believe it was the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) who, earlier in the debate this afternoon, was critical of the government for its lack of consultation and discussion with the provinces. I can certainly say that there has been ample discussion and consultation with federal, provincial and municipal officials in the province of Saskatchewan. 1 am not sure if the hon. member is aware of what has transpired with respect to Manitoba, but each and every one of the wide variety of federal programs is implemented and operated jointly.
1 have the information sheets of a number of programs here. For example, with the Neighbourhood Improvement Program criteria are set out for the participation of municipalities and neighbourhoods. This is set out in an agreement between the federal government and each of the provincial governments. There has certainly been discussion. There has been a good deal of tailoring and developing of programs in Saskatchewan over the last eight to nine years in order to meet the needs of smaller urban communities which so often were left out of the early CMHC and federal programs. 1 can testify to this

personally, Mr. Speaker, from my days in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan.
I am aware that more federal programs are now available which hitherto had perhaps been available only to larger urban centres. These are now being tailored and being made available to meet the needs of smaller centres throughout the prairies and across Canada. So that kind of consultation has been taking place.
I appreciated the tone and thrust of the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) when opening the debate after moving her motion. Her remarks were not nearly as crusty and as critical, in a sense, as the tone of the motion which is before us, which asks the House to condemn the Liberal government, particularly the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), for policies which fail to meet, and so on. The kinds of programs, the numbers of projects and the tremendous developments in the housing field, not only in my province of Saskatchewan but right across the country in the last several years, put the lie to the thrust of the motion now before the House.
In typical fashion, to which we have grown quite accustomed in the House when listening to remarks of hon. members opposite, we do not find any new solutions, policies or programs put forward. There is criticism of existing programs and efforts, but in general no new solutions have come forward. There is no new formula or direction for the government to pursue.
The programs which have been of particular value so far as the province of Saskatchewan has been concerned are those which have already been referred to by others in this debate, such as the RRAP program, the AHOP program, and the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. Then we have housing for senior citizens. I think we have a national record in the province of Saskatchewan in terms of the number of senior citizens per hundred thousand of population who have been housed. Only last week I participated in the opening of a new apartment complex which provides excellent housing at subsidized rental for senior citizens over the age of 65. Some 70 couples or so were accommodated in that project, and this is but one of a dozen or more which have been constructed in the last number of months in my province alone.
One program I should like to dwell on for a moment or two is the rural and native housing program. This is a program which has been of particular interest to the province of Saskatchewan. It is one which has met a need but which has some considerable distance to go in the province of Saskatchewan so far as housing is concerned. What we need in my constituency and further north, as well as in urban centres, is an adequate supply of good housing for our native people.
Several programs have been worked out in co-operation with CMHC and the government of Saskatchewan in an attempt to improve both the number and the quality of housing units on Indian reserves throughout Saskatchewan-in the northern Saskatchewan communities which are Metis and Indian, and also in cities like Regina and Saskatoon where providing adequate housing for native people continues to be a problem.
December 2, 1977

In this respect the province has seen completion of over 1,700 such units which have been financed under this program. There have been 500 odd projects to repair existing housing, and another 1,000 emergency type repairs made to existing housing units in my province, all designed to meet a specific need. So, good efforts have been made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, his colleagues, and CMHC.
The same can be said of the government of Saskatchewan. Jointly the province has participated in the program, though there is still a great distance to go in meeting the housing needs of native people in the province, particularly in the northern reaches of Saskatchewan. So far as urban centres are concerned, we find more and more people off reserves heading to the cities, leaving behind them perhaps better housing than they will be able to find in those cities.
I should like to make another comment of a general nature in response to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). Like him, I receive many complaints about housing and the high rates of interest with the resultant large payments required on even a modest dwelling. Other problems are the cost to the smaller urban municipalities of providing serviced lots-paving, water, and sewers are particular problems for some of the smaller communities. The Municipal Incentive Grants Program, devised and developed by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has been helpful, but I am sure it could go further. As with any of these programs the problem is in finding the money to put them in place rapidly enough.
Comments were made this afternoon and in yesterday's debate about the insulation program. If every house in the country were eligible for assistance I am sure we would be faced with a shortage of supplies and of workmen. In Saskatchewan we are already having difficulty finding the supplies to meet the demand, and if these were further grants or programs of this kind, industry would not be able to meet the demand.
I should like to conclude by referring to the efforts of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to implement the recommendations of the Hall Royal Commission on Transportation. That commission was established two years ago to look into the problems of the 5,000 or 6,000 miles of rail lines on the prairies. It reported in May, and since then steps have been taken to implement the major recommendations. One major step of which we see evidence all across the prairies is the federal government's contribution of SI00 million for rail line rehabilitation. Branch lines which were allowed to deteriorate over the years are being rebuilt.
In Saskatchewan we see newspaper headlines such as the one in the Wilkie Press which says, "$880,000 Program for Upgrading CPR Lines in the Wilkie Area." Another one appeared in the Lloydminster Times which serves both Alberta and Saskatchewan, "$1.62 Million Project to Upgrade Rail Lines Going East and West Out of Lloydminster." There are tremendous developments in the rehabilitation of rail lines and
Housing
there are many other steps which will serve to review the question of good, efficient rail service in western Canada, and which are designed to make the best use of energy in terms of how far it is advisable to truck grain, how far to move it by rail, and so on.
We are moving quickly to implement the Hall Commission Report. This is only one example of vast and immediate action by the government to meet the needs of the country.
I want to urge the government, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Minister of Transport and others who are involved in departments and programs which directly affect the subject under debate, to continue developing positive programs to increase and improve the supply of good housing. We are about top of the list in the world. Let us keep it that way, and continue to meet the needs of Canadians who are still looking for better housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I speak so often on the late show that I see I have been left seven minutes.
First of all I want to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), for bringing in such a timely and worth-while motion condemning the government for failure to meet the critical need for housing. This is a topic that everybody knows is a serious one.
I should like to put two quotations on the record, Mr. Speaker, the first from the Poverty Task Force, Division of Mission in Canada, The United Church of Canada. In their conclusions appears the following:
There can be no doubt that housing remains a cause of anxiety, discomfort, and social tension in Canada.
They go on to say:
A housing policy should be based firmly on widespread good will between jurisdictions, in which all jurisdictions accept, without apology, the ongoing necessity for government policies, initiatives, participation and supervision directed at the expansion of social housing.
The report concludes with the following statement:
The jurisdictional fences must be broken down. We call on all levels of government to put the low income public at the centre of the housing concern, and to create properly budgeted, long-range social housing programs across Canada.
We seem to have forgotten that poverty exists in Canada. Ten years ago 5 million of our population were living at the poverty level, as pointed out in the Fifth Annual Report of the Economic Council of Canada. There has been a white paper on income security, a working paper on social security, a Senate committee on poverty, and a three-year federal-provincial social security review since then, yet 5 million people are still living in poverty.
I think the minister was quoting a speech made by Mr. R. V. Hession, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, made to the Conference Board on September 22 when he spoke about the number of people who had no toilets, wash basins, plumbing or insulation, and gave the figure of 5

December 2, 1977
Housing
per cent. We are concerned about those people because they cannot afford anything. We have good programs such as AHOP, NIP and RRAP, but they are not reaching the people who need them most. The government does not seem to realize that the NIP program is designated in the provinces, and often those very municipalities that need it cannot afford it.
The town of Stephenville in Newfoundland was given a $400,000 grant as well as the loans from the province, and was finally designated as the third municipality in Newfoundland to be a NIP area so that people in the NIP area who have low incomes could also take advantage of the RRAP program. I have a letter from the council of the town of Stephenville saying that it is not in a position to take on the additional burden of a $400,000 loan and has no intention of placing the town in the position where the federal or provincial government would have to bail them out of debt. That is pride for you, Mr. Speaker, but they cannot serve the people they are supposed to serve. Recently they lost an industry with 2,100 jobs. In the rural municipalities, often poverty is a social stigma.
The former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has agreed with me and has answered my questions on a number of occasions during adjournment debates. As I have said many times before, the RRAP program is a fantastic program. But the areas have to be designated by the provinces, and there is not enough money to help those people. When one asks for more money, the government indicates that there are financial restraints. Yet the government turns around and provides $1.4 billion for a home insulation program. That program reaches a lot of people, but people in the low income class cannot afford to pay $500 in order to receive the advantage of the $350 grant. These people are not worried about whether that amount is taxable or not, because they do not care about income taxes. They do not pay taxes, because they are not earning enough.
The government has come out with a fancy yellow folder which reminds me of the old comic books. It is titled "Fix-up Your Home With Federal Government Money". When one opens the folder, one is confronted with the colours yellow, orange, red, and many fancy pictures. The folder indicates that people can do anything and receive $3,750 for nothing. Is that a wonderful program? Even people with incomes of $11,000 can receive a $750 grant. Why did we need the home insulation program? Poverty stricken people are spread right across Canada. They cannot afford to insulate. This RRAP program will do what is required: you can fix up your walls, roof, storm windows, screens, stairs, steps, porch, verandah, plumbing, electrical wiring, heating system, floor joists, foundation, and basement. Also the program allows you to put in insulation when it is necessary.
With regard to people on low incomes, I should like to refer to the attitude of various ministers in the government in their attempt to help. When the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) was the minister of state for urban

affairs, through his good graces and the good graces of the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the government gave Newfoundland $40,000 to perform a survey. Obviously the government recognized that the veterans of Newfoundland needed their homes repaired, and they could not do it because of their low incomes. There should be a survey done right across Canada of all veterans' homes, requiring repairs including the homes of the widows of veterans. There should be a program for those people to fix their homes. It should not cost anybody anything, because it should be done under the RRAP program. Instead, the government hesitates and gives stupid excuses for it not being done. These people continue to beg and borrow, and all they receive from the Minister of Veterans Affairs is an indication that the program is under consideration. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is so famous for the word consideration that it should go down with him in history.
I should like to deal with the Neighbourhood Improvement Program. Members on this side will agree that it is a reasonable program. It helps municipalities that cannot otherwise afford to select neighbourhoods and select plans to be implemented in those neighbourhoods. Under this program the minicipalities can acquire land, provide recreational facilities, and water and sewage systems. This is what the country needs. The country will never advance unless the lower income people are protected and provided with jobs in order to earn a livelihood and be good Canadians. They want to be good Canadians, but they are becoming hostile because of the attitude of the government.
As I indicated yesterday, and as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indicated, it is obvious that the bureaucrats must have gathered around a table to discover how they could create new jobs and senior positions for people in the Department of Urban Affairs. They concocted a program which splits up the country rather than uniting it. They discriminated against various sectors of the country by providing different favours or advantages under this program. Some provinces will receive non-taxable grants, while other provinces will receive taxable grants. It has been indicated that it costs more for fuel in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. No one objects to those provinces having the benefit of the program. No one objects to anyone having any advantage in Canada. But why discriminate against the province which is isolated and needs help the most?
Over the years most people in Newfoundland have built their own homes. A fisherman builds his own home because he does not trust the banks. It takes approximately six or seven years for him to build his home. If he makes $1,000 in one year, he builds his basement. If he makes $2,000 the next year, then he puts the walls up. He continues along like that, because it is the only security he wants. He wants the security of a home and a piece of land. Those are the people we have to protect.
December 2, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion of
Housing
the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) have expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 5, 1977