1979-03-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning the statement of the Secretary of State a few days ago that an independent audit, so-called, would be conducted of the affairs of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Secretary of State forthwith announce who the auditors will be, why the Auditor General of Canada is not being utilized, whether the audit will reconcile government grants given with the fact that annual reports of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews make no mention of such grants and, finally, whether the audit will investigate bonuses from government funds to certain directors, and when and why an Air Canada pass was issued to Peter Jones, president of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, who has now resigned his post.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In consideration of the representations made by Governor Link, of North Dakota, to the Congress of the United States for additional funding to continue construction of the Garrison diversion project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement on motions today outlining Canada's official position on the International Joint Commission's final recommendations for the Garrison diversion project.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SEAL HUNT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the same Order on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia, Mr. Jeremy Ackerman, refused to support the introduction of a resolution in that legislature endorsing the seal hunt off the east coast of Canada and offering support and encouragement to the fishermen of east coast Canada in pursuing their lawful activities, introduced by the minister of development, thus refusing to support the workingmen of east coast Canada, unjustly criticized for engaging in their traditional fishing occupation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House condemns the leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia for his refusal to support the activities of Canadian fishermen and regrets his party's lack of concern for the workingmen of Newfoundland, the Magdalen Islands and east coast Canada generally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have great difficulty in trying to fit that motion into the administrative responsibilities of this House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


SUGGESTION THAT PUBLIC FUNDS BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE &quot;HANSARD&quot;-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), I move:

March 9, 1979
That this House notes that public funds are used to subsidize the press gallery and to cover the cost of televising our proceedings, as well as to publish and distribute great quantities of government informational material, and this House therefore asserts that it is appropriate for public funds to be used to subsidize the distribution of Hansard at a reasonable subscription rate, so that those who wish to receive the official record of the debates of this House will be encouraged to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Halifax shipyards are in danger of losing multimillion dollar contracts for the construction of fishing trawlers unless assistance is made available to repair existing facilities.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to convene a meeting with the Premier of Nova Scotia to determine what assistance can and will be provided for the Halifax shipyards.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Ontario government failed to observe the common courtesy of providing the parliamentary Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works with its brief on Bill C-42 before leaking it to The Globe and Mail last night, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne):
That this House urges the Ontario government to reimburse its citizens for the public funds needlessly spent in sending an official to appear before the parliamentary committee last evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Les-sard) has axed the Council of Rural Development Canada. This agency is one of the few positive attractions in what has become an otherwise oblique and unimaginative department. It is the one vital connection that rural Canadians in the undeveloped regions of the country have with a ministry that is supposed to serve their interest.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House does instruct the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to continue funding that one apolitical body in the country that speaks on behalf of millions of rural Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, perhaps I could put my first question to the Prime Minister.
Two days ago I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning our current account deficit of $5.2 billion; in other words, our shortfall with the outside world-$5.2 billion being a record for this country. At that time the Prime Minister hesitated to reply. Could he tell the House, first, has he looked into these figures; second, has he had discussions with his Minister of Finance; and third, does he agree with the Minister of Finance that it is a problem we will simply have to live with?
March 9, 1979


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: "No" to the first two questions, Mr. Speaker, and "Yes" to the third.
S)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can the Prime Minister go further and tell us what, specifically, he sees the government doing to relieve the situation, bearing in mind that the current account deficit means our dollar will stay under heavy pressure? This causes inflation in the country. For example, we find that raw hide prices in Canada went from 42 cents a pound to $1.05 a pound this week. This is largely due to the fact that Japanese and Korean buyers find that our hides are now so cheap that they are reaching over, buying them and driving up Canadian domestic prices, with the result that shoe prices, already up this spring $2 to $3 a pair, will be up substantially more come the fall.


Mr. McGrath:: We'll all be barefoot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a capital importing nation for many, many decades. We continue to be a capital importing nation. The essential question is whether this creates development in Canada, creates jobs and creates expansion. This has been the history of the past half century, that foreign capital has added itself to Canadian savings in order to develop this country. I have never heard any party protest against that, including the party of the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Prime Minister apparently misses the question. The fact is we are paying for last year's grocery bills; we are paying what we owe the rest of the world. This is not bringing in capital to build the infrastructure of this country. As a result, we have a low dollar which has now caused oranges, for example, to go from $1.78 to $2.28, a 28 per cent increase compared to last March. The same is true of various other products: grapefruit have gone from 25 cents to 33 cents each, up 28 per cent due to the inadequacy of this government's fiscal policy.
Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that he made a mistake in the past and that he is going to bring in proper fiscal measures to arrest this haemorrhaging compared with the rest of the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will manage to explain it to the hon. member. If people want to buy oranges, grapefruit and bananas, they will have to pay the price for them that is set in other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let them eat cake!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Cake can be made in our country. I know the hon. member's face is full of it all the time.
Oral Questions


INCREASED COST OF IMPORTS DUE TO DEVALUED CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT ON DOMESTICALLY-PRODUCED GOODS
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. This morning he spoke about the cost of imported goods which has increased because of the drop in value of the dollar. The same kind of increases have occurred with regard to Canadian-produced goods. Sockeye salmon went up over 23 per cent in the last year. My colleague mentioned the increase in price of raw hides.
Does the government have any plan to take fiscal steps to correct these increasing price levels and inflation, or are all these price increases simply something the Canadian people will have to live with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult the statistics and look at the increase in revenue of farm groups, for example, in the past ten years he will find it has increased about three times. In the case of fishermen it has been even higher. We are satisfied with this; we think it is good that the fisherman and the farmer are getting higher revenues.


Rob Parker: We are not suggesting there is anything wrong with farmers getting a decent income. What is wrong is that consumers are having to pay ever higher prices, not because of our domestic producers but because of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Rob Parker: My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the latest watchdog agency, the NCI, have any kind of guidelines to govern its procedures over the next few months and are they going to be able to live with the problems they see?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, I fail to understand the hon. member's policy. In his first question he complained that fishermen are getting too much for their fish; in his second question he says he does not object to fishermen getting too much money for their fish. I wish he would make up his mind.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is not a detailed question; it affects over-all government policy.
Considering the countless doctors in Ontario currently withdrawing in massive numbers from OHIP are forcing increases in their charges from 25 per cent to 30 per cent above OHIP rates and beginning virtually to destroy the universality of medicare, would the right hon. gentleman tell the House what

March 9, 1979
Oral Questions
the government plans to do to preserve this essential service in Canada's largest province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to refer to my colleague for details of the particular situation in Ontario. The medicare plan, which was established by a Liberal government is, of course, one which is basic and essential and it is founded on the principle of universality and accessibility. If anything is done by any province to depart from that principle, we would have to review the very high payment the federal government is making to the province in respect of half the cost of medicare.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the minister will be back later in the question period, so I will ask my supplementary later when she returns.

[Translation}


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Quite recently it was announced in the press that a committee would be set up to consider the possible uses for expropriated land at Mirabel airport. Could the minister tell the House whether the unused acreage which was formerly farmed land will be returned to farming and, if so, whether there have been discussions with the provincial agriculture minister concerning agricultural zoning?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the land situated on the outskirts of Mirabel airport was expropriated a few years ago to provide a buffer zone that would make it possible to operate the airport 24 hours a day, seven days a week without the noise and pollution inconveniences found in most large international airports. That land now belongs to the Canadian government. We think that it is now under-used to some extent and this is why I announced last week the establishment of a federal corporation which will be asked to put those acres to a better use, and more especially to intensify their agricultural use. I can therefore assure the hon. member that such decision is consistent with the policy of provincial authorities and that the Quebec agriculture department has been asked to appoint to the board of directors of that corporation representative who will state the case of that department.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as this corporation will be responsible for the administration of these pieces of land, will farmers be allowed to lease these pieces of land which are available at the periphery of the airport?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these pieces of land will be put at the disposal of farmers who are prepared to farm them, although some of them will be reserved for testing certain species in co-operation with the federal Department of Agriculture, the Quebec agriculture department and the Quebec Agricultural Producers' Union.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the National Commission on Inflation. How can the government expect the commission to be successful if it is given no guidelines to appraise price performance in the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the mandate given to the commission is to watch for any settlements or increases in incomes or prices which would be dangerous in causing accelerated inflation. That is a matter of judgment. Mr. Renouf and his commissioners will exercise their judgment ably in the future as they have in the past.


Robert René de Cotret: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government itself has any guidelines which it will use in making its own judgments on the reports from this commission. How will the government determine what constitutes normal price, wage and profit behaviour, and how will it determine what constitutes abnormal or reprehensible behaviour in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this kind of judgment is made all the time by people engaged, for instance, in collective bargaining. When you refer to an arbitrator, you do not give him guidelines. You ask him to look at what would be an appropriate settlement in a particular case. He looks at settlements in other areas. He considers whether there is need for a catch-up or whether the group involved is ahead of others, and he makes a judgment. The same thing can be done with regard to prices.


FINDINGS BY CSIP-GOVERNMENT ACTION THEREON
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Before the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity was aborted by the government, it made public a number of significant findings concerning the cost of living in Canada. For example, it pointed to food industry profits and dairy industry costs, and criticized the government's wage settlement with letter carriers as being excessive and inflationary.
March 9, 1979

What action will be taken to follow up on these findings, and what about the many other studies CSIP was undertaking? Will they be published, or will they also be aborted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given examples to his colleague from Ottawa of the kind of judgment which can be made without any specific guidelines. I hope these new members will meet and explain some things to each other.


Mr. Fraser:: Why don't you answer the question?


Jack Hare: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the National Commission on Inflation last Friday, the Minister of Finance claimed it would have broader investigatory powers than CSIP and that this would enable the commission to get to the truth behind rising prices. I understand that when CSIP requested information from companies, only a very few refused to provide it; and I am pleased to hear that the minister is concerned about the truth. It is in this regard that I put my supplementary question. Why is the NCI not directly responsible to parliament, as CSIP was, and why is the NCI reporting to the minister and not to parliament and the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, CSIP was under the direction of the Economic Council of Canada which was not reporting directly to parliament; it was reporting directly to the Prime Minister. The new group will report to the Minister of Finance. I do not think there is any objection to that, even on the part of the hon. member.
The important thing is that in the case of CSIP it was put under the Economic Council of Canada at the request of the provinces which, at the time we were discussing the post-controls period, did not want that particular institution to have any power to compel production of information. Experience has shown that that was not sufficient because some groups did, indeed, refuse to supply CSIP with information. That is why we took the next step.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I am informed that the cabinet reached a decision yesterday with respect to providing financial assistance to the Sydney Steel mill to assist Sysco in the urgent and necessary modernization of its plant. I wonder if the minister can provide the House with details of such financial assistance.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot provide the House with detailed information on the mandate I have been given by the cabinet to enter into a final round of negotiations with a view to an agreement with the province which will help Sysco upgrade its present facility and meet the requirements
Oral Questions
which would allow Sysco to fulfil the contract it entered into with Tisco recently.
[DOT] (M30)
I hope in the coming days we will be in a better position to work it out with the province. I do not have a mandate to sit down with the province and talk about the details of what we are prepared to offer to the province for that purpose.


Robert Muir: I regret that the minister is not in a position to provide dollar values, and so on, but I wish to commend and thank the minister for his reply. I am sure I speak not only for the steelworkers but for thousands of Cape Bretoners and Nova Scotians when I pay tribute to him, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to the right hon. Prime Minister, and especially to the Deputy Prime Minister, for their activities in this regard. I have been in close touch with them all in reaching this very important decision to at least make a start on solving this most vital problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
On Wednesday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about consultations Canada is having in support of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Yesterday, the minister announced, "we have encouraged Israel's Arab neighbours to join the negotiating process". Can the Prime Minister tell the House which Arab countries have been consulted, and the general nature of those discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not inform me which Arab countries he was contacting.


Douglas Roche: I hope that the House can be informed on this important question very soon. Jordan is one of the key countries in the effort to build Arab support for the Egypt and Israel peace treaty.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the time has not arrived for Canada to establish a modest-size embassy in Jordan, where we now have no Canadian presence, and to pay for it by diverting a portion of the present $48 million for capital construction of embassies which is now in the estimates to pay for the establishment of a Canadian presence in Jordan at this critical moment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a Canadian presence in Jordan. I recognize that it is not a permanent mission, but there is a Canadian presence there. I had the opportunity of meeting with it when I visited Jordan a couple of years ago.

March 9, 1979
Oral Questions
Certainly, the hon. member's representation will be considered by the minister. It is a country with which we would like to have good and closer relations. But once again we run into the difficulty of expenditure cuts: the Department of External Affairs, like other departments, has been severely curtailed in its rate of expenditure growth.

[ Translation]


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Hon. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the excellent measures which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology announced last week to help Quebec independent oil distributors obtain their oil supplies from outside Canada, could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advise the House whether his department is now prepared to take the necessary steps under the Combines Investigation Act to make sure that these independent distributors may continue to obtain their oil supplies from inside Canada?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already asked the director of investigations to monitor the oil industry's behaviour in respect of section 31.2 of the Combines Investigation Act; that is the section dealing with refusal to supply. I have asked them, further, to apply, if appropriate, to the Restrictive Trades Practices Commission for an order directing the oil companies to provide oil supplies to independents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering the Prime Minister's well known concern about conflict of interest and political integrity, can he explain the rationale and criteria employed to justify the federal government's decentralization plan in the public service whereby, of the 15 departments or agencies shifted from Ottawa, 14 went to Liberal ridings, eight of these ridings being represented by cabinet ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know if the facts are as recited by the hon. member. I would have to refer to the minister in charge of decentralization to verify them.
I do know that many Liberals are elected in various parts of the country, including ridings which deserve decentralization, and certainly we would not deprive an area of decentralization merely because it is represented by a Liberal.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, those figures come from the PSAC. I think the Prime Minister is stretching the credulity of the House if he believes that only Liberal ridings are deserving of this decentralization assistance.
I wonder if the Prime Minister, at a later date, could table in the House the exact criteria explaining that what we on this side of the House think, namely, that the number one priority is to be a Liberal, is not in fact the case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I really do not know if the allegations made by the hon. member are based on fact or not. I did undertake to refer them to the minister and I will take note of the question.


REORGANIZATION OF AIR OPERATIONS PERSONNEL-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Mr. Ron. Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will address my question to the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the serious morale problem which exists in the air operations groups of the Department of Transport, and the increasingly difficult challenge to enforce Canada's air safety standards with the limited manpower resources left in that group-all of which is now aggravated by the March 5 resignation of the officer in charge of the air safety division of the western region-will the minister advise if it is the government's plan to privatize the civil aviation inspection function, or is it taking steps to reorganize and recategorize that group within the Department of Transport?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first portion of the question is no, there is no intention to privatize that function. So far as the organization within the Department of Transport is concerned, that falls within the bailiwick of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In view of the fact that the collective bargaining process has been stretched beyond the limit of credibility and now appears to be little more than make-work projects for negotiators, will the President of the Treasury Board and his colleague, the Minister of Transport, now come down from their apparent rigid, aloof and technical stance, meet with the parties concerned and take measures to correct this whole sorry, sad mess?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the allegations of the hon. member that there is a rigid, inflexible stance, nor
March 9, 1979

do I accept that the matter has reached the point where there is no hope of negotiating a satisfactory conclusion. My hope, as I indicated to the hon. member in answer to previous questions put on this matter, is that in fact we can reach agreement with the air operations group. That is the intention and we intend to proceed toward that goal.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should like to ask whether he could lay before the House a breakdown of the statistics which he and the Minister of Finance use repeatedly in the House when saying there is an annual increase of 430,000 to 450,000 jobs every year.
The question is whether the minister could break down these figures, since they cannot be equated with the actual job inventory or unemployment statistics. Could he break down these figures to the actual jobs created by industry, jobs created by the public sector, and jobs which are simply recycled through Canada Works and student employment programs?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: It is a welcome change, Mr. Speaker, to hear someone from the opposition talking about the number of jobs created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: At least they are now coming to recognize that this is, in fact, taking place. I would point out to him that such a question could be put on the order paper and I would leave it up to StatsCan to come out with the specific figures, because I do not think I am required to remember them.
I would remind the hon. member that in the manufacturing sector-this figure comes from that organization as well- there were in excess of 125,000 jobs created. There were more jobs in manufacturing last year than the year before. So jobs are being created, and at a record pace.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not so much about the jobs being created-all of us are concerned about that- but, rather, about the jobs being recycled and used for political purpose in statistics quoted in the House.
[DOT] (U40)
Does the minister have, and will he present to the House, the statistics concerning how many of these jobs are being recycled every year and how many are permanent? Is it the intention of the government to make more of these jobs permanent? In other words, will the government channel more of the money being wasted in some areas of the country into the private sector, which would be more capable of creating permanent jobs, instead of recycling useless endeavours every year?
Ora! Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any point in providing information to the hon. member because, obviously, he has not read what has been provided already.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We indicated that Canada Works-I am sure that is the type of thing the hon. member is talking about- creates temporary jobs, and that we established an economic growth component factor under Canada Works to create permanent jobs.
Now there are three agreements-one with New Brunswick, one with Nova Scotia and one with Quebec-directed specifically at creating permanent jobs. For example, there is the local employment development assistance program. There is a whole series; I think there are some 14 which I named in my announcement in September. If the hon. member does not read what we have put in place already-and, heaven knows, a lot has been done-I do not know why we should add to his burden if he is not accepting this in any event.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Communications. In recent months, numerous women's groups have made strong representations to the CRTC respecting the stereotyped portrayal of women in electronic media programming and in advertisements carried by our networks.
What has been the reaction of the Minister of Communications to these representations? Does she have any intention to act on them in areas under the jurisdiction of her department?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I feel so strongly about the subject-


James Aloysius McGrath: I am sure you do.


Jeanne Sauvé: -that last spring I made a speech on the matter when I addressed the National Association of Broadcasters, which is the United States equivalent of our Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Perhaps I exhausted the patience of my audience, but I wanted to make the point very strongly that broadcasters and the advertising industry should refrain and restrain themselves from using women to advertise anything and everything, and also that they should look at the matter of advertising feminine hygiene products.
I have raised the matter with the chairman of the CRTC in the hope that he will be able to set up standards very much like those for children's broadcasting. I am prepared to set up a group to monitor the advertisements on television in the hope that the regular publication of their comments would help to educate the public and apply pressure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 9, 1979
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


DELAY IN DELIVERY OF MAIL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. A week ago I asked him a question referring to problems which arose in the city of Calgary. Other members have asked questions concerning areas across the nation. I want to ask him if an investigation has been conducted.
Perhaps at the same time I could ask if he is aware of a letter posted at Mayerthorpe on September 4, 1975, and postmarked on that date, which was received on Feburary 6, 1979. It took three years and four months after posting for the letter to go 300 miles.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Was it urgent?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: During that time, the price of a stamp increased from 8 cents to 10 cents, to 12 cents and then to 14 cents. After almost 3'/2 years, does the receiver have to pay six cents more because of a Post Office delay?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer in detail-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: -the question as to why somebody should have to pay six cents more for a letter received approximately three years after it was posted. That is part of the process. But perhaps I can tell the hon. member for Calgary North something more serious.
In the first part of his question he asked if an investigation had been made concerning the allegations of vandalism and different reprehensible acts in the Calgary post office. I am a little fed up with allegations coming from everywhere concerning vandalism and the inquiries we are attempting to conduct. I know Mr. Woolliams received a communication from Mr. Hall, the president of CUPW in Calgary, concerning this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Lamontagne: -but every time we attempt to make an inquiry about such matters we meet with silence from the workers' representatives, and even some media representatives, who do not want to speak and give us leads which could help us do our work in trying to find out who-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: The hon. member for Nickel Belt is laughing, but I think a responsible union leader such as Mr. Hall from Calgary should help us, instead of keeping silent. He should help us find the responsible people. I challenge him to help us take some disciplinary action.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could help the Postmaster General. I ask him if he would be prepared to set up an independent investigation. The Postmaster General spoke of Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall wrote a letter to me last week in which he admitted many of the allegations I have made. If he will write to me in that regard, I am sure he will talk with an independent investigator in order to get this mess cleaned up once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I challenge Mr. Hall, the president of CUPW in Calgary, to help us find out who was responsible for the vandalism in the Calgary post office, even if it was a member of his own union.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was in the House earlier but unfortunately is temporarily absent. In her absence, perhaps the acting minister can respond.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: She has gone to mail a letter.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hon. members will be aware that the Easter Seal campaign has been launched in Canada. Now that the bureau on rehabilitation has been restored in the minister's department under the capable direction of Andre Leblanc, when will the hon. lady be taking the next essential step to set up the long anticipated advisory committee on rehabilitation, drawn from the voluntary sector of the rehabilitation movement which has been carrying an increasingly heavy responsibility arising from the government's long delay in proceeding with the Social Services Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the hon. lady, who has gone to attend a ceremony at the Governor General's since I could not go myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: You did not want to go.


Some hon. Members:: Go, go.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: preparation for the Rehabilitation International Congress to be held in Winnipeg in June, 1980.
In view of the frequent reports revealing drastic deficiencies in treatment facilities and services available to physically and mentally handicapped Canadians, will the minister use her good offices to have this committee set up while this parliament still survives? Perhaps the Prime Minister is knowledgeable in that respect.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of the motion of the hon. member, but I commend him for his very valuable thoughts in this direction. Certainly I will undertake to pass on his suggestion to our House leader. It would be useful if the hon. member contacted the House leader of the Conservative party.


Walter David Baker: That has been done.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who knows, perhaps between them, with the help of the House leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party, they would be able to set up this parliamentary committee. Certainly it will have my approval if it has the approval of those four gentlemen.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. At the moment there is in the Sudbury basin a strike which is in its sixth month. It is between the United Steel Workers of America and Inco Ltd. and 11,600 workers have struck the company.
In view of the fact that it was revealed yesterday, in the latest contribution figures to political parties, by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada received $20,500 from Inco Ltd., would the Prime Minister be good enough to get in touch with his friends in the boardroom of Inco and lean on them a little so that they will negotiate in good faith with the workers who have been forced into a very untenable position vis-a-vis the strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to make sure that the hon. member's thoughts are conveyed to the directors of Inco. The hon. member might perhaps consider leaning a little bit on the union, because I understand that the New Democratic Party receives very considerable funds, way in excess of $20,000, from the Steel Workers.


John Edward Broadbent: We all select our friends.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I were in the position of the hon. member, that of the relying so heavily on the Steel Workers, I would
Oral Questions
suggest to them that it is probably a very inopportune time to have a strike, when there are excessive stocks of nickel all over the world and particularly in Sudbury.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What about steel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would leave the hon. member, with his friends, to decide if they should not be negotiating in good faith as well.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I am not so concerned about my views becoming known to the board of directors of Inco, because they are already well known, and in view of the fact that any contributions made by the Steel Workers of America to this labour party are made in a democratic process but the contributions of Inco-


An hon. Member:: Explain.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: I understand the sensitivity across the floor. In view of the fact that the contributions of Inco Ltd. are not made with the consent of the shareholders of Inco, I wonder if the Prime Minister-and I would insist, again, that the Prime Minister, in his role as leader of this country, show some leadership in this particular dispute-would get in touch with the directors of Inco Ltd. and insist that they present an offer to the workers which will let them walk away from the bargaining table with some dignity and respect.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, or he should know, that labour relations in Inco are not within federal jurisdiction; they come under provincial jurisdiction.


John R. Rodriguez: You took their money.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as my asking the directors of Inco to make a particular offer to the union, I have not studied the particular case and therefore I do not know what is a reasonable offer. I do know that when the hon. member talks about negotiating in good faith, he should ask the union members of that particular local to negotiate with some good sense.


THE SEAL HUNT
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Reports this morning indicate that Mr. Cleveland Amory and his small band of misguided, misdirected people have managed to paint seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with red paint.
The minister has issued a permit to Greenpeace to visit the Front of St. Anthony and the Canadian branch of Greenpeace has now turned over that permit to the American branch of Greenpeace. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he

March 9, 1979
Oral Questions
will now revoke the permit which was given to Greenpeace to visit the Front so that the incident of painting seals with red paint in the Gulf will not happen at the Front and so that fishermen will not be deprived of this income because of the devaluation of seal pelts.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has truthfully stated a fact which has taken place. The American protest group on the Sea Shepherd did paint a number of seals red in an area 40 miles west of the Magdalen Islands. Eight persons were arrested and are now on board our icebreaker Wolfe. A number of charges have been laid, including the charge of interfering with the herd and going within a half-mile of the herd without a permit. The Canadian Greenpeace group does have a permit to observe, but it has been suggested that this permit may have been given to the American group. If this is the case, the permit will be revoked and charges can be laid.
There is one other point, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make clear to all hon. members. A permit was issued to the Canadian Greenpeace on the basis of one permit to one person for one day. They were to notify us who this party would be. An individual from Boston has been selected and he will be accompanied by one of our enforcement officers. I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hastings.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). One of the most efficient lotteries in the country was the Belleville Yardmen Benefit Fund which did a great deal for the city of Belleville. It was put out of business by the combination of Wintario and Loto Canada. Wintario, in recognizing this fact, contributed an amount equal to the contribution from the Belleville Yardmen Benefit Fund.
Now that the minister has $18 million on her hands, I wonder if she would, in her largesse, do what has been done by Wintario and the Belleville Yardmen Benefit Fund, for Belleville?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the $18 million to which the hon. member has referred is to be used in the years from 1980 to 1985. If we listen to the hon. member's leader, there will not be any money at all to talk about at that time.
The hon. member mentioned a private corporation. Perhaps he would be interested to know that Loto Canada does assist those that are non-profit corporations if they wish to take on

the job of selling the tickets. These corporations receive $1 for every $10 of tickets which they sell. Many non-profit corporations in this country have been able to raise a considerable amount of money in this way.
Lottario is currently taking in $700,000 a week, and I think I should refer the hon, member to that organization.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, just to make my point absolutely clear, the Belleville Yardmen Benefit Fund contributed over $3 million to a sports complex. Wintario, because they realized they had put the yardmen out of business, matched their contribution with another $3 million. They need money to finish the project. I am suggesting that Loto Canada, because they, too, helped to put the Yardmen Benefit Fund out of business, should contribute as well, but not in the form of selling tickets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. member is making a representation.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tries to tell us that all is now economically well on this election eve, as he did again yesterday, I wonder whether or not the Prime Minister would take advantage of the days, or perhaps weeks, that he has left and fulfil one of his 1974 election campaign promises; specifically, the urban transit funds promised for the expansion and improvement of the transit system in and around metro Toronto.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question has been answered many times by the Minister of Transport and myself.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not properly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We were not able to allocate the many hundreds of millions of dollars that we had hoped to allocate to the transit system in Toronto; but funds have been earmarked, some of which are being used around Toronto.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in that case, could the Prime Minister explain why his minister of sport-I leave out the "amateur" portion of her title because she does not seem to be preoccupied with that area-was prepared to offer $ 18 million for the construction of NHL arenas to house professional teams which in their own right are making millions, while the government continues to withhold these promised funds from such important areas as urban transit development around one of the largest cities in Canada?
March 9, 1979


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member perhaps has not noticed, but the funds from Loto Canada will essentially be used for sports and for culture, and not for building roads.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the recent announcement by Supply and Services that a contract has been awarded to Decision Dynamics Corporation of Toronto for an evaluation study of gun control legislation as it refers to Bill C-51, in the amount of $292,400, could the minister tell the House the reason for spending this large amount of money on the study at this time of restraint?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the question of gun control is one of high sensitivity. He knows very well that in his own area it is one of high sensitivity.
As a result of that sensitivity, I announced recently, and repeated in this House, that we have a firearms advisory council which will be looking at the implementation of gun control legislation. We also felt it would be advisable to see how the implementation was proceeding in order to be able to present changes to the program, if necessary, to make it more effective and palatable.


George H. Whittaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has announced forming this advisory committee, and in view of the fact that it will apparently have exactly the same functions as the study by Decision Dynamics Corporation, can the minister advise this House and the people of Canada of any logical reason for such a waste of taxpayers' money occurring?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, it is not at all a waste of taxpayers' money. It is, exactly, an assessment of a very sensitive program. We are very much interested in the impact of gun control both in terms of controlling their use and in controlling criminal activity. Surely the hon. member recognizes that once a study is made and reports are made to the minister, we can take whatever appropriate steps are necessary to improve a system which we feel is very commendable at this time.
Point of Order-Mr. Diefenbaker HEALTH AND WELFARE


ONTARIO DOCTORS WITHDRAWING FROM OHIP-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, if I could get his attention.
I have learned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot come back here for the question period. This matter goes to the root of government policy, as it affects the universality of medicare and the major cost-sharing agreement with the provinces. Considering that one of the requirements for any province to get its share of funds for medicare from the federal government is that the provincial plan be universal, and considering that about one-fifth of Ontario's doctors have already withdrawn from OHIP as a means of raising their fees by 25 per cent to 30 per cent, will the Government of Canada inform the government of Ontario that the federal government has the right to cut off funds unless reasonable access to medical services, and universality are maintained in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to verify the details of the hon. member's statement. The principles introduced by this government and supported by parliament, are those of universality and access.
I said in my early answer that any plan which went against that would lead the federal government to operate sanctions of some kind. I can only give the same general answer, because I do not know the details of the case put by the hon. member. I will certainly take it up with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


POINT OF ORDER
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Parliament can only operate properly if questions asked in parliament are answered within a reasonable period of time.
Yesterday Your Honour made a ruling that he had taken a certain step because of the fact that a committee of this House had made the recommendations as to the guidelines, and therefore he took it upon himself to decide that certain broadcasts should not take place. I mention that because through the years parliament, over and over again, has declared both effectively and traditionally that there shall not be unreasonable delays in the answering of questions.
I brought this matter to Your Honour's attention a couple of weeks ago and you very properly said that you had no authority to take any action but that you would look into the question. What I am dealing with is, to me, one of the most reprehensible examples on the part of the government of its efforts to hide the facts. I brought this matter to the attention

March 9, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Diefenbaker
of the House several weeks ago. Since then there has been no action thereon and I must therefore repeat once more the questions that were asked three and a half months ago.
Question No. 576 placed on the order paper on November 14 reads as follows:
1.	Was an order made that files containing secret or security information were not to be released until the expiry of 30 years and, if so, on what date?
There was such an order and date. I have it at the moment. The question continues:
2.	Has the government decided that all files in connection with the Gouzenko revelations of 1945-46 shall not be released now and, if so, for what reason and on what basis?
3.	Is the government aware of a press report that the reason given for non-production is "That they might hurt some people now living"?
4.	Were any such individuals then or thereafter or since Cabinet Ministers?
Another question, No. 611, was asked in connection therewith on November 22 as follows:
1.	In consequence of Mr. Igor Gouzenko's revelations, how many individuals were prosecuted and (a) who were they (b) what happened in their respective cases?
2.	How many named in the revelations were not prosecuted and for what reason?
3.	With the termination of the 30 years during which secret documents are not revealed, for what reason is an exception being made in connection with his revelations?
Sir, I have been here a long while, almost 39 years, and I have never known a case to equal this in which concealment is the obvious purpose of the government in not answering. What is the reason for the concealment? They are very simple questions. Parliament becomes effete unless answers are given to questions within a reasonable time.
In addition, I asked a question on February 6, No. 1,032 on the order paper, as follows:
1.	Did the government give its consent to the Government of France to confer on Dr. William Jaffe the Legion d'Honneur and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the government give its consent to the granting of the Award, some time ago, of Chevalier of the Order of the Legion d'Honneur on Premier Levesque and, if so, on what date?
Why was that question not answered? It is not a long delay, only a month, but it would take about five minutes to answer if the government desired to answer it.
I endeavoured to have you, sir, as custodian of the traditions of parliament, as you made clear yesterday, to do something and you said nothing could be done. Why is this government hiding information? It has been three and a half or almost four months since these questions went on the order paper. What are they afraid of? There can be no excuse whatever for this kind of Star Chamber action.
We approach an election, I believe, at some time. Why have members of this government who posed as lambs now become rabbits when it comes to answering simple questions? Who is covering up? I repeat-you cannot do anything, you have made that clear-the House and the country has the right to know that the failure to answer these questions in three and a half months indicates a government that cannot be believed. That is what we have found here over and over again.

This is an example of simple questions that could be answered. Is the government waiting for dissolution? How many months do we have to wait? Are they waiting to allow this session of parliament to end because they have no reason to believe they are frightened of the answers if they are given to the Canadian people?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member referred in particular to two questions indicated by an asterisk, namely, question No. 576.


John George Diefenbaker: I want an answer from the government, not from one of the underlings.


Yvon Pinard: However, I expected from the right hon. member a minimum of respect for this institution which we, government members, have always respected. He also read question No. 611 bearing an asterisk. Then he referred to another question he claims he had put on the order paper sometime in February, which I cannot track down because he failed to mention the number.
Mr. Speaker, what I find unacceptable in the remarks of the right hon. member is his insinuations to the effect that we, on this side of the House, have something to hide, while in fact our attitude proves quite the contrary. If I may refresh the memory of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in the last two sessions we answered, to my knowledge, about 90 per cent of the thousands of questions put on the order paper. In so doing we also try to get maximum information. 1 see the right hon. member is not interested in knowing the facts; yet he complains about our hiding them, Mr. Speaker. There he goes making gestures which would indicate that he is not interested in knowing the truth about the matter. I am giving him the information requested and I ask him to have the decency and politeness to listen.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member knows full well that during a session, when we try on this side of the House to get all the information and give answers that are as complete as possible, we manage to keep up a 39 to 42 per cent rate of reply. Then, during the summer recess, we usually manage to give answers to about another 40 per cent of the questions on the order paper so that, come fall, towards the end of September or in October, when the new session starts, we have by then answered 90 per cent of all questions on the order paper.
The right hon. member should know that an average of some 4,000 to 5,000 questions are listed each year on the order paper. He should also know that of those, several are referred to dozens or even some forty departments or government agencies and that each question that is so channelled costs,
March 9, 1979

today, in 1979, in this day and age, an average of $100 each to every agency or department concerned.
I have always maintained in this House, however, that it is not a matter of money or of judging whether the question of the hon. member is stupid or not. We treat all questions on the same footing. As they are put, they are referred to the departments and agencies concerned, and as soon as we get all the information requested, we answer them. Everyday, I answer some question or other on the order paper and we print them without discrimination.
The right hon. member should know that what he is trying to do today is unfair to his colleagues on both sides of the House. It is unfair to stand in this House and bring up the matter every two or three weeks. He has just done so now, and did it three weeks ago. He had three questions put on the order paper which bore an asterisk as our standing orders allow. We have already answered one third of those questions. We answered his question bearing an asterisk about fifteen days or less than two weeks ago.
There are two other starred questions and we are dealing with them seriously. Mr. Speaker, if other hon. members did not respect this institution more than he does and if we had to rise every day to read questions on the order paper, the House would continuously hear the same thing. We can read them in the order paper. We do the necessary research work, we give the answers, and each hon. member is put on an equal footing. I have deep respect for the right hon. member for Prince Albert but I have as much respect for the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) who is here or for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Everybody here is put on an equal footing. There is no preference. Each question is considered seriously. Once again, finally, I hope that the right hon. member will understand that we have nothing to hide. We showed in the last few years that we answer 90 per cent of the questions on the order paper, which demonstrates the very opposite of the innuendos of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, which are unfounded.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to tell the right hon. member, once and for all, in a very polite and respectful manner, in reply to his point of order, that he is complaining of certain anomalies in the standing orders. I once told him, about two years ago, that he was complaining about 1/116th of the problems we are faced with in this House. There are 116 House standing orders, Mr. Speaker. There is a need here for an in-depth revision not only of one rule but of all the standing orders of this House. If he and his party seriously wished to sit down and discuss the changes required to modernize this institution and make it more efficient, I would be the first to support his efforts. But as long as he behaves in this manner, wasting our time by reading his own questions on the order paper, complaining without reason and insinuating that we, on this side of the House, are seeking to hide the truth, I cannot consider that he is acting in good faith and it would be very
Committee Reports
difficult for me to sit down with him in a positive attempt to reform this institution in such a way that it would reflect our times, prove to be more efficient and give a new meaning to our role as members of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member has raised a grievance by way of a point of order with respect to the answering of questions and the parliamentary secretary has responded. The matter does not seem to me to be able to go any further at this time. It is a well-known grievance.


John George Diefenbaker: False is the nature of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, on behalf of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Savard (Verdun).
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to further proceedings on a couple of bills that have just been reported. I do so, Your

March 9, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. S. Knowles
Honour, because it has been in the usual way that the government might like to proceed on Monday with one of the bills that has been reported today.
I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this problem has arisen on previous occasions, and you have ruled that if a bill is reported on Friday it is hardly fair to proceed with the report stage on Monday because we do not have the reprint of the bill in time and the chances of getting report stage amendments filed are very slim.
I would hope that there would be no effort to call the report stage of either of these bills on Monday. I will not take time to read the rules but I think there is some ambiguity; one ruie says that it can be done 48 hours later and another rule says that you have 24 hours in which to file report stage amendments. That envisages the usual wait for something filed on Monday that can have amendments filed on Tuesday and be debated on Wednesday.
As I say, on previous occasions Your Honour has ruled that it was unfair. I think you took the position that unless there was unanimous consent, the report stage of a bill, reported on a Friday, should not be proceeded with until Tuesday.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks about. I say to the Chair, so that the Chair understands, that if we are pressed we could go ahead on Monday, but it would be with inconvenience in terms of putting down amendments, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. However, if we are pressed we can do so.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader could consider the problem from the point of view of time, if that is a problem, and perhaps we could agree on what we might deal with on Monday and if it is possible to have something else come forward. But I want to say to the parliamentary secretary, because he must plan the business, that we are prepared to go ahead on Monday unless that should prove inconvenient for the government or for someone else in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that our rules in their present form allow us to proceed next Monday with the study of one of those two bills that have been reported today. In fact, considering the urgency of the situation, we intend to call the energy bill on Monday.
I think we are going to make the necessary arrangements to deal with the problem raised by my hon. colleagues. We are now making all possible efforts to reprint the bill in order to

make it available to all parties as soon as possible. Considering the time required to reprint this bill, I shall consult the representatives of each party in the House to concretize and finalize our intent to call Bill C-42 on Monday.
If the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works were able yesterday evening to sit until one o'clock in the morning, it indicates that if we proceed rapidly enough today we might ensure that the bill be reprinted and that we could, if only out of respect for the exceptional work done by the members of that committee, proceed diligently considering the urgency of this bill, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated this week, so that we may call it, as I said, next Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not have in front of me the precedent to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred, but I do recall dealing with it on a previous occasion. I know at that time I drew on some very sympathetic reasoning from my predecessor. If I am not mistaken, the action of the Chair, faced with these actions previously, had been to discourage, except under the most necessary circumstances, the calling of the bill for third reading on Monday. I do not know if the Chair has ever said-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the commencement of report stage when the bill was reported on a Friday. I do not know that any of the pronouncements, and I will have to look at them, really say that that cannot be done technically; I do not know if they have gone that far. I am not prepared now, without further examination, to make a decision as to whether or not technically that can be done. I rather think the precedents have been such as to say it would appear on the face of them that technically it can be done.
A bill reported on a Friday can be called on Monday in the strict interpretation of the language of the standing order, but because of difficulty that it places on members who wish to propose report stage amendments it is a practice that ought to be discouraged. If it is going to be done in necessitous circumstances, some arrangement should be made, as has just been offered by the parliamentary secretary, to at least come to some accommodation with those members who wish to table report stage amendments in some way, perhaps by extending the agreed deadline for the filing of amendments to a later hour in order to give them the opportunity to examine the text. Anyone who proposes a report stage amendment surely ought to be able to read the reprinted text of the bill, which is, after all, the bill they are proposing to amend. They should have some time to study and prepare their amendments.
March 9, 1979

If I am not mistaken, the reasoning of the Chair has always been not necessarily a definitive interpretation against this right of the government to proceed in this way, but rather an indication that, because of the extraordinary circumstances, if the government does feel it has to rely on the technical interpretation to do this, it ought in some way to reach out and make an accommodation with members who wish to file report stage amendments. It would certainly be expected that the House would give its consent to any alternate arrangements to make that a little more sensible. I certainly hope that that can be done. If there is any way that the Chair can co-operate with that, we certainly will.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-465 an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at emphasizing the compulsory nature of the Official Languages Act and its preponderance over all other language provisions contained in other acts and regulations of parliament and the Canadian government, as recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his annual report for 1978.


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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of the House business yesterday, a matter was raised with regard to the commodity tax review and the reference of that matter to a standing committee of the House.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, I raised this matter on a number of occasions during regular House business discussions. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has raised it. Indeed, the importance of it has been raised as part of the process in the question period. Yesterday this matter was put down so that it is now a government motion. It is an exceedingly important motion.
In his comments yesterday to the hon. member for York-Simcoe the government House leader indicated that it would
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
be inappropriate for that to be done since the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had a full plate and could not deal with the matter. We indicate our anxiety that this be done to the point that we are prepared to agree that, if that reference is made today, that reference could go without debate. Because it is extremely important that the matter get to the committee.
If the government needs any suggestions with regard to how it might be dealt with by the committee, I remind the parliamentary secretary that the miscellaneous estimates committee, for exactly the same reason, namely burden of work, split itself into subcommittees to deal with a specific matter. I suggest that is not beyond the ken of the finance committee.
I would ask, request, plead, that the commodity tax review report be sent to standing committee. It is important to a whole host of industries and people in this country. People have been crying for that review. The government had indicated in a document that it is being reviewed by a standing committee when we all know it is not being reviewed. I give an undertaking on behalf of this party that if it is sent to the standing committee, we will not debate the motion. If it can be called today, it will go without debate.
The government has some responsibility in this, not merely to be at the behest of the standing committee, but to direct that this matter go to the standing committee and that it be dealt with there. The standing committee is a servant of this House. I give that undertaking now publicly to the parliamentary secretary because it is important we get on with this work and not stall any longer.


Yvon Pinard: The
representations made today by the hon. member are quite similar to those he made yesterday and about which he received an excellent reply from the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. In any case, I shall take note of these representations and advise the House leader in good time. The hon. member suggested that perhaps we could agree to refer this matter to the committee tomorrow, which is, of course, a mistake on my part since we shall not be here tomorrow, but at the beginning of next week, the Deputy Prime Minister will definitely be able to come back to this matter and discuss it with the hon. member.
I would simply like to draw the attention of the hon. member once more to the fact that the matter now before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is most serious since it also concerns the Bank Act, and the committee has a lot of work to do. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the report mentioned by the hon. member does not specify that the subject matter must be referred to the committee. On the contrary, this report suggests that such referral will be considered once the subject has been brought to the attention of the committee.
4002

March 9, 1979
Order Paper Questions
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of these representations and early next week we shall probably be able on our side to reply further to the hon. member on this important matter.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 396, 424, 500, 906, 1,021, 1,022 and 1,147.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
Mr. Masniuk: What are the names of the individuals who joined the Department of External Affairs as Foreign Service Officers (FSO) during the year 1968?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
B.I.M. Applebaum	W.G. Licari
S. April	T.P.J. Lonergan
R.D. Auger	I.W. McLean
A.P. Bissonnet	G.L. Ohlsen
A.G. Bolduc	D.P. Richards
J.P. Carrier	J.M. Robinson
A.L. Despres	G.J. Sleeth
J.R.W. Fieldhouse	G.J. Smith
L.E. Green	P.J. Thibault
I.M. Hall	L.J. Villeneuve
H.G. Korn	D.E. Waterfall


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Was NAWAPA referred to the International Joint Commission for their study or review and, if so, what were the decisions or conclusions reached by the Commission?
2.	Has the cabinet or any past or present Minister been asked by any provincial or other authority to consider or comment on the NAWAPA proposal and, if so, what were their views or opinions?


Louis Duclos: 1. No.
2.	External Affairs records show that in 1965 the Honourable R.G. Williston, British Columbia Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, wrote the Hon. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs, to express his province's strong opposition to the NAWAPA proposal. Mr. Martin took note of British Columbia's stand, but reserved his own position on the proposal, which preliminary federal study
[Mr. Pinard.1
had shown to offer no benefits to Canada that could not be derived from a more limited development primarily in Canada. The Hon. Judy LaMarsh, Secretary of State, said in the House of Commons on April 3, 1967, "The NAWAPA, Grand Canal and other suggested schemes diverting water to the United States are based on the as yet unestablished assumptions that there is an economic demand for Canadian water in the United States, that Canada has a surplus, over and above its own requirements, with which it might supply this demand, or part of it, and that it would be in Canada's national interest to export water to the United States." Since then, the NAWAPA scheme has not been raised as an issue and is not an active subject within the federal government at this time.


CMHC-LAWYERS RETAINED IN VICTORIA
Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law Firms in the Constituency of Victoria who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


André Ouellet: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC retained the lawyers listed below to handle mortgage documentation for loans approved in the Metropolitan Victoria area in 1977:
Name	Location
Cecil O. D. Branson	Victoria
R. B. Hutchison	Victoria
Michael J. O'Connor	Victoria
T. P. O'Grady, Q.C.	Victoria
Ian H. Stewart	Victoria
Legal fees in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.
The following lawyers were retained to handle legal actions for 1977 in the Metropolitan Victoria area:
Name	Location	Legal Costs and Fees
Ray, Wolfe, Connell,
Lightbody and Reynolds	Vancouver	nilCox, Taylor and Company	Victoria	nil
Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no records of the amounts.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-BANFF
Mr. Bawden: Has consideration been given to adding maintenance and sanding equipment to ensure the safest possible conditions on the Trans-Canada Highway between the east Banff Gate, the Town of Banff, the Sunshine turn off and Lake Louise?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: At present maintenance operations (including sanding) on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park are provided on the basis of 12 hours per day,
March 9, 1979

seven days per week with call outs on off hours as required. Adequate equipment is available for this operation.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-VIBRATION AND SHOCK TESTING
Mr. Huntington: 1.	What are the names of the companies, their addresses and amounts of each bid on Department of Supply and Services Contract 09SD, 97701-7-46309 (8SD 77-09061), "Vibration and shock testing"?
2.	Who was the successful contractor, and what was the amount of the bid?
3.	Was the contract awarded to a Canadian bidder and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	Dayton T. Brown Inc.,
Church Street,
Bohemia,
Long Island, New York 11716 U.S.A.
This company submitted a bid in the amount of $9,625.00 U.S.
2.	Same as above.
3.	No. This company is the only known commercial laboratory in North America with capabilities and experience in testing external stores (SUU-20 MOD Bomb and Rocket Dispenser) to U.S. specifications.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-STATIC LOAD TESTING OF LAUNCHERS
Mr. Huntington: 1.	What are the names of the companies, their addresses and amounts of each bid on Department of Supply and Services Contract 09SD, 97701-7-46310 (8SD 77-09062), "Undertake static load testing of two LAU-5003/A launchers"?
2.	Who was the successful contractor and what was the amount of the bid?
3.	Was the contract awarded to a Canadian bidder and, if not, for what reason?


Pierre De Bané: 1.	Dayton T. Brown Inc.,
Church Street,
Bohemia,
Long Island, New York 11716 U.S.A.
This Company submitted a bid in the amount of $4,545.00 U.S.
2.	Same as above.
3.	No. This company is the only known commercial laboratory in North America with capabilities and experience in testing external stores (LAU5003/A Rocket Launcher) to U.S. specifications.
Order Paper Questions


BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL RELATIONS
Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the purpose of the creation of a Bureau of International Cultural Relations? Under whose auspices will this bureau be?
2.	Will this Bureau be taking over responsibilities of any other programmes and if so, name them. What will the relationship of this Bureau and Canadian missions abroad be?
3.	Who has been appointed to this Bureau and what are their qualifications? What will be their respective responsibilities?
4.	Does the creation of this Bureau of International Cultural Relations represent any elimination of jobs from programmes which have been taken over and if so, how many? Does the creation of this Bureau of International Cultural Relations represent any reduction in the annual budget of the Department of External Affairs and if so, how much?


Louis Duclos: 1. The Bureau of International Cultural Relations in the Department of External Affairs was created as a distinct entity to reflect the increasing importance attached to projecting Canada's cultural image abroad in support of Canadian foreign policy objectives. As is the case for all bureaux in the department, the Bureau of International Cultural Relations reports through the Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
2.	The Bureau of International Cultural Relations is comprised of the academic relations division, cultural affairs division and historical division, all of which formerly formed part of the Bureau of Public Affairs. The new bureau will not be taking over the responsibilities of any other programs. Its relationship with Canadian missions abroad will continue to be one of close co-operation in promoting Canada's cultural image abroad.
3.	Mr. Gilles Lefebvre has been appointed to the new bureau. Formerly director of the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris he studied music in Ottawa and Paris and gained an international reputation for his work with "Jeunesses musica-les du Canada", which he founded in 1949, and the Orford Arts Centre which he also established. He has served five terms as president of the "Federation internationale des jeunesses musicales" (36 countries are members) and was president of the Canadian Conference of the Arts from 1970 to
1972.	His responsibilities will be those of director general of the bureau.
4.	No programs were abolished. The creation of the new Bureau of International Cultural Relations does not represent any reduction in the annual budget of the Department of External Affairs.


Yvon Pinard: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand, including the questions by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 9, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard


POINT OF ORDER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, last night at the time of the adjournment debate I rose on a point of order about the business of the House for today and I referred at that time to the consent of the representatives of all parties on Bill C-29. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, it was agreed previously in the House to end the second reading stage on this bill.
The motion is to be introduced in the House today and there is agreement among parties, and that was recognized last night, as reported in Hansard, for the motion to be amended so as to provide that the bill in question now be considered in committee of the whole rather than in a standing committee. There is agreement for that to take place without a vote; there is also agreement, Mr. Speaker, on all the amendments that will be brought in during consideration of the bill in committee of the whole and subsequent stages, and there is also agreement, of course, to have the bill put through all stages without a vote. So I would like it to be made an order of the House that, in short, we would proceed today by unanimous consent with the consideration of Bill C-29 in committee of the whole, and there is agreement for that bill to go through all stages without a vote as the representatives of the parties are fully agreed on the amendments that could be made to the bill.


Walter David Baker: That is quite agreeable to us. I think the House should commend the work which has been done by all the party representatives to bring some finality to this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I join in that word of commendation. As to the proposal that we should go into committee of the whole, I argued for this last night and I have not changed my mind.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: We agree, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: The House is, of course, under an order with respect to the second reading stage dated March 6, 1979. That order would have to be varied so as to accomplish the purpose now set out, that is, reference to the committee of the whole House. The House had given its consent to such a course and it is with the consent of the House that an amendment is made to the second reading motion so that the bill may now be referred to the committee of the whole. Hon. members will deal in committee of the whole with the amendments of which the Chair now has notice.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that course?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On clause 1-
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, it is customary to hear from the minister on clause 1. We know he is conciliatory and that he is such a reasonable minister today, so we would like to hear from this new minister.


André Ouellet: At the beginning of the discussion on clause 1 I should like to say I very much appreciate the co-operation which has been extended to me by the housing critic for the official opposition, by the housing critic for the New Democratic Party and by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Along with a few other members of parliament and research assistants to the Conservative caucus, they worked yesterday and the day before to deal with some possible amendments to this bill and I am happy to say that the input which has been made by both sides will, in my view, have the effect of improving the measure. I believe an amendment will be forthcoming to clause 1 and that we are ready to accept it.


Mrs. Pigott:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 1, but before I do so I would thank the minister for the remarks he has just made.
Nevertheless, I feel it is important to put certain observations on record. A year ago last February, I think it was, the minister met with the provinces and outlined changes he thought should take place in the National Housing Act. Hon. members will recall that last April there was a scare, or mini-scare, about an election. At that point certain pronouncements were made. We waited to see what would happen; we hoped legislation would be brought before the House. I think it was last November or December that we heard there were to be changes. Again we waited. It was only two weeks ago that the House began serious consideration of this important bill on second reading.
History has shown that when we go through the proper procedures with respect to a bill we usually get a good piece of

March 9, 1979

legislation. I must say I feel very sad we are not able to consider this measure in the standing committee following second reading. I do not like to be negative after all the good times we have had in the last two days, but there are three things which concern our side very greatly.
Housing has not been a priority of this government or this situation would not have arisen. I refer to the fact that we are suddenly obliged to forgo committee meetings on this important subject. We on our side wanted these committee meetings very much.
Mr. Chairman, there are three things we wanted, to discuss. We wanted to discuss this whole graduated mortgage payments system. We think this is a departure from what we would have done.
We had hoped that in committee we could have studied AHOP, which was a good program. We felt that some things should have been studied so that we could find out why there has been a high default rate recently. I feel very sad that we could not bring in witnesses and that we could not have the time to find out what happened to AHOP.
We had hoped to study the good parts and the weak parts of the program in relation to this new program. Even yesterday all members of the House received a booklet put out by the ministry with respect to the graduated mortgage payment, as if it already was approved. We have not even had time to discuss it. I am new in this area, but I come from a management background and the most important thing about putting out a new product is that it be test-marketed. Products should be evaluated. There should not be mass distribution of something until it has been analysed.
I am worried because we did not spend some time after second reading having proper committee meetings. There are some very fine experts we on this side wanted to bring in. I would have liked to have heard about the graduated mortgage payment from all those people who would have been affected. 1 would have liked to study that, but we had only two days discussion of it and now we are in committee of the whole. I do not think that is right. I recognize that the minister has politics on his mind, and I understand that. I have had politics on my mind this week too, but I say that the graduated mortgage payment really should have been studied.
We on this side have a few amendments to move. My amendment is about housing projects, and part of my amendment reads as follows:
-"housing project" means a project consisting of one or more houses, one or more multiple-family dwellings, housing acommodation of the hostel or dormitory type, two or more condominium units or any combination thereof, together with any public space, recreational facilities, commercial space and other buildings appropriate to the project, but does not include a hotel;-
I think this has been a very sad part of the history of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the last few years. We had hoped to talk with the minister and his officials in committee about bringing in the Auditor General to look at what really happened in this hotel area. We on this side
Housing
happen to feel that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had a very fine and admirable reputation over the years.
We are concerned about articles in the newspapers and other things which suggest that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been what it was in the past, and there are several areas we had hoped the minister would agree to look into with us.
I feel that I should put these matters on the record now because I had hoped to ask for a report and an investigation into all hotels and large projects. 1 had hoped that we could have had a full discussion with the minister and perhaps the Auditor General about the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with regard to the disposal of assets. I do not think people realize the extent of the rental holdings of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to a project called Cloverdale in the province of Quebec. We feel that it is very important that CMHC be removed from this now. It is not in the business of being a landlord, but how can CMHC dispose of these assets? Who does the appraisals?
I have had some rather horrendous experiences recently with respect to appraisals when dealing with the National Capital Commission, and I feel that this is a matter which should be investigated. Who does the appraisals? Is the Appraisal Institute of Canada the right one to use? The Appraisal Institute of Canada has had a checkered history.
I think there should be an investigation of low rental projects. Are they really low rental projects? I would like to find out whether some of the stories I hear are true. I am not blaming CMHC, but if projects have been built under its jurisdiction, I want to know whether they are supervised afterwards and whether they are really low rental projects.
Another project which should be investigated is the project in Hamilton known as 150 Sanford. That one should be cleaned up and put to rest.
We should also talk to the minister-and the Auditor General should take a look at this-about the computer programs at CMHC. This matter should be investigated using the Auditor General's new assessment of value for money.
Before we get into the amendments, as spokesman on my side of the House I must say that I feel very badly that we did not have adequate time to go into these areas. For example, the hotel matter should be investigated, cleaned up and wiped away so that the reputation of CMHC can be retained.
My colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk, will be speaking about another amendment. One of our amendments deals with tragic AHOP cases regarding quality problems. One amendment which I think we worked out with the minister has to do with warranties. I understand that the minister will be speaking about this and about what we can do to rectify some of the serious mistakes of the past. We want to see that consumers perceive CMHC as what it is, a lending agency and an insurer of loans. CMHC is not necessarily in the building inspection business.

March 9, 1979
Housing
I think my time is almost up. When the NHA changes came before the House, we felt we should have adequate time to talk about the future of urban planning in this nation. We recognize that the ministry has to cease. It has not met its mandate, it has failed; but we still believe it absolutely essential that we have long range plans, policies and strategies for urban living.
We know that in the coming years more and more people will be living in cities, and we must make certain that they are liveable cities. There have been some magnificent studies done in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, but tragically they have not been converted into policies and strategies. We feel very strongly that we should have had time to go into this in committee. Cities are not planned quickly. There should be 50 and 100-year plans for cities. That is vital and important. Young as this nation is, we want to be certain that the cities of the future are planned properly.
We should have had time to study with the minister and his officials some of the sad stories regarding CMHC, and we should have had time to talk about the future role of CMHC. What should the future role of CMHC be? It has changed and evolved. Companies always change and evolve. We should have talked about CMHC. Should it continue to be a mortgage company which takes risks, or should it just be an insurer of other people who take risks? These things should have been discussed and planned. I feel sad that we did not have time to do that because shelter and the kinds of cities we live in are matters of vital importance to us on this side of the House. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Clause 1 of Bill C-29 be amended by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 1, and substituting therefor the following:
1. Section 2 of the National Housing Act is amended by repealing the definition of housing project and substituting therefor the following: housing project means a project consisting of one or more houses, one or more multiple-family dwellings, housing accommodation of the hostel or dormitory type, two or more condominium units or any combination thereof, together with any public space, recreational facilities, commercial space, and other buildings appropriate to the project, but does not include a hotel;
1.1 Paragraphs 3(a) and 9(b) of the said act are repealed and the follow-
I will conclude my remarks by saying that when we come to clause by clause consideration of the bill, we will speak more on the amendment I have moved.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The committee has heard the amendment of the hon. member.


Mr. Rae:: Mr. Chairman, it has been said that nothing concentrates the mind of a man more than the prospect of hanging. I can say, with respect to this bill, that nothing has so concentrated the mind of the minister as the prospect of an election.
That being said, I want to join in the sugary part of these proceedings by saying that I appreciate the courtesy which has been offered to me and to people in my office as a result of the amendments which we intended to make and the efforts which the minister has made to have them incorporated in the bill.

I do not want to make a lengthy speech because we have agreed to certain limitations with respect to time, but I do want to emphasize that we in this party lament the tendency on the part of the government to allow its housing policy to become an insurance policy. We lament the fact that the Department of Urban Affairs has been abolished and, as I said in the committee some three months ago, it seemed to us that at a time when more and more Canadians were being confronted with problems in urban areas it was the height of irresponsibility for the government to abandon that critical field.
That being said, we do not agree with the basic thrust of the policies of the government. We recognize the importance, in the face of the legislation that has been put forward, of attempting to be as constructive as possible. The efforts we have made have really been twofold. First of all, we have tried to provide for the possibility, at least, of land assembly programs being continued by our municipalities and provinces by allowing the federal government to guarantee certain loans. We regret the fact that the government has abandoned its land assembly grants program to municipalities. We know for a fact that this has affected the ability of many of our city governments to put an end to land speculation and to construct housing on their own.
The second major thrust of our amendments which we will be putting forward later in the day has to do with taking out the statutory monetary limitation that is currently in the bill on the community service grants program. We think, as a matter of principle, it is a mistake for the government to have limited the amount of money to $250 million. When you include the loan portion that is currently available under NIP grants, you find there is no comparison between the government's efforts made under the community service grants program and the efforts previously made under previous divergent programs.
The over-all impact of the community service grants program will be that fewer funds rather than more funds will be allocated, not only for improvement of neighbourhoods but also for the construction of sewage projects, and so on. Therefore, we have argued that the monetary limits should be taken out and made subject to a review which it will be possible for the government to carry on, one that other governments could carry on in the event that other people are sitting on that side of the House, which, it seems to me, provides for the kind of flexibility we need.
I do not think there is any need to make a long speech. We indicated our views at length on second reading and so has the Conservative party. We take issue with the Conservative party's basic position on housing and we also take issue with the Liberal party's position on housing. As we enter the election period, it is perhaps best to leave it to Canadians to decide whose policy makes the most sense.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Chairman, here we are on March 9, in the House of Commons in committee of the whole, with that great spirit of co-operation and agreement. Today we feel that the minister, my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton, my col-
March 9, 1979

league from Broadview and I could go down to the United Nations and solve their problems and reach an agreement in that spirit of co-operation. That is the spirit in the House today, and it is reflected by the sunshine on this, the warmest and nicest day we have had here in Ottawa in four months.
However, there still remain sharp differences between the Liberal approach to housing and urban affairs, the approach of members in the P.C. party and certainly that of the NDP. But I want to point out to the minister and to hon. members here what we on this side are giving up, in this spirit of co-operation, to get this bill passed. We have agreed to do it, but I want hon. members to know what we are giving up.
We are giving up the chance in the standing committee of the House to question the minister regarding the fundamental shift of direct lending from CMHC and from the government to the private sector. We know that the government and CMHC will no longer be direct lenders, so there is a dramatic shift of responsibility from CMHC as the banker to the private sector; and we are giving up the chance to question the minister on the reason for this shift in the standing committee.
We are also giving up the chance to query the minister in committee on why the government has decided to wind down the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. We agree that it is a good idea, one that we on this side have advocated, but we are still giving up the chance of putting questions to the minister.
Last night before I dropped off to sleep I was doing some light reading of Hansard and went back to a speech given on October 22, 1970 in this very chamber by the then minister of state for urban affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who was he then?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He is now the super minister, the present President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. I was reading some of the comments he made when the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was first created. Back in those days he was just a "clerk", a "reporter;" now he has come out of the telephone booth. He said at that time:
Let me repeat the words I have just used-consult, co-operate, co-ordinate. These are meant to be neither soothing motherhood words nor words to gloss over any supposed lack of real intentions by this government. They are, in fact, precise indicators of how we will approach the problems posed by rapid urbanization in Canada at the federal level,
If I had time to read his speech I would show that his approach is like one who is found sniffing the thin air surrounding the metaphysical peaks of political intellectualism because he never deals with the centricity of the issue. It is a great speech.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and continue after lunch?


Charles Robert Turner: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
____________________________________4007
Housing


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Selkirk had the floor.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch at one o'clock I was quoting from the comments of the hon. member for Port Arthur as reported in Commons Debates for October 22, 1970. He was talking about the very first Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Now that I have had some lunch, I return strengthened, encouraged and ready to quote again from this very eloquent speech. The speech was made approximately nine years ago, and it outlined the reasons why the then government was setting up the new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Of course, we have the same government today. It is long in the tooth, worn and weary, running down and will soon run out. But nine years ago it was a reasonably new government which was ready to work.
I should like to quote one other sentence from that speech in order to provide the committee with some idea of the hopes and dreams of the government at that time. At page 467 of Hansard the speech reads as follows:
We will hope to attract the best minds now diffused through governments, industries and universities and to return them again to governments, universities and industry in a continuous and cross-fertilizing stream.
That was a most noble objective, but I should like to deal with the crux, meat, essence and undergirding principle to establish the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. He went on
to say:
In addition to an urban secretariat, of course, the ministry shall have reporting to it, an increasingly co-ordinated into a more total urban effort, the Crown agencies, of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Capital Commission.
The minister then talked about setting up a senior interdepartmental committee to study, co-ordinate and to report annually to the minister. That committee was known as SIDCUA. The only problem with that committee was that it was not only made up of boys from the mail room but comprised of no less than deputy ministers of this government. These nine deputy ministers were to meet, co-ordinate, consult and determine whether or not the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs was doing his job of co-ordinating the activities that would touch the provinces and the municipalities in order to maintain the jurisdictional argument and the constitutionality of rights respecting the provinces.
Those deputy ministers were not just put there for window dressing. They were in fact the backbone of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. So back in 1970 when this government introduced the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs they said that this most critical body of deputy ministers from some nine departments will make sure that this ministry is a coordinating ministry.

March 9, 1979
Housing
Let us look at the record. This committee made only one report in nine years. It was the first and only report. Now we have the minister and his government coming before the Canadian people and saying, "we want to wind down the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. It isn't working, we're stepping on the toes of the provinces, we're interfering with the municipalities. We are so sorry; after nine years of interfering with the provinces we want out."


Bob Rae: They only took your advice.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Well, now, we have heard from my friend on the left who says that the government has taken our advice.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Like Saskatchewan took our advice on mortgage interest deductibility.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If I thought that this government would take my advice so readily, I would give them a list, and we would not only clean up the bill, we would clean up the government. If this government wishes to take my advice and the advice of most Canadians, it is that the Prime Minister ought to have more than lunch with the Governor General and that he should, indeed, ask for a writ so that the Canadian people can review the activities of this government which has been around here for some ten years. Nine of those ten years have been too long.
This government, Mr. Chairman, created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. The ministry was to be reviewed by SIDCUA. We now have them coming back and saying that it did not work. We on this side wanted the ministry of state wound down because it was not working, not because the terms of reference were not adequate, but because this government went beyond the terms of reference. This government began to do things which were constitutionally within the bounds of the provinces.
As a matter of fact, the last task force of the western premiers, in a document known as "The Western Premiers' Task Force on Constitutional Trends", at page 31 says:
-in the broad area of housing, consultation was non-existent.
The four western premiers were saying that in fact the very duty of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was non-existent. It is no wonder that we on this side say that the whole ministry of urban affairs should be wound down because housing is a provincial jurisdiction.
This, however, does not mean that the federal government does not have a role in housing. It does not mean that the federal government cannot co-operate with the provinces. The problem is that this government cannot co-operate with anybody. They cannot consult with anybody. Their concept of consultation is ratification. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, how much they consult. This little booklet which I have will prove and illustrate the difference between consultation and ratification.
The historic role of parliament has been that the government proposes legislation, and I give them that right. They have the right to govern because they have the majority, for

the time being at least. They have the right to set the fiscal and monetary policy regardless of the mess they have made of it. That is their right and I give it to them. They have the right to set foreign affairs policy and housing policy, and I give it to them.
Our right in this House as the opposition is to oppose and to suggest from time to time alternatives that will help make legislation bearable for Canadians. The proof of this is illustrated in the number of amendments which we on this side have introduced on Bill C-29 which have been accepted by this government. This proves that we on this side are ready at the drop of a hat to help write legislation which will work. We on this side have the absolute right to oppose.
Another historic right of parliament is to debate proposals by the government before they are put into effect. I had delivered to my office down there in the "bush", in the Confederation building-but the post office was able to find me-a booklet that has printed on the back of it "NHA 522" and printed in the ninth month of 1978. This booklet is about graduated payment mortgages, "another way to home ownership". It was printed by the hundreds and thousands, and it says so right here. The cover letter says that over 100,000 copies of this booklet are available. All one has to do, Mr. Chairman, is fill out this card on the back; it is perforated and you tear it off and send it to CMHC; then they will send you this booklet outlining the graduated payment mortgage, the GPM.
However, the GPM is not law yet. It has not been passed. We have not given our consent. The difference is that this government comes to parliament for ratification when historically it should come to parliament for debate and approval of legislation. This government is so quick off the mark that they print 100,000 of these booklets. Just the day before yesterday the minister was prepared to scrap the GPM. It was only through amendments from this side that it was cleaned up. We did not want to see it scrapped, we wanted to make it workable. We introduced amendments which were accepted by the government and we would have saved the GPM and, in turn, the Canadian taxpayers the cost of printing 100,000 of these booklets before parliament had a chance to debate the question and help the government clean up the mess.


James Aloysius McGrath: Maybe they are already printed.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: They are, 100,000 of them.


An hon. Member:: At what cost?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: At what cost? This government is not concerned with cost. What we on this side are forgoing is the chance to have this bill go to a standing committee where it would be investigated and where witnesses would be called from across the country, from, for example, the banking institutions and the credit unions, to give us their expert advice which is available to all Canadians. But because we want to accommodate the minister and this government in getting this bill through, we have agreed to send the bill to committee of
March 9, 1979

the whole. However, we will have questions from time to time this afternoon.
I have a whole list of things that I want to bring up this afternoon as we go along. I have one question which the minister may want to respond to, before I sit down after my first 20 minutes of the opening salvo here, with regard to clause 1. The question is with respect to Cloverdale. Would the minister tell the House whether or not the $180,000, which is the 5 per cent deposit made by Grado Development Corporation in the bid for Cloverdale on December 1 when that corporation was not able to finance the purchase of Cloverdale, was retained by CMHC and, if not, was all of it refunded or was part of it refunded?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the cheque was kept by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for reimbursement of its expenses.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the evangelical zeal of my hon. friend and colleague who just finished speaking. I wonder if I might bring to the attention of the minister and the officials with him today a problem that ties in with this particular clause.
In the city of Belleville there are a number of low rental and senior citizen housing buildings supported by CMHC. Within the last two years a young man with a great deal of foresight has put forward an exciting plan for a senior citizens' housing building adjacent to the river and facing on the main street of Belleville. It is right across from three movie theatres and next to excellent shopping. It is a building where senior citizens could be very happy, and unlike some of those on the outskirts, it would enable them to be very active in the community. Day after day they could walk on the main street, meet friends, go shopping and take part in the cultural activities in the city.
Even though the developer has the environmental studies completed for the city, has the zoning completed, has the permit approval ready, the feasibility study and the affordability study all finished-all of these things which were set out by CMHC-none the less CMHC have failed to give approval for this development. They keep asking more questions. The developer has a lender in place who is ready, willing and indeed anxious to participate in this very exciting and worth-while project. He also has a contractor of some proven ability in this form of construction in place. Everything is ready to go, yet CMHC still does not want to give approval. When questioned they said there is a 9 per cent vacancy rate, but they did not say that was in another city 50 miles away. Even when questioned on that argument, it was found that the vacancy rate in downtown Kingston, which was the city they chose as a model, was only 1 per cent. The vacancy rate in downtown Belleville is less than that. There are very few apartments for senior citizens in the downtown area.
Housing
We have an exciting, imaginative program ready to go ahead. We have a developer who wants to put up 185 units, 135 of which have already been requested by individuals. Still CMHC will not give approval.
I have heard this kind of criticism before, Mr. Chairman. I wonder what there is about CMHC that it tends to delay when the horror stories that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton have spelled out today are so readily approved? Everything is in place for this project but still CMHC does not want to give approval.
I shall deal with other questions later, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder if the minister and his officials could tell me why Mr. John Halloran of Halloran Real Estate, with his exciting proposal for main street Belleville, Ontario, cannot get approval.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I shall look at this matter and try to arrive at a speedy conclusion of it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to outline a few things that the minister is going to have to answer satisfactorily before this bill completes passage through committee of the whole House. I want to congratulate him on having it brought before the committee of the whole House. This gives us an unlimited opportunity to spend the time that needs to be spent on going into some of the details that need to be gone into in connection with the minister's handling of CMHC.
I hope the minister has read my remarks of a day or two ago. I have them here to read again in case he has not.


Bob Rae: Don't you have them on tablets?


John Carnell Crosbie: I spoke during debate on second reading on March 6. The minister was not here for my few remarks. I hope he has read my speech, because if he has not I will have to repeat it any number of times during the coming weeks. I assume that the minister has read my remarks, so that I can abbreviate.


André Ouellet: Page 3882 of Hansard. I have it here.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is wonderful how a minister's mind becomes clarified when we get into committee of the whole. It is wonderful how nice ministers become, how reasonable, how agreeable. I am glad to see the minister in that mood.
There is one item I should like to find out about. I know the minister cannot answer right now because it would be too small a matter to have come to his attention. At Come-By-Chance in the province of Newfoundland where there is a refinery that has not operated for three years there is a subdivision of houses formerly occupied by employees of Newfoundland Refining. It was financed through mortgages provided through Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company and insured CMHC. When the refinery closed down and payments were no longer being made, they foreclosed, of course, on the mortgages and took ownership of the houses, and claimed against CMHC and the mortgage insurance fund. CMHC is
4010

March 9, 1979
Housing
now the owner of those properties on behalf of the mortgage insurance fund.
I should like to find out what the position of CMHC is on these units. Are they now attempting to sell them or are they going to hold them for the possible reopening of the Come-By-Chance oil refinery? Have they met with the Come-By-Chance town council to discuss what should be done with these units? They were making an evaluation of the units and attempting to fix prices based on market value during the summer of 1978. Have they completed that and, if so, what do they think the proper market value is? In other words, just what do they plan to do with those houses that, unfortunately, they had to take over under their insurance scheme? I should like to find out at some point as we go through this bill.
I have another problem, Mr. Chairman, that I spoke about the other evening. That is the problem in Kilbride in the district of St. John's West where some mistakes occurred through the administration by CMHC of an AHOP project there. I am not sure yet how many people are affected- perhaps 150.
To summarize the matter, in January all these people got notice that they were going to have an increased monthly mortgage payment. In some cases it was up to $80 per month. It was said the reason was that the municipal taxes had increased, or that it was to collect municipal taxes that had not been collected by CMHC in the previous two of three years. The increased monthly payments are to commence on April 1 and CMHC has said they will collect the arrears of taxes in 1979.
In some cases, Mr. Chairman, people had been told a few months earlier that they were in credit. In one case the monthly payments for municipal taxes were reduced to zero or to 50 cents per month, I think. That particular person has been told the monthly payments are to be increased to $40 or $50 per month because there are supposed to be arrears. Naturally the people who got these notices were shocked and stunned. They had never heard of any arrears of municipal taxes. They are objecting and meetings have been arranged so that CMHC can go into each individual case.
There was no tax increase in the last three years in the St. John's metropolitan area and there was no increase in tax assessments. CMHC had considered that taxes were going to be between $96 and $120 per year originally, but when the actual tax bills were sent out they were more than that. For some reason CMHC neglected to inform the mortgagors. They neglected to increase the mortgage payments for municipal taxes, then allowed the arrears to build up over two or three years which they paid themselves. They now want to collect the arrears from the mortgagors. They want to collect the interest on the arrears, and they want to do this all in nine months commencing April 1.
Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable. These are low income people, working class people or lower middle income people who cannot afford to pay vastly increased monthly payments.

CMHC is aware of the situation in St. John's. We have been talking to them, but they need direction from the minister, as I said in that speech.
Without going on too long about that, I would like to know what the minister can do. First I hope he will direct that they will not collect arrears of interest on municipal taxes which the mortgagors know nothing about. They were not informed about this matter and it is not their fault. There should be no collection of arrears. Depending on the individual case, people should have longer that 12 months to pay the arrears, once the arrears are shown to exist. There should be no attempt to collect arrears of interest caused by CMHC making late payments of municipal taxes to the St. John's metropolitan area board.
Apparently CMHC were charged interest by the St. John's metropolitan area board because they did not pay the taxes themselves on time, and they were in turn trying to collect that from these mortgagors. It may be something to do with the computers. Anyway, it was some fault in the administrative system of CMHC, and as a result this happened.
This situation is the responsibility of CMHC, and I cannot see how these people can be expected to start paying on April 1. It will take two or three months to straighten this matter out. CMHC should be directed not to start collecting their increased monthly payments until at least June 1 or until this matter has been straightened out with these very irate home owners.
It was not drawn to my attention until all this happened that many of the homes occupied by these AHOP home owners- once again built by a contractor through CMHC, inspected by CMHC and all the rest of it, and then sold to these poor innocents-are defective. They have had a lot of trouble with them. They are in poor repair already although they have only been built in the last two or three years. The workmanship is atrocious. The roofs leak. There is condensation inside and outside the walls. I am told that they have things growing literally on the walls of their houses. I do not know what kinds of things. There is water everywhere.


An hon. Member:: Fungus.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is some evidence of NDP fungus.


Bob Rae: A healthy development.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am afraid not. It will require the absolute excavation of these structures if that turns out to be true. If there is an NDP infiltration in these homes, it has to be stamped out.


Bob Rae: That is the only way you will beat us in St. John's West.


John Carnell Crosbie: I managed to keep the rot from spreading there in 1976 and I hope to keep the rot from spreading again this year.
Quite seriously, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the condition of these homes. They are not as bad as the homes in
March 9, 1979

the area which the hon. member for St. John's East is complaining about, and rightly so.
Might I make a suggestion to the minister, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that CMHC and the minister has stated to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, is that they cannot do anything. In my friend's case this gentleman incorporated a company to do the project. The project is now finished. There are no assets left in the company. The people in the development have been left with inferior homes. These homes are in Virginia Park in St. John's East. There is not much good these people suing the company which built the homes because the company is now only a shell. This well-known contractor in St. John's has now moved on to other projects. CMHC say, "Well, you can only follow your legal remedies." The legal remedies in this case are not much good to you. What is the good of suing a company with no assets?
Apart from the question whether CMHC should be held responsible, which I am sure my learned friend and colleague will deal with again, this contractor is also accused of having bribed a CMHC inspector. The way to deal with him is quite simple. CMHC should advise that contractor that if he does not put those homes in good repair and does not correct the deficiencies, never again will he or any company in which he is a shareholder, or in which any of his family are shareholders, or anyone found to be representing him, receive any financial assistance for a building project from CMHC. That is the least that CMHC can do to put some pressure on the contractor.
A contractor should not be allowed to use CMHC financing facilities unless his main company, his principal company, his head company, his company that has assets, guarantees the job. In other words, Joe Smith, whose main company is Smith Construction Ltd., should not be allowed to incorporate XYZ Construction Ltd. to do a job, such as the Virginia Park job, does that job only, and then comes back to CMHC with another incorporated company, without assets, and does a further job, and so on. In my opinion, in every case his main company should have to guarantee the work he has done to CMHC and to the purchasers of those homes. He should not be allowed to use the legal device.
The ordinary home buyer is an innocent party who will probably only buy a home once in his lifetime. People do not know what to look out for. When you talk about an AHOP unit, they are the lower income people who probably do not want to pay lawyers' fees or they think the CMHC lawyer is acting for them. But he is not acting for them unless they agree to pay him the usual fairly substantial legal fee. In this case where the government is involved, the old principle of caveat emptor has to be forgotten. It is not a case of "let the buyer beware". In this case the government is involved and it has to help the purchaser be aware. It is the government's responsibility. They are financing these kinds of developments. If they are trying to help low income families get houses, it is the government's responsibility to hold them by the hand as they go into these projects. In this case it was the government's responsibility to assist them as they bought the houses. If it turned out they had a bad bargain, that they had been put
Housing
upon as has happened in my friend's district, it is the government's responsibility to help them get out of that situation. It is not enough to say they will give them an increased loan to pay the thousands of dollars they have to pay to repair the monstrous conditions they are now experiencing.
I suggest that if CMHC investigates Kilbride and finds that there is poor workmanship, that people are having lots of problems there, CMHC should put pressure on the contractor in those developments. The contractor will not go back now with these individual complaints. The only way he will go back is if he gets extra legal pressure put on him. How can people who are barely able to cover their shelter costs because they are in an AHOP project hire lawyers to sue on their behalf if they need a few thousand dollars worth of repairs done? This is CMHC's program and it should help those who need help, but instead of helping them they have got them in over their heads. They have them tied to a mortgage which they have to repay and they are now leaving them to like it or lump it by themselves. That is not good enough. We are hoping that the minister will have some answers in this connection as this committee goes on.
I have another matter to bring up. I was not here this morning but I would like the minister to explain Mr. Hession's letter of January 3, 1979. The RRAP program has been very popular in Newfoundland particularly in my friend's district of St. John's East and in my district. It has been much used in the NIP areas there and in other areas. The people have been led by the minister to believe that RRAP is available now to them all. I used to write CMHC and ask them if they would include St. Mary's Bay as a RRAP designated area, Come-By-Chance and various other areas. Now it is universal, the minister says.
Mr. Hession's letter of January 3 to the minister certainly shows that that is not a correct statement. He said that the 1979 capital budget is $56 million and that $37 million has to be used in the existing designated areas where work has already begun. That leaves a further $3 million in areas already designated but where work has not started. That is $40 million. This leaves $16 million for new initiatives for the whole of 1979. He goes on to say that 68 areas have submitted final applications under the old rules. After this legislation is passed they can be designated by order in council and they have to have priority. They will require $7 million, which leaves $9 million to cover some 2,250 units. That is the universal amount.
As Mr. Hession says, this is a fairly modest amount and we should avoid raising expectations which we cannot satisfy. I say that the minister has roused expectations throughout this nation that he cannot satisfy, unless he is going to rise here this afternoon and say that he now has $600 million or $1 billion for this program.
We are not going to allow him to fool the people of Canada into thinking it is universal when according to his own president he has $9 million for the whole of Canada outside the

March 9, 1979
Housing
present RRAP areas and he can do 2,250 units during 1979. The people from St. Mary's Bay are going to hear from me, as well as the people from Placentia Bay and the people of St. John's West. Anybody who can hear my voice over the media, or in fact across the nation, every householder from the tip of St. John's East-if the hon. member does not mind me referring to his district-to Vancouver Island, will hear from me that this is not a universal program.
This is a universal fraud, a universal attempt at deception. A statue should be raised to our housing critic, Lady Pigott, the member for Ottawa-Carleton who exposed this massive attempt at deception by giving the world the letter from Mr. Hession. We are going to send Mr. Hession's letter to every householder in this country once the election is called. At least, if we do not, we should. The threat of it alone will be enough to strike fear into the heart of the minister because he will have to explain to the people in our areas who want to get loans and grants to repair their homes why they cannot get them when the program is now universal.
Mr. Hession went on to say:
You realize I am sure that neither the industry nor the municipal delivery system nor the present and projected RRAP budget permit the operation of a universal program in the specific sense that anyone, any day of the week can walk into a municipal office and be served.
He points out that he proposes a ten-year program to do 200,000 dwellings for those in the most serious need. He points out that two million could use the program. We have to go into that with the minister and try and get that straightened out.
I -want the minister to explain to me all about his speech to HUDAC on February 9 of this year. I said the other night that the minister was a wizard of weasel wording. He was going to bring in a great new program. We heard the Prime Minister admit here this morning that they do not have a thing to tinkle in. They could not even tinkle in the pot, they were so tight for money, except for the $18 million that the "minister of amateur fitness and professional sport" is talking about for NHL teams.
This minister said in his speech to HUDAC that our proposal for mortgage interest deductions was unsatisfactory and Canada would be better served by a tax credit scheme so that the new advertising campaign could start. Where did the money come from, honey? All we know is it came from the government. Where does the government get the money, honey? The government gets the money from us, honey.
That is the most dishonest advertising program since Mr. Smallwood left the political scene. They have brought themselves finally to the Smallwood level. I never thought I would see the day when anybody could be lower in that regard than our former premier, but I have seen it now.


Eymard G. Corbin: You are doing pretty well yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: You get on your feet and we'll be delighted to hear you.


Eymard G. Corbin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has invited me to get on my feet if I have anything to

say. I simply said, in case he did not understand me, that he is doing pretty well himself to bring someone down to the Smallwood level. In fact, I think he has surpassed that level in depth.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will pass on the good wishes of that Liberal member to Mr. Smallwood, who will probably get his tongue around him if he ever goes to Madawaska. I am going to ignore the interjection from the gnats and the mosquitos in the Liberal party. We are only interested in the horse flies and the horse dragons, not in the little buzzers, only the large ones.
The minister had this to say:
To introduce any general program, however, that seeks to redistribute income for shelter purposes, requires a very substantial commitment of government funds. As a minister of the government in power, I do not have the advantage of being able to advocate prodigality on the one hand and retrenchment and restraint on the other.
I asked the other night why this minister is being discriminated against. Why is he the only minister of the government that is not allowed to promise more spending on one hand and less on the other? Every other minister does it. Why is he discriminated against? The minister went on to say:
But I do believe that in the near future, as soon as our economy permits, we should adopt a shelter allowance system that will provide assistance to home owner and tenant alike, through payment of a tax credit for shelter expenditures exceeding a certain percentage of income.
Before this bill clears the House, the minister should tell the people of Canada when he is going to introduce that program. He should put a date on it. Can the minister tell us when the economy is going to permit his great new program? When is he going to be able to bring it in and what are the details?
What is the point of the minister saying there is going to be a program if the promise is that it is going to be brought in as soon as our economy permits? The minister knows that as long as his government is in power the economy is never going to permit the bringing in of such a program.
We are promising the people of Canada that mortgage interest and municipal tax deductibility will be brought in as soon as we are brought in. When the people of Canada bring us in, they are bringing that program in with us. The people of Canada have had this government for 15 years and it has not yet introduced this program to redistribute income for shelter purposes or a shelter allowance system. They have been here 15 or 16 years and now the minister says that some time in the future, as soon as the economy permits, he is going to bring it in.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may speak again after someone else has spoken.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, in the traditional spirit of co-operation that characterizes our Friday afternoon sittings, I am glad to see that the minister is in an unusually good and co-operative mood. He was, however, uncharacteristically brief and we had to prompt him to say a few opening words on clause 1 of the bill notwithstanding the practice that it is customary on clause 1, when we are in committee of the whole
March 9, 1979

or in standing commmittee, for the minister to make a statement.
In that same co-operative spirit, the same born again spirit that I perceive in the minister-he sits there smiling at me-I still have hope the minister will address himself to some of the problems that we raised during second reading stage of the bill and which have been repeated here today on clause 1 of the bill by my colleagues.
I have a special interest because of the constituents I have the honour to represent in this House, those unfortunate people caught by a bureaucratic kind of stalemate with regard to the Virginia Park AHOP development. That case has been made in this House. It has been made outside the House by the solicitor for the AHOP home owners in Virginia Park. The minister has correspondence on it. I will not repeat all that I said on second reading. I am not going again to lay the whole horror story on the record because that would be taking advantage of the committee.
I am firm in my resolve that this matter has to be addressed. There has to be some indication from the minister before this debate ends that the government is going to live up to the responsibility that it assumed on behalf of these home owners when it agreed to extend financing under the National Housing Act and the assisted home ownership plan to the builder, who is now no longer in business because he conveniently put together a paper company for the purpose of building this sub-development.
The minister nods his head. I find that encouraging. I am not going to belabour the point. I take the minister at his word. He says he is going to tell us when we get to clause 3. Why cannot he tell us on clause 1 ?
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has outlined the problems in his constituency in the Vancouver area. The hon. member for Hamilton has outlined similar problems in his own area. We could go within a mile of the minister's own constituency in Montreal and find AHOP projects where there are problems which seem to characterize AHOP programs all across the country. There has been a spirit of give and take evident in the last few days. I must admit I do not know who is taking; we can never be sure in that regard, and I do not say this unkindly but in reference to the hon. gentleman's sharpness as a politician.
It seems to me we have reached a productive arrangement as a result of which when the bill before us is on third reading it will in many respects be a vast improvement on that which we dealt with on second reading. But in the interests of making progress I hope the minister will state what are the intentions of the corporation with respect to the AHOP home owners in Virginia Park, in the constituency of my hon. friend from St. John's West, in the Hamilton area and in the Surrey area.
If he does not, then out of the sense of support that I feel for the people we represent I cannot promise we will make the kind of progress we would all like to see. After all, this is the only chance I have to make a case in this House on behalf of
Housing
those unfortunate low income people who bought these houses with the guarantee of the corporation, knowing that they had the backing of the National Housing Act and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. So I invite the minister to tell the committee now what he is prepared to do about these home owners, not only in St. John's but elsewhere in the country.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on clause 1 were very brief. I felt that because there were before us a series of amendments dealing with a number of points which have been presented by members of the opposition it would be more appropriate for me to address those points specifically as each of the amendments came before the committee. However, I respect the view expressed by the hon. member for St. John's East, who has invited me to address myself specifically to the difficult situation in whith home owners in Virginia Park and certain other AHOP projects in various places in Canada find themselves.
One of the amendments presented later today will be introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. Under its terms, we would enshrine in the National Housing Act a clause which would provide that, in the case of a loan made to a builder for the purpose of house construction, the builder should provide the purchaser with a warranty under a warranty program approved by the corporation.
There is no doubt in our minds that in future no loans should be insured by CMHC unless the builder offers a warranty program to the purchaser. I want to remind hon. members that I have been advocating this for a long time. As a former minister for consumer and corporation affairs I made many speeches advocating such a program, so one of the first things I did when I was appointed minister responsible for urban affairs was to discuss with the National Association for Housing and Urban Development the desirability of setting up a warranty program. We presently have a national warranty program which is administered by each provincial association. In practice, though, CMHC no longer insures loans for building projects unless such projects carry a guarantee to the purchaser. I am glad to note that the hon. member wants to enshrine this practice in the National Housing Act. I support her initiative and hope the House will approve the amendment.
In relation to the case which has been put forward in the House in recent weeks by the hon. member for St. John's East on behalf of some of his constituents who have been very badly affected by the incidents in Virginia Park, I told him in the House that the tools at our disposition were very limited but that CMHC was acknowledging the difficulties these people were facing. I assured him we were ready to put up the cash money required to enable them to carry out the necessary repairs immediately but that CMHC had no authority to make grants to these people. There is no provision allowing CMHC to do this. But we are ready to make an advance to them, to re-open their AHOP files and give them an appropriate amount of money with which to pay for these necessary repairs, and to make appropriate arrangements with the individuals concerned for reimbursement to be spread out over as long a period as possible.

March 9, 1979
Housing
Also, there were certain grants attached to the old AHOP program. I know that in Virginia Park some of the residents have an income which is sufficiently low to allow them to benefit from such grants in relation to the offer made by CMHC. I would be quite willing to re-open each individual file in order to help them. The response by the hon. member at the time was that something more had to be done and that some specific adjustments had to be made for these people.
After consultations with the representatives of these people I would be prepared to appoint someone to act as a special adviser to CMHC and to these people, to make recommendations in order to solve the problem of these residents. I recognize the difficulties which are inherent in these actions. At the risk of going beyond the legal responsibility of CMHC I think we ought to take an affirmative step which would allow these people to receive some relief, but not under the legal umbrella. I understand that they have lawyers who have put their case before the court. Perhaps through the court they will receive a much more substantial remedy than they could expect at this moment, but I am ready and willing, without prejudice to their court claim, to appoint a special mediator or ombudsman to deal specifically with their case, to re-open their file and to try to accommodate them quickly so that the problems they have at the present time can be solved.
The errors of the past ought to be corrected, and the ideal way to do that is to make sure that no loan is insured by CMHC unless the builder guarantees the purchaser that there is a warranty plan to protect him.
The second thing I want to say is that indeed, as suggested by the hon. member for St. John's West, I am ready to develop guidelines within the CMHC for dealing in the future with the builders of these projects about which there are complaints. I want to assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House are no more happy-and we are probably as disappointed and disgusted as the hon. member-than the hon. member about some of these things which have taken place in the past. Indeed, we do not approve of the conduct of builders who create companies just for the purpose of financing one project, after which those companies immediately disappear. They escape any liability or responsibility. I am ready to say to the hon. member for St. John's West that we will develop guidelines to make sure that CMHC will not in future do business with those companies which have bad records.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I would like to put to the minister. I am especially interested in the community services program proposal in this legislation. It was announced last May, and a number of municipalities in my constituency have been especially concerned about when these funds will actually be made available. Some of them applied for funding for projects under the four programs which where amalgamated into the community services program. I understand that about $51 million is available for the province of Ontario in the first year, and larger amounts in subsequent years. That would be out of $150 million the first year and

$250 million the second year for the whole country. I would like to know how soon this agreement with the province of Ontario will be implemented.
I am thinking especially of communities like Sault Ste. Marie, where a large sewage treatment facility and water mains are to be installed. There is also a neighbourhood improvement project to be developed. I am thinking also of communities like Little Current, which is putting in a sewer and water system. It applied for funding last year. The project did not get under way in 1978, so the community is waiting to know how soon that funding will be committed so that it can go ahead with tendering on the project. There has been approval from the province of Ontario, but funds under this program have not actually been identified.
I am also thinking of the community of Elliot Lake, which is growing very rapidly. There are some 15,000 people there now, and the community will grow to over 30,000 in the next four or five years. There is a very rapid expansion of infrastructures such as sewer and water. A community like that really has to know from where funding will be coming. Indeed, it will require all available assistance under the community services program, from the Ontario department of the environment, as well as assistance under a subsidiary agreement with DREE, because of the massive funding which will be necessary. That is one matter I wanted to put to the minister. How soon will agreement with the province of Ontario be reached? Time is marching on, and if contracts are to be let for construction this year, that has to be done very soon.
The second matter I want to raise with the minister is whether there can be some special assistance under the rental supplement program for communities like Elliot Lake which are growing very rapidly. In such communities mining companies subsidize the rents of their employees. For a new housing unit which would cost $55,000, $60,000 or $65,000, the rent would normally be about $400, but the mining company would charge only $200. That is fine for the employees of the mining company, but there are people who work in the service sector who do not have that kind of assistance, so it seems to me that there has to be some mechanism developed for communities which are expanding very rapidly. That mechanism should provide proper accommodation for people in the service sector. It seems to me that a rental supplement program is the only solution for medium and lower income families.
I am familiar with one problem regarding the rental supplement program which is carried out jointly with the Ontario government. If a project is developed by the private sector, I think normally only one quarter of the units can be eligible for this rental supplement, and I wonder if in fact there is enough leeway in this legislation, or in the National Housing Act, to allow for entire apartment blocks or housing complexes to be set up so that there would be this rental supplement but not restricted just to one quarter of the units. I would be very interested in knowing if the minister feels that that kind of assistance could be made available to Elliot Lake, where approximately 3,000 units will be developed over the next few
March 9, 1979

years to accommodate expanding uranium production at that community.
I hope the minister will be able to respond to those two questions.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the questions raised by the hon. member very quickly. In the first place 1 would like to say that 1 have had preliminary discussions with representatives of the Ontario government. They have already submitted their documents for signature. We expect to sign an agreement with the government of Ontario dealing with the community services program. As soon as this bill is passed, we hope to have the signatures some time next week.
In relation to the second point raised by the hon. member, indeed, under section 44(1 )(a) and 44(1 )(b) of the National Housing Act we have an agreement with the government of Ontario to designate four supplementary subsidies when the province decides to designate these units. So rent supplements could be granted to specific projects that the hon. member has in mind. It would be up to the Ontario government to designate these units, and the federal government would then be willing to accept this and pay the rent supplement on a 50-50 basis with the Ontario government.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be seen to be intervening more than is reasonable and necessary, but I did not take up my time because I wanted the minister to reply to my invitation to him to respond to clause 1 to the grievances that I put forward on second reading on behalf of the people of Virginia Park. I want to say to the minister that I believe the proposal he has put forward is, under the circumstances, a reasonable one.
The people I have the honour to represent, the home owners in Virginia Park, are reasonable, decent, honest, hard working people, and they believe in the justice of their case, so much so that they, with great personal expense to themselves, engaged solicitors and consulting engineers because they believe their case is just and will stand in any court of justice or any tribunal. That is why I say to the minister that I welcome his suggestion to appoint an arbitrator, a mediator, or an ombudsman who would act independently between both parties, the CMHC on the one side and the Virginia Park home owners on the other. I know that that suggestion will be welcomed by these people.
This prompts me to make another suggestion, one which I have cleared with my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, who should be commended on the very forthright manner in which she has handled this bill, and indeed on the way she has addressed herself to the whole problem of the housing industry and the impact on the economy and the way it affects individual Canadians. This brings me to a suggestion which 1 would like to put to the minister. Most major corporations in the country today which deal with the public have a vice president or a senior executive who deals with consumer affairs or consumer relations, someone who handles specifical-
Housing
ly consumer complaints at an executive level. There is no such person within CMHC. I think the experience of the Virginia Park home owners demonstrates the need for such a senior officer within CMHC, a practice that has been widely and effectively used by most of the major corporations dealing with the public in commercial transactions.
I know I cannot put this forward as an amendment beause it carries with it a charge against the Treasury, and so the amendment would not be procedurally acceptable. I can only make it as a suggestion. I put it forward to the minister, safe in the knowledge that with his background as former minister of consumer and corporate affairs and with the way he has responded to the complaints we have raised in the House on behalf of my constituents, of Virginia Park home owners, and others as well, I know that this is a suggestion he will not treat lightly. I hope it is one which the corporation will accept and that, before long, we will have such an official appointed within CMHC.


André Ouellet: I want to say that this is a very worthy suggestion, and indeed with my previous experience in consumer affairs I welcome the suggestion. I will be speaking with the chairman of the board of CMHC, with the recommendation that appropriate procedures be applied to have one of the vice presidents of CMHC pay particular attention to consumer matters.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make some comments in three areas. I restrained myself on second reading from making a speech, and now I will try to be brief in commenting on the three areas. I hope I will receive some answers from the minister in these areas.
The first one has to do with native housing. Some years ago the announcement was made that some 50,000 structures will be built for natives in, I believe, seven years. At the moment, a little over 7,000 have been built. When I look at the statistics on what is happening on reserves, I find that much still needs to be done. The statistics come from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I will read a couple pertaining to a few of the provinces. We find that reserve Indian families needing homes in Ontario number 2,270 out of 7,000 families which still have no place in which to live. In Quebec, 1,182 families out of 4,353 families have no place to live. In the province of Alberta, 662 out of 2,821 families have no place to live. These families are living on reserves with their parents and brothers, or in rental accommodation together with a number of other families.
In the province of Alberta, the province with which I am most familiar, in the last couple of months-I am not sure exactly how many-some babies died from respiratory problems, and the Indian people in that area put the total blame for those deaths on inadequate housing. It was documented on television and in the newspapers that, in the mobile home where one of the babies died, three families, or 16 or 17 people, resided, a mobile home with the space for only one family or three or four people. At present they are documenting hundreds of more cases in northern Alberta living in
COMMONS DEBATES	March 9, 1979
Housing
similar conditions. The native people in the province consider housing to be the number one priority.
I am fortunate in my riding to have two reserves which have oil money available for their use, and the first area for which they have designated royalties from their oil is the building of homes on the reserves. But by far the greatest number of native people in Alberta are not as lucky and they require assistance in housing from the federal government, and the total responsibility should be on the federal government for giving assistance in housing to the native people.
Under RRAP, money can be made available for native housing, and not only on reserves, because this problem is now extending itself to the cities of this country as young people and families from the reserves are moving to the cities in an attempt to find jobs and get off the welfare rolls and off the unemployment insurance rolls. So we must look at the problem as not only a problem on the reserve but also as a problem in the cities of our nation.
Under this program as well, it is possible to provide assistance for the repair of homes. The statistics tell me-in the non-native community we would never put up with such a situation-that only 80 per cent of native houses have electricity, only 31 per cent have water and sewage facilities, only 30 per cent have indoor toilets, only 26 per cent have indoor baths, and less than a third have telephones. Surely we in the non-native community would not put up with such housing conditions, and I do not think that we, as Canadians, should accept that the native people have to live in that way either.
I see that under this program it is possible to make conversions and major repairs to dwellings, and I hope that the minister will say that certain funds will be set aside under this program for this purpose. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many more homes out of the 50,000 can be built in the next number of years, and whether some funds can be provided under RRAP for the repair of homes and the building of new homes. I would like to spend a lot of time on that, but I realize our time in committee is limited and I want to deal with another area. That other area is the CHIP insulation program.
When it was announced, people who owned older homes felt that the program would provide them with a method of reducing their fuel bills. According to an announcement, I believe some 900,000 dwellings were available for the program, that is, homes built before 1946. For some reason the program has failed. Approximately $65 million was set aside for the program, and it has not been spent. The statistics in Alberta indicate that there are 120,000 homes built prior to 1946 which are eligible for the program, and that only 2,200 grants have been given out in that province.
I had occasion to speak with the chap in charge of the program in Alberta. He indicated that because of the surplus of gas in that province, Albertans are not concerned about insulating their homes. I do not believe that. Anyone who can save on his heating bill will take advantage of it; it does not
[Mr. Schellenberger.J
matter from which province he comes. I could cite similar statistics for other provinces, but I will deal only with my own.
For some reason the program was not put properly before Canadians. Possibly it was because the $350 grant was taxable and many people felt it was not worth going through the problems of receiving the grant. I understand that major recommendations have been approved within the department to change the program somehow. I have a letter from the Insulation Contractors Association of Ontario. I will not read it, but it indicates that changes must be made in order for the association to take advantage of the program and insulate thousands of homes within Ontario. They are looking forward to the changes which the minister is capable of announcing in the very near future. Perhaps he can make such an announcement today, or perhaps he can make it as soon as possible if such recommendations have been approved within his department. If not, I suggest a long look should be taken at this program.
Until one o'clock this morning I was in the energy committee which was dealing with the energy allocations bill. According to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, there is a crisis respecting the allocation of oil, particularly in eastern Canada. The best way to save on our energy requirements is by conservation. This program should be successful and should do Canadians a great deal of good, yet it is failing.
Earlier this year an announcement emanated from CMHC regarding the addition of solar panels in homes. I am not sure of the person's name who wrote an article dealing with this matter, but I believe he suggested that people who feel there is some future in putting solar panels in their homes can be compared to zealots. I simply cannot accept such a remark coming from people within CMHC. This is an area which the Canadian government must move into in order to provide renewable energy for Canadians who are willing to take the chance and put solar panels in their homes. The technology is there, but it requires CMHC assistance by allowing mortgages to be extended at least ten years to 15 years in order for home owners to pay off the costs of the installation of solar equipment in their homes. I hope the minister is looking at this and is in a position to give some answers respecting those three areas.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin I should like to indicate that the rural and native housing program started a few years ago. It has provided approximately 18,000 units out of the target of 50,000 units which we wanted to do over a course of five years to seven years. The reason why the start has been slow and that we have not produced a larger number of units is because we want to involve natives in the program. We want their input into the implementation of it. Of course we were ready to suffer some delay in the implementation of the program because we felt it would be useful for them to be part and parcel of such a program. Our average in production every year is now good, and we believe we will meet the target of 50,000 units.
In relation to the hon. member's second point, I agree the CHIP program perhaps did not receive the response we
March 9, 1979

expected from the public at large. It is an important program, but we still have a job to do in convincing Canadians that they could be very active in the conservation of energy. One of the best ways for Canadians to be active is for them to insulate their homes and spend the necessary moneys to have well-insulated homes. Indeed it would be a wise investment because, in the long run, their heating bills will be reduced. In order to provide an extra incentive in that regard, we have put forward a program to give $350 to home owners in order for them to insulate their pre-1946 homes. Discussions are taking place perhaps to improve some aspects of the program. In relation to the dates, recommendations were made to the effect that now that the old stock has had a chance to benefit from the program, maybe more recent housing stock should be eligible as well. I am looking at this proposal, and I hope to reach a decision soon.
In relation to the hon. member's third point, I agree fully that it is an area to which we must give much more attention in the future, and I support his view on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with clause by clause consideration, the minister suggested that he will appoint an ombudsman. I would like to have this clarified. Is that to look into just the situation in Virginia Park, or is he saying that he will have an ombudsman to look into these situations wherever and whenever they occur? I should like him to clarify that because it is important for Virginia Park. But there are other areas as well where there are these complaints. I would like to have that clarified.
Another area in which I would like to have some reaction from the minister is the situation in Kilbride. I wrote him only two or three days ago and he may not be in a position yet to indicate what he can do; but I would like some indication as to his frame of mind on that problem because the date is drawing quite close. I think this is March 9, or maybe it is March 10.


Bob Rae: Don't look at me.


John Carnell Crosbie: The NDP never know. It is no good looking at the NDP for an answer; they have no answers.


An hon. Member:: It is March 9.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is March 9.


Bob Rae: It is 3.30 on Friday, March 9.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a half hour later in Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is an hour and a half later in Newfoundland. The first payment is called for on April 1. I would like the minister to give me some response to that problem of municipal taxes.
Another area, the NIP program, has been most valuable and well used in the area of St. John's East and St. John's West. It is to be replaced by the Community Services Grant Program. I would like the minister to say when he expects to enter into a
Housing
program with the province of Newfoundland on the community services contribution program or whatever it is now called, CSGP, and what the funding is likely to be for that program during the present year. Is the funding at least as great as it was last year under the NIP program?
Another area is the CHIP program which my friend from Alberta mentioned. Let me tell the minister that two of the reasons that this program is not being used are that the grants are too small and that it is a discriminatory program. When the minister brought in that program he discriminated against householders in eight of the ten provinces in Canada. As he knows, if you live in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island you get a grant of $500 from the government to insulate your home and it is non-taxable, it is not added to your taxable income. There are other advantages.
I am not against Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island householders getting that, it is grand, but all householders across Canada, no matter where they live should get the same assistance, at least the $500 grant non-taxable, and not the $350 grant that is taxable which is now being offered. The householders in Quebec, Newfoundland, Alberta and New Brunswick have been discriminated against by that CHIP program. The minister says that he is carrying on discussions on that program and that they are considering the dates. In other words, they may bring the date up. You do not have to go back beyond 1921. There may be a house that was built before 1941 or 1950 and they are going to do something with the dates. That is all well and good, but just changing the dates will not matter if people are n applying because the program is not generous enough or because they are disgruntled because the grant is taxable in their province and not taxable in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.
I would like the minister to indicate to the House how many of these grants have been made in Newfoundland, for example, as compared to Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, and what are the per capita results? I do not have the figures here now, but I am sure that the program has been much more used per household or per capita in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island than in any of the other provinces. In other words, the program could be called somewhat successful in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, while it has been a flop in the rest of Canada, and proportionately they are receiving very much more.
If the minister does not have the figures this afternoon, could he provide them, as to what has been spent in each province under that program, the number of grants, and how Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island compare with the rest? If they compare more favourably, then obviously the thing to do to improve the use of that program is to extend the program to the other provinces in Canada as it is now in effect in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. If the minister could address himself for a few minutes to those points, I am quite willing to go on clause by clause, but I would like to get some answers there.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, in replying to the hon. member I would like to indicate that the proposition which I have

March 9, 1979
Housing
submitted, and which has been accepted by the member for St. John's East, is in relation to the people of Virginia Park. Indeed, the program in that area could serve as an experimental project or as a pilot project, and the experience gained therefrom could probably serve in other projects of a similar nature in the future. I hope that the hon. member will appreciate the fact that I would prefer that we restrict the program to one project at this time.
In relation to the Kilbride situation, I notice that the hon. member raised his concern in his speech of March 6. I have asked my officials to report to me. The hon. member just mentioned that he wrote to me about this question. I can give him the assurance that I will come back to him next week with the full details of his question that we will try to help these people if, indeed, what he is conveying to me today, that no taxes have been paid for three years and now they are asked for a very substantial sum of money and that these people are really in no position to absorb these extra costs, is what is happening. We will look into the matter and try to find a more appropriate solution to their financial difficulties.
Thirdly, the hon. member raised the community services program and the agreement in relation to this program with Newfoundland. There has been an exchange of correspondence with the government of Newfoundland, and I can tell the hon. member that I am expecting a response to my last letter from the government of Newfoundland. I told them in a telex some of the answers to their queries, and I am awaiting a response from them. They have indicated to me that they will not sign the agreement until this legislation which we are studying here, Bill C-29, is passed. That is the position of the government of Newfoundland.
When this bill is passed and when the government of Newfoundland has signed this agreement, they will benefit in 1979 by receiving $4.2 million, and in 1980 by receiving $7 million for community services programs. Indeed, there will be consultation between the provincial authorities and municipalities to decide how this money will be spent with regard to neighbourhood improvements, municipal infrastructures, or any other municipal priority.
Finally, in relation to CHIP I will just repeat what I said in response to a previous intervention made by a colleague of the hon. member, that we have received a number of recommendations to improve the tenure of the CHIP program. I will add the recommendations of the hon. member to these. I can see from his intervention that he would like to see the CHIP program be of similar nature as the Home Improvement Program which exists in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. We are looking at this, and I will undertake to give to the hon. member next week the details of the program, how it would affect the people in Newfoundland and the people in Nova Scotia, as he has requested.


Mrs. Appolloni:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the minister, and it is similar to the one asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. It is with regard to the community services part of this particular bill. The minister's department and my office have exchanged considerable corre-

spondence about the need for more flexibility especially as regards infrastructures, and particularly the older sewer systems in small municipalities. I am referring particularly to the municipality of York in Toronto.
Would the minister tell me when it would be possible for the municipality of York to take advantage of this community services program, particularly as regards infrastructure?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member I can assure her that the list of eligible community services that could be used by the provincial government and by the municipalities in order to take advantage of the program will include planning and installation of sewage treatment trunk lines and plant, in new and existing areas, in order to be sure that we will not make this money available only for new areas but also to help in the repair and reconstruction of existing areas.
It will be up to the municipality concerned to raise this matter with the provincial authorities and make sure that when the allocation is done in the province of Ontario that the government of Ontario accepts such a program being done by the municipalities. I think that the program as it exists is wide enough to allow this to take place.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mrs. Pigott) agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
On clause 2-


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this clause. I think the Chair has already the amendment in its possession as have hon. members of the opposition. I move:
That clause 2 of Bill C-29 be repealed by striking out lines 14 to 26 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"2(1) All that portion of paragraph 5(6)(6) of the said Act preceding
subparagraph (i) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) in respect of a loan made to assist in the construction or purchase of a rental housing project or in the alteration of an existing residential structure to add one or more family housing units thereto,"
(2) Subsection 5(6) of the said Act is further amended by adding the word
"and" at the end of subparagraph (6)(ii) thereof and by adding thereto the
following paragraph:
"(c) in respect of a loan made to assist in the repair, rehabilitation, conversion or improvement of a rental housing project or in the conversion of an existing non-residential building into a housing project, a fee of seven-eighths of one percent of the amount of the loan." "


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I also have an amendment to clause 2. We have passed copies of this to the minister and to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. The subject matter deals with the question of the rights of public
March 9, 1979

housing agencies to be allowed not to pay the insurance fees charged by CMHC. It provides substantial benefit not only to provinces but also to many municipal housing agencies which would otherwise have to pay substantial fees. I therefore move:
That clause 2 of Bill C-29 be further amended by adding thereto, immediately after subclause (2), the following subclause:
"(3) Section 5 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto,
immediately after subsection (6) thereof, the following subsection:
"(6.1) In the case of an approved loan
(a)	made to or guaranteed by the government of a province,
(i) made to a public housing agency, or
(c)	guaranteed by the government of Canada pursuant to any other Act, no insurance fee shall be charged, collected or remitted." "


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Rae) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-1973-74, c. 18 s. 2(1).


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subclause 3(1) of Bill C-29. The amendment you have before you had the words "repair, rehabilitation, conversion or improvement of an existing" home. The reason for the amendment is to make sure that a loan could be insured by CMHC not only for the purchase of a home but also for the repair, rehabilitation, and conversion of a home. I think it is an important step in having the private sector finance the repair and rehabilitation of existing homes. I, therefore, move:
That subclause 3(1) of Bill C-29 be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out line 8 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"purchase, repair, rehabilitation, conversion or improvement of an existing";
(b)	by striking out line 15 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"loan secured by a mortgage on a house, rental housing project"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 17 to 24 on page 2 and substituting the following: "dominium unit, or
(v) for the purpose of assisting in the"


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, because of the previous amendment I made I should like to draw to the attention of the House that there are now certain subclauses in Bill C-29 that are no longer necessary. I should therefore like to move:
That subclause 3(2) of Bill C-29 at lines 32 to 41 on page 2 be deleted.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.
Housing


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move:
That subclause 3(4) of Bill C-29 at lines 1 to 12 on page 3 be deleted.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause 3(5) of Bill C-29 be amended by striking out line 23 on page 3, and substituting therefor the following:
"writing;"
(5.1) Subsection 6(1) of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (i), the following paragraph:
"(i.l) in the case of a loan made to a builder for the purpose of assisting in the construction of a house, the builder provided the purchaser with a warranty under a warranty program approved by the Corporation;"


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mrs. Pigott) agreed to.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause 3(6) of Bill C-29 be amended by striking out line 29 on page 3 and substituting therefor the following:
'(a) to a municipality, a public housing agency or a non-profit corporation for the'


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Whiteway) agreed to.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subclause 3(6) of Bill C-29 be further amended by striking out line 10 on page 4 and substituting therefore the following:
"regulations.
(5)	An approved lender may, subject to and in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council made under the authority of this subsection, make a loan to a province, municipality or public housing agency for the purpose of assisting that provinces, municipality or agency to acquire and service land for housing purposes or for any purpose incidental thereto, and such a loan is insurable in the manner provided by such regulations.
(6)	Where an approved lender makes a loan to a province, a municipality or a public housing agency, the approved lender may take debentures as security for the loan in lieu of the security mentioned in paragraph (l)(d)."
Mr. Chairman, I know we are rushed but I should like to explain the purpose of this amendment. It represents a substantial change, in our view, to the bill, and also to the direction of government policy to which this party has taken a great deal of exception.
Section 42(1) of the National Housing Act reads as follows:
The Corporation may make a loan to a province, municipality or public housing agency for the purpose of assisting that province, municipality or agency to acquire and service land for housing purposes or for any purpose incidental thereto.
Pursuant to the Greenspan report released in the fall of 1978 it was the government's wisdom that land assembly would no longer become a priority in its housing policy.

March 9, 1979
Housing
This party takes the position that there is increasing evidence that the cost of land is one of the primary elements in housing inflation and has been one of the primary elements in the extraordinary housing inflation in Canada since the mid-1960s. We also take the view that land assembly should remain one of the critical features of the policy of any government that is determined to do something about profiteering in land speculation and the increasing conditions of monopoly in the assembly of land that we see in Canada today.
We are political realists, if nothing else, and we accept the fact that the government has rejected this view and has taken a view that the return to the so-called free market in the assembly of land will provide the best protection for the Canadian public. I think that view is completely misplaced, but it seems to be the view of the government.
One of the things that we have developed in this country in the last few years is that the municipalities are doing something in their own jurisdictions, if they can, to keep the price of land down and to assemble land for their own projects. That is the reason why, since my election last fall, I have asked the minister several questions in the House and in committee concerning land assembly projects in urban areas. I have asked him to change his mind about his policy and to continue to use the powers granted to him in section 42 of the act. I am pleased to see that the minister has agreed, as a compromise, to accept a proposal from this party which would allow municipalities to borrow 100 per cent of the moneys that would be required for the assembly of land within their jurisdiction from private institutions, particularly when dealing with problems of the inner city, and that the government would insure those loans at 100 per cent as it does for many of the other loans that are going to be taken out under the act. But it is not the whole loaf, Mr. Chairman.
If I may say so, the entire approach of the government that the private sector will take up the slack left by the government is a point of view which we do not share. We think there is a continued need for active participation by CMHC and by the government, both as a lender and as a grantor of moneys, not only to municipalities but also to co-operative groups and municipal housing corporations. This view has been rejected by the government. They are falling over themselves to become better new conservatives than the Conservatives themselves. Be that as it may, the amendment we have put forward is an important one. It is an improvement on the bill. It is something which has been asked for by many municipalities. I know it is of concern to the housing corporation of the city of Toronto. It will allow that city and that corporation to continue to become actively engaged in the provision of housing for people, and I think it represents an important advance on the bill itself.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the same point and relating the point raised by the previous member to the question which I raised during my speech on second reading. I mentioned the very serious case that is occurring on the Caughnawaga Reserve and on a number of other Indian

reserves located close to cities. There are situations where executors of estates and individuals are forced to sell land holdings, in effect, at fire sale prices.
Indians can sell only to other Indians. This ends up in a situation where few people on a number of Indian reserves are collecting huge parcels of land. It is creating an unhealthy imbalance. My question is this: if the amendment as proposed by the NDP is accepted, whereby private moneys would be insurable for purposes of land assembly by municipalities, would this require any further amendment to have this provision extended to Indian reserves?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, in the bill there is a special clause which deals with the financing of housing on reserves. We have improved the bill. You will find this clause at the bottom of page 3 where loans to Indians will be allowed.
[ Translation]
With this bill, we will now be able to provide loans to Indians living on reserves.


Ian Watson: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that. The point is the land assembly provisions, which the hon. member who preceded me made reference to, and whose proposed amendment, I understand, is acceptable. Will they require further amendment to the act to render Indian reserves eligible for what has been proposed in the previous member's amendment?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, subject to correction, I believe the land on reserves belongs exclusively to the government or to Indians on reserves. It cannot belong to anyone else. Therefore via the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development there could be some specific projects undertaken by the department in relation to this land, but 1 believe that in reference to specific projects Indians on reserves will now be eligible for loans for projects insured by CMHC. As far as ownership is concerned, that is a much more difficult aspect which has to be dealt with not by my department but by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Ian Watson: Mr. Chairman, I realize the minister is being sympathetic, but I just want an assurance that we can assemble land on Indian reserves in the same way that it is proposed for municipalities. The land assembly will be done by the band council on behalf of the people of the reserves. Perhaps there could be some consultation with the minister's officials, but all it requires is simply to make sure that in what we are doing today we give band councils exactly the same power as we are proposing to give municipalities, that is, to assemble land with a loan from private industry guaranteed by ourselves.


André Ouellet: This bill gives this authority to public housing agencies, being agencies of the federal, provincial or municipal governments. It does not specifically address the question of bands because that question is not within my jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I regret therefore I cannot give these
March 9, 1979

assurances to the hon. member. To do so I will have to consult first with my colleague, the minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Chairman, one of the changes proposed which I find rather interesting concerns subclause 6 which states that the approved lender making a loan to a province, a municipality or a public housing agency may take debentures as security for the loan in lieu of the security mentioned in paragraph (1) (d), which states:
(d)	it is secured by a first mortgage-
Does this mean, Mr. Chairman, that from now on a municipality can provide debentures as security for the projects or the works it undertakes?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this will indeed give more financing flexibility to the municipalities, and in many cases, they can obtain financing only through debentures.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-
Dean Waldon Whiteway: That clause 5 of Bill C-29 be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 4 and substituting therefor the
following:
"insured loan described in subsection 6(4) of (6) or made under a graduated"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 5 and substituting therefor the
following:
"the Corporation, according to a formula incorporated in the mortgage"
He said: I should explain that my amendments deal only with very small sections of the bill. What are more operative are the regulations that will accompany this legislation. I would like an understanding from the minister as to what the regulations will say.
This clause on deals with the graduated payment mortgages which replace AHOP. As we know, AHOP was based on two principles, one of inflation, that is, that the value of the house would go up; second, that the income of AHOP families would increase substantially and they would be in a position to pay back the subsidy at the end of the first five-year term when they went on to the regular mortgage. We say that it did not take place and so we saw the massive defaults and walk-aways. To make sure we do not have a repeat performance on GPMs, 1 would like an assurance from the minister.
The formula outlined by regulation, that is, the existing formula, would be 5 per cent down and the initial payments would be 75 per cent of the normal level of payment. The
Housing
compromise, which is the formula that 1 am talking about and on which I would like to get agreement with the minister, would be as follows: 10 per cent down. Half of that 10 per cent, 5 per cent of the down payment, would be in cash. The other 5 per cent would be put in an interest bearing savings account which would accumulate over the first five years, and the purchaser would have a cash equity in his home.
In the case where it is co-operative housing, where there is sweat equity as opposed to cash equity, the 10 per cent in terms of the 5 and 5 would be determined by the approved lender. Co-operative housing, rather than have any cash down or the 10 per cent, would be equity vis-a-vis the sweat equity. Otherwise, without these changes the GPM would be morally indefensible in terms of financing.
Although the minister could not put this in regulation, I hope that the GPM would be applied to those Canadians who would be in the higher income mobility group. To base a GPM on anything else, simply to say that inflation would increase a person's income, is to count on inflation in order that a person will be able to pay for his home. When we form the government there will be deflation. They will not be able to count on inflation. GPMs can only work if real disposable income increases.
We are talking about applying the GPM only to families which have an obvious high income mobility so that the real disposable income five years from now would be substantively and substantially more than it is outside the GPM.
I conclude with those remarks, and with the assurance of the minister that the regulations as I have outlined will be changed to the 80-10 formula, and half in the case of cash, other than the co-ops, that 5 per cent would be in an interest bearing savings account to ensure at all times a cash saving and that the mortgage would never be in a net debt equity position.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see this amendment moved by the hon. member. I support him in his amendment. I want to thank him for making constructive suggestions to this clause of the bill. I agree with him that the graduated payment mortgage should present some advantage and might represent some disadvantage. His amendment will indeed be a sort of safeguard to alleviate any difficulty down the line.
I want to assure the hon. member that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have the appropriate regulation to ensure that in relation to these insured loans there will be a 10 per cent down payment. That will be put specifically in the regulation. In relation to the initial payment, we will ensure through the regulations that initial payments are never less than 75 per cent of what the level of payment mortgage would normally have produced.
In relation to the other aspect that the hon. member has raised, whether it should be 5 per cent cash down and 5 per cent, I think that aspect should be left entirely to the lending institutions. I agree that it could be a feature and we have no

March 9, 1979
Housing
objection to it. However, I would prefer that it be left to the financial institutions to decide.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I believe it is unanimously agreed that you not see the clock for the next 25 minutes or so in order that we complete this stage of the bill. I think there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I want to make quite clear our position on the graduated payment mortgage scheme. The position that our party has taken consistently has been that there is a need for a home ownership assistance program, but that this is a phony solution to a very serious problem.
The graduated payment mortgage scheme in fact creates a higher level of debt for the individual and his family than would otherwise be the case in taking out an equal payment mortgage, the kind of mortgage most people have. It is an attempt to sugar the very unpleasant pill of inflated mortgage payments and inflated interest rate payments. It is not a solution to that problem.
The position of this party has been that rather than allow the banks to pick up profits at the expense of people on the basis of a government policy of having a high interest rate, and their profits are nearly $ 1 billion, we should be instructing the lending institutions to begin providing lower mortgage rates for families below a certain level of income. That deals with the problem of interest rates directly, not indirectly as this does. It does not saddle people with a higher level of debt than they can afford.
The premise upon which the whole concept of graduated payment mortgages is based is twofold. The first premise is that inflation will increase the value of the house automatically. The second premise is that incomes will continue to increase and the level of income of a family will be constant and will increase over time.
Both those assumptions are false and very dangerous. There is no telling what inflation will do to the value of a house or what it will do to the value of a house relative to the cost of living. The fact is that in the past two years the rate of inflation has surpassed the increase in the value of existing housing stock.
The second premise on which it is based is equally false. It is that we are going to have guaranteed employment for both wage earners in the family and that those people will be working at a higher level of income five years from now. That is a false premise. With the nature of the economy which has been created and encouraged by this government, we know that there is an increasing prospect of unemployment amongst men and women, that families can no longer rely on two salaries in order to pay the GPM, and that people will not necessarily be able to afford the kinds of payments required by the GPM scheme.
I know that the headlines say this is a home ownership program designed to help young families purchase homes. The

minister's public relations are very good. I congratulate him on them. However, the press should look very carefully at the hard facts as to exactly what this kind of scheme will cost individuals as compared to existing schemes. Compare what it would cost an individual if we had the courage in this country to take on the lending institutions and told them to lower their interest rates. There is no comparison.
Instead of going around the circle of the problem and attempting to make high interest rates more palatable to people, the government should be determined to hold down interest rates and, in fact, lower the rate of interest. In our view that is the best, most effective, and most honest way to get hold of the problem of mortgage payments for young people.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Chairman, I want to underscore what has been said by my new friend from Broadview-


An hon. Member:: Socialist!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: His comments are well taken. I do not necessarily agree with the solutions he offers but he was certainly able to identify with the problem. I want to underscore that GPMs can work only if they are applied to families with high income mobility. This is where they have been successful. They are not a financing instrument to be used for low income Canadians. Let it be clearly known that we in the Progressive Conservative party do not endorse the scheme in such circumstances though we recognize it as being a useful tool in the case of families with high income mobility. Amendment (Mr. Whiteway) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 6-1974-75-76, c. 38, s. 4.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move:
That Bill C-29 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 18 on page 5, the following clauses:
"6.1(1) Paragraph 28( 1 )(</) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(</) the principal amount of the loan did not at the time of the making of the loan, together with the amount owing in respect of other guaranteed home improvement loans previously made to the borrower in respect of the home on which the loan was to be expended and disclosed in his application or of which the bank or approved instalment credit agency had knowledge, exceed ten thousand dollars in respect of each family housing unit;"
(2) Paragraphs 28(1)(/) and (g) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(/) the loan was repayable by the terms thereof in monthly instalments and in full in not more than twenty-five years;"
6.2 Section 30 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"30. The Corporation is not liable under this Part to make any payment to a bank or an approved instalment credit agency in respect of any loss sustained by it as a result of a home improvement loan or a home extension loan made after the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed home improvement loans and guaranteed home extension loans equals nine hundred million dollars."
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?
March 9, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
On clause 1-1973-74, c. 18, s. 12; 1974-75-76, c. 38, s. 11. Mr. Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 7 of Bill C-29 be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out lines 21 and 22 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"34.1(1) The Corporation may, in such circum-";
(b)	by striking out line 13 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following: "(a) bear";
(c)	by striking out lines 28 and 29 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"(6) not exceed such";
(d)	by striking out lines 32 and 33 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"(c) be for a term not"; and
(e)	by striking out lines 44 to 49 on page 6 and substituting therefor the following:
"building in favour of the Corporation or by such other security as the Corporation deems adequate to safeguard its interests; and
(e)	subject"
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet), agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clauses 10, 11 and 12 at lines 1 to 48 on page 8 and at lines 1 and 2 on page nine be deleted.


Charles Robert Turner: The Chair would suggest that the motions be put separately. If members wish the clauses deleted they will vote against them. Shall clause 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 11 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 12 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Resign!
Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive negatived.
On clause 13-


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 13 of Bill C-29 be amended by striking out line 16 on page 9 and substituting therefor the following:
"incurred, or paying for the results obtained, in the provision, development," Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 13, as amended, carry?


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, we have recommended an amendment as follows, and which I move:
That clause 13 be amended by striking out lines 30 to 38 and
Housing
What I would like to do is simply explain what the purpose of this amendment is with respect to the community service grants program. The community service grants program proposed by the government is part of its effort to appease the provinces and cut off its direct relationship with the municipalities. The community service grants program is not only intended to replace the neighbourhood improvement program as has been suggested by some people, it is intended to replace this program together with a vast number of other programs which I would like to list, including sewage treatment, trunk lines and plants, community water supply facilities, trunk storm sewer systems, sewer and water site services, social and cultural facilities, community recreational facilities, non-profit housing in municipal equity, upgrading and insulation of municipal buildings and community facilities, facilities which convert municipal waste to energy production and any municipal capital works specified in the federal-provincial operating agreement.
The complaint we have about this entire concept, is that the government, in getting out of this area and limiting its activities to giving a bloc fund to the provinces, will have the effect of cutting out the neighbourhood improvement programs. This is because the amount of money allocated by the federal government to the provinces will so quickly be absorbed by basic infrastructure expenditures. In other words, the money being spent on sewer systems and so on-the very important work of neighbourhood improvement which goes on in many of our urban centres-will simply go by the board and be taken over by the building of basic infrastructure. This is why we have opposed the entire concept of a community service grants program which, we say, will do nothing but bring to an end those neighbourhood improvement projects and those cultural and community recreational facilities which are so important to people living in our urban areas.
In our view it also represents a dangerous tendency on the part of the government to abandon important areas of jurisdiction-and I think they can be argued as being under federal jurisdiction-at a time when cities and communities are starved for funds and continue to look to the federal government for leadership and for assistance. The federal government is cutting those groups off and saying, "Nothing doing, boys, you can go back to the provinces." I think this is not only politically a very big mistake in that it means that people will no longer look to the federal government for leadership at a time when they should be able to do so, but philosophically, and at a social level, it represents an abandonment by the government of people living in our urban areas. I think it is a major mistake.
We have therefore suggested two proposals which the government has accepted. The first is that rather than impose a statutory limit of $250 million on the community service grants program, there should be no statutory limit to the money spent. The second proposal is that the bill shall last for two years. One of the things mentioned by my colleague and occasional travelling companion from Ottawa-Carleton was-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 9, 1979
Housing


Bob Rae: We went to Washington together, that's what I was referring to. The delays in the implementation of this program and the fact we had to wait for over a year before the government could make up its mind as to what it wanted to do, have meant that many municipalities have been without funding, without projects, without guidance-and the hon. member for Algoma knows precisely what I am talking about-for an exceptional period of time. Municipalities have been waiting for an assured level of funding so that they could put forward their projects, get facilities built, instal their sewage lines and soon. These needs have not been met because of the federal government's indecision and its inability to come to agreement with the provinces.
We have therefore proposed that we have a guaranteed two-year limit to this funding. Let us have the program clear and have it last a specific length of time so that people will know to which agency they are supposed to apply to get funding. They are tired of that old shell game, which 1 am sorry to say has only been encouraged by the minister, of one level of government saying to another. "Go to the other level." It is time that shell game was brought to an end. In order to do that, the period during which his measure will take effect should be clearly stated ir the bill itself. That is why we have extended it to cover the period we have suggested.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Rae) agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended agreed to.
Clause 14 and 15 agreed to.
On Clause 16-Rights Saved.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 16 of Bill C-29 be amended by redesignating that clause as subclause 16(1) and by adding, immediately after line 30 on page 11, the following subclause:
"(2) The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is authorized, after section 15 of this section come into force, to use any document or means of identification then existing in the name of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, until it is able to obtain equivalent documents or means of identification in the name of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation."


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful afternoon, and there has been much unanimity, but if we do agree to change this name I wonder if we might make an announcement to the effect that this corporation will be under new management.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. lady-


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I'm coming.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we have had very positive discussions yesterday and today with opposition spokesmen to allow us to move certain amendments to this bill and make this legislation quite acceptable to the four parties represented in this House, I wonder if it would be possible to ask the unanimous consent of the House to have third reading of this bill immediately without debate in view of the spirit of co-operation which has been shown to improve this bill.
[ English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I know we have had a very good afternoon, but I do not think we are in a position to proceed to third reading at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill should be reprinted anyway.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if I could-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that third reading of Bill C-29 will take place at the next sitting of the House, but I am rising with regard to another bill. Would Your Honour be kind enough to call Bill S-6? After consultation there is agreement that Bill S-6 be read the third time today without debate.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cordiality we have had this afternoon we are quite prepared to let Bill S-6 go through. Unfortunately, some members of my party wish to speak briefly at the third reading stage of the housing bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question regarding Bill S-6, we are prepared to agree. We hope that these agreements on our part will be reciprocated one of these days.
March 9, 1979


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I note the proposition or the suggestion just made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council about Bill S-6. I would have liked very much to participate in the debate yesterday because it is a very important bill.
On the other hand, I always take into consideration the wisdom of my colleagues and as this bill came to the attention of the House and everything was done to give it careful consideration, so as not to delay it I am prepared to agree to the third reading of this bill, as proposed, provided I keep the possibility at a later date to ask for a revision, if necessary, because it is a very important bill and one on which we will necessarily have to come back to sooner or later. I agree for the time being.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SHIPPING CONFERENCES EXEMPTION ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PRACTICES FROM PROVISIONS OF COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
André Ouellet: that Bill S-6, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous agreement that we should proceed with the motion in the name of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), and I wish to thank him for his co-operation in letting us proceed with Bill C-29.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motions Nos. 7, 9, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Maritime Transportation TRANSPORTATION


SUGGESTED STUDY OF NEEDS IN MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be empowered to study the concept of using transportation as a development tool by putting in place a modern transportation network in the Maritime provinces, incorporating bus, train, highway and air services, and report back to the House its Findings on the desirability and the best ways and means of achieving such a concept.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we must focus the attention of ail departments of government on the issue of regional development if we are to succeed in helping Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces to help themselves. Transportation is of paramount importance to the region, and since it is related directly to the whole question of regional economic expansion I want it placed before the appropriate committee of this House to be considered and dealt with, within the total context of that committee's mandate.
Before I suggest that air transportation ban be improved in the maritime provinces, I have to tell the House that it is our best mode of transportation available at this point in time. The problem is that we do not have enough direct flights within the maritimes and between points in the maritimes and points in central Canada and northern parts of the United States. We do not have these flights because we do not have enough volume of trade to make them pay. Even with the large subsidies which are paid to air carriers, we still have difficulty in providing the numbers that are needed to make it a good, efficient operation.
The sad fact is that we are never going to have the numbers or the trade unless we first have the service, and therein lies the key to our basic problem in transportation in the Atlantic provinces. A high quality of air cargo service is absolutely essential if Atlantic Canada is to develop a good industrial and commercial base. In this regard some of the larger firms in the Atlantic provinces have purchased their own planes.
Rail passenger service and, to a degree, rail freight have not really been given a good chance in the Atlantic provinces because the railways have allowed their rail beds to deteriorate to the point where trains move very slowly, and the equipment they use, particularly with respect to passenger service, is generally 25 years of age or older. Depending heavily on the United States for reefer cars which the railways rent or buy, our potato industry has been affected detrimentally by the shortage of equipment.
The gateway to commerce in the maritimes is the deep water ports of Halifax and Saint John which, because of their advantageous geographic position, can become arteries of commerce in an expanding trade environment if the ports are properly equipped with modern facilities. Improved terminal storage and handling facilities are badly needed in the Atlantic provinces.
Highways in the Atlantic provinces are the principal arteries of commerce and they are carefully preserved by our highway

March 9, 1979
Maritime Transportation
departments. Highway weight restrictions are essential in the spring to preserve the roads for use during the balance of the year. This means, of course, that truckers have to operate with limited loads and therefore make more runs to achieve the same volume of traffic, which adds considerably to the cost of transporting goods.
The economy can be stimulated by an improved highway network. Four lane highways can be built in many instances on existing rights of way, and with two lanes going in each direction, turn and elevation gradients require less expense to permit safe passage than is the case with single lane roads. This significant saving would go a long way toward paying for the additional pavement.
These more modern highways are not as much in evidence in the maritimes as they should be because, without federal aid, our provincial governments have not the funds to build them. In New Brunswick, for example, I feel the federal government should participate financially in a ring road around Fredericton, the new highway bridge across the river at Fredericton, and a four lane highway connecting Fredericton, the capital city, with the port of Saint John.
When approached with such concepts, the federal government is only too quick to suggest that current traffic needs do not warrant such expenditures. New Brunswick's five-year highway and bridge program which contained such a concept was discouraged by this government only two years ago. The point I am making is that the traffic will never warrant such highways unless the highways are built to stimulate development and thus develop the population that would warrant the highways.
Despite all the subsidies, freight rates remain too high because they are too high to begin with. We had a good example of this before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 31, 1977, in reference to our very important New Brunswick forest products. A comparison was made between the rates in New Brunswick and in British Columbia, and on raw wood products we found that rates in New Brunswick were 60 per cent higher.
Instead of paying increasing freight rates to ship our farm produce to distant markets and buying back cooked meats, bottled jams and canned vegetables, we urgently need a fun-damenal change in our transportation and DREE policies to enable us to develop plants to purchase and process local products in New Brunswick for sale in New Brunswick and across Canada, and, through tariff changes, to our natural trading partners along the Atlantic seaboarb. We have the resource potential to supply and operate plants to process cheese, meats, fruits and vegetables, to name only a few. I urge the government to invest in the future of New Brunswick and to take this giant step in creating good jobs and markets for our farming community. My remarks apply equally to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The simple concept that we must ask ourselves in terms of transportation cost is, "How much does it cost to get a product to market economically? How much does it cost to get it there now?" Any difference in cost must demand a subsidy, or a roll

back in freight rates. A user-pay concept cannot achieve this purpose.
The railways should be required to retain, modernize and upgrade the service they presently give to the total area of the maritimes. Better rail freight cars are absolutely essential for shippers, particularly for agricultural products, and the integration of rail freight and passenger service with other forms of transportation is an important step in developing an efficient transportation system.
The federal government should not simply content itself with giving a department such as DREE a limited degree of authority. It should establish machinery which would produce co-ordinated results and which would, in terms of regional economic development, co-ordinate the policies of all departments, particularly, transport and finance, with the policies being followed by DREE.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of coordinating efforts within departments of the federal government. It is also necessary to co-ordinate the efforts of the federal and provincial governments, especially in the Atlantic region. The three maritime provinces have improved their machinery for interprovincial co-operation, but we are still a long way from a plan of development for the region in which each provincial government and the federal would play a co-ordinating role.
DREE should get away from the idea that its main responsibility is to provide industrial incentives to entrepreneurs who wish to move into the Atlantic area, or to local businessmen who want to expand their present operations, or a series of ad hoc programs providing valuable services but on a small piecemeal scale. DREE should be doing far more than that. It should be looking hard at the big jobs crying to be tackled. For example, what has DREE done about the Fundy tidal power project? Nothing. It is very convenient for the government, whenever Fundy is seriously mentioned, to be able to pass it off to a study, or a commission, or a committee, which it knows full well can stall the project another year or another decade. Why is DREE not brought into these discussions? Why is not DREE handed the responsibility of correlating these studies? Why is not DREE given the job to do?
DREE was created to lead the attack on regional disparity. Like Uriah the Hittite, it was to be thrust into the forefront of battle, there to do or die. But DREE stayed in the background when the big conflicts raged. It handed out its grants and loans to justify its existence and failed miserably to take hold of the big projects which the Atlantic provinces have needed for generations. In short, it avoided the massive development undertakings without which the Atlantic provinces will always remain what they are today-the most neglected part of Canada.
I am an infrastructure man. I will always be an infrastructure man, for infrastructures are the only hope of getting Atlantic Canada into a position of parity with the rest of the country, a position from which it can stay caught up. Millions of dollars in piecemeal grants over the years have done nothing
March 9, 1979

but keep us from sliding farther behind, and that itself is an achievement. The dole has failed.
Now it is time to develop a bold and imaginative policy of regionalism, the principle of special aid to the Atlantic provinces on a massive scale-where mere millions have been parceled out to keep the wolf from the door, billions are needed; billions not in spending but in investment-investment in permanent and lasting projects which will bring the Atlantic provinces to equal-partner status with the other six, and which will dispose of the need, once and for all, of the subsidies and handouts which have always been associated with us as a backward area.
I believe that the infrastructures necessary for economic growth involve water, power, roads, railways, port facilities, sewers, schools, universities and research establishments, among others.
The provision of infrastructure should be an important part of the operations of DREE, which must launch a mighty drive to get the job done. DREE must have the powers to provide assistance by direct action, and by action through the provincial governments to create the necessary infrastructures.
DREE was launched with great fanfare as the answer to all of our economic problems. It did not take very long, however, for the Atlantic provinces to realize what DREE was-just another federal agency handing out grants and loans and doles and shirking the responsibility of getting to the fundamental problems of the area, of spearheading the mighty projects which common sense tells us must be the cornerstones of Atlantic prosperity-the Fundy tidal power project, the development of the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and an Atlantic transportation policy which would provide modern high speed highways to transport agricultural and forest products, parts for manufacturing industries, and other goods to world markets via the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and by land, air and rail to Canadian markets.
Development of the ports of Saint John and Halifax as major growth centres connected to all parts of the maritimes by modern transportation systems is basic to the development of our region. These two ports jut far out into the Atlantic and can receive the largest tankers in the world and offer a transportation facility to the whole Atlantic seaboard which is not blessed with such a natural advantage.
Not one of these projects came under the aegis of DREE. After nine years of DREE, the positions of each of these projects are exactly as they were when DREE was created-in limbo.
I believe that new policies should show a willingness to get to the basics of the Atlantic economics and to put first things first. There has to be a new set of priorities, and the projects I have mentioned have to be in the top echelons of those priorities.
On a New Brunswick note, I want DREE and New Brunswick to work out a five-year plan of highway development that will put in place a modern and efficient network and, among other things, study the concept of a north-south highway
Maritime Transportation
running from St. Andrews through Fredericton to Campbell-ton, connecting to other major arterial highways which lead to other New Brunswick centres. The study should consider not only the important transportation function but the potential of the highway in developing resources, recreation and tourism in the interior of the province.
I am receiving more and more support in my campaign for Atlantic infrastructures. Some of my colleagues have joined me. I would hope for the support of more of them; the support of all Atlantic members as well as that of the minister responsible for DREE. I am not asking for the moon. I am asking for fair treatment in an area with problems no amount of subsidies and grants can solve if a solid base is not laid down.
Give us the Fundy tidal project and the maritimes will become the powerhouse of the continent, with Canadian, American, British, French and Japanese interests clamouring to invest. Give us the modern highways, rail lines, bus and air systems, and the shippers, travellers and tourists will come to our area as we come in time closer to the markets and attractions of central Canada, and vice-versa. Give us the port developments, and the great tankers and container ships of the world will come to us in armadas of profit. In short, give us the infrastructures and let them form the foundation. Then the rest of Canada can forget the subsidies, grants and handouts which they have been forced to provide us, often against their will, for the simple reason no one has ever had the common sense, foresight and resolution to face facts squarely and give us the tools with which we can put our own house in order.
I want the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) to convene a meeting of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) with the premiers of all Atlantic provinces to devise a regional development strategy, to build modern infrastructure and identify areas of comparable natural advantage, committing the resources of our nation to develop them. Once we have a modern infrastructure in place and have identified the areas for regional development which should fit into a national industrial strategy, then we require the personal attention of the Prime Minister to focus the resources of our nation in a determined effort to develop the Atlantic provinces.
I thank the House for providing me with this opportunity by allowing private members' business to go forward this afternoon.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon as it provides me with an opportunity to set the facts straight. I just listened to the hon. member who spoke before me and who is a colleague from New Brunswick and in a certain way I think I am happy to be sitting on this side of the House rather than the other side, because he just gave us an absolutely exaggerated picture, a most gloomy picture not to say that he just put a host of half-truths on the record. So I

March 9, 1979
Maritime Transportation
would like to use the few minutes I have to set the record straight.

In participating in this debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), let me first emphasize that DREE is very pleased to be able to discuss its role in the transportation sector of the maritime region. My government and I share the view that transportation is most important to the development of the maritime region, and that indeed the government, DREE in particular, has been and should continue to be very much involved in the important sector of transportation.
I should like to take the opportunity to quote some figures which speak for themselves. DREE has been in existence from 1969. The combined provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, under programs which have since concluded or under ongoing ones, have received in the field of transportation from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion a sum total of $353.5 million. DREE funds apply to the important infrastructure of transportation in the Atlantic area. My own province of New Brunswick has received its fair share under this program, the sum total of $118 million so far.
All hon. members now know that more programs are being negotiated and discussed. This is quite a record, and I am sorry the hon. member who has just sat down did not refer to DREE's involvement in the effort to improve the entire transportation structure in the Atlantic area.
I am not only referring to roads, paving, or roads to resources, but DREE has been involved in marine transportation. For example, it was involved in the Miramichi channel dredging study. It has been involved in port improvement facilities in Saint John. Contrary to what the hon. member has said, we are involved there on a continuing basis, and we are prepared to receive further submission from the province of New Brunswick. In spite of the fact that it is not its primary field of jurisdiction, DREE has become involved in airport construction in my riding. I am grateful to DREE for that contribution and participation, and I am looking forward to even greater participation.
There is no basis whatsoever for the hon. member to suggest that the government, DREE, and the Department of Transport, have not been involved seriously in ongoing discussions with the provinces. DREE has been involved even in fields which come under the primary jurisdiction of the provinces. DREE has gone into fields which have been the traditional reserve of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island because it is committed to improving the over-all infrastructure of Atlantic Canada since its establishment in 1969.
However, it appears that the motion proposed by the hon. member either reflects his lack of understanding of maritime transportation issues, or his lack of knowledge as to what DREE and the Department of Transport have been doing in this important area of endeavour. In the next few minutes I should like to tell the House of the work, planning, efforts, and the money which has been and indeed is being spent on transportation projects and undertakings in the maritimes by

DREE and the Department of Transport, so that it may be realized that the motion proposing "the Standing Committee on Regional Development be empowered to study the concept of using transportation as a development tool" in fact is inappropriate, redundant, and comes after action already is under way in the context of DREE's related efforts in the Atlantic region today. Also this is an opportunity to outline to hon. members the many initiatives taken by the Department of Transport to illustrate most clearly just how transportation is being used as a development tool in the Atlantic area. Many of these initiatives are a direct result of the consultative efforts of both federal and provincial officials and representatives of the private sector working together to improve the transportation system of the region at a time of severe restraint.
The hon. member has indulged in some local politics. He suggested that the federal government should share in the cost of the building of a bridge across a river in his riding. I think that is carrying it a little too far. There is a limit to what the federal government should be involved in with the provinces. Transportation, road transportation and bridge building, were and still very much are provincial responsibilities under the constitution. To want to drag the federal government into all phases of infrastructure building in the realm of their jurisdiction indeed is an exaggeration in the sense that these people are attempting to milk the federal cow to death.
Perhaps the best example of the fruits of our ongoing consultative process is the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Program announced almost two years ago in co-operation with provincial first ministers. This program was the result in part of a joint federal-provincial passenger transportation study embracing all modes. Subsequent to the study, a total of $125 million of Transport Canada money-this is above and beyond the figure I quoted just a few minutes ago of $350 million contributed by DREE-was allocated by the federal government for bus, highway and air services in the Atlantic provinces.
Surely the mere indication of those figures would indicate that the hon. member for York-Sunbury has not given the House the full story of the government's involvement in regional development in the maritime provinces, in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and certainly in Nova Scotia. As far as DREE is concerned, I would point out that important references to transportation are, indeed, enshrined in the General Development Agreements as negotiated by DREE on behalf of Canada with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as in the comprehensive development plan negotiated with Prince Edward Island.
In New Brunswick the general development agreement specifically recognizes the importance of the service sector to the province's economy, and pledges to implement a development strategy which will encourage the expansion of this sector. Transportation and distribution are cited as important components of New Brunswick's service sector. In Nova Scotia the general development agreement for that province specifi-
March 9, 1979

cally identifies distribution and transportation related industry as being of prime importance to the development strategy of that province.
The Prince Edward Island comprehensive development plan highlights the importance of adequate and reasonably priced transportation as an essential part of that province's developmental strategy. The plan also pledges to upgrade, where necessary, the island's network of resource collector and arterial roads and the feasibility of additional container service and other methods of moving freight are cited as worthy of joint study under the plan, as is the critical issue of the distribution of island potatoes and other bulk produce. That also applies to New Brunswick.
Both DREE and Transport Canada, in extremely close co-operation with provincial civil servants and politicians, have sat and studied these matters almost to the absurd. However, they did not stop at the study. They went ahead with a plan of action agreed to by all the parties. All the parties concerned are keeping an eye on the situation as it develops with a view to improving that infrastructure still more.
Through the general development agreements which were signed with the provinces, DREE has the mandate to pursue development opportunities in the maritime region in order to reduce the disparity gap. As it turns out, the general development agreement concept, with it's jointly agreed to strategy, is indeed proving to be a most flexible development tool to implement any indentified component of the region's transportation needs. Almost since its creation, DREE has worked with this important principle in mind. Indeed, prior to the general development agreement era, DREE was already involved in the construction of roads and highways under the FRED and ARDA programs in the special areas agreements.
There is a feature that I cannot help but notice every time I raise the question of transportation in my own Liberal caucus, because there are times when I must bring to the forefront and to the attention of the government some of the transportation problems of the Atlantic area, and that is when I hear my colleagues from British Columbia, western Canada, Ontario and parts of Quebec say, "How can you guys down in the maritimes muster so much government support?" On a per capita basis the maritimes indeed are being served much better than the rest of Canada from federal funds, to aid them in establishing needed and appreciated transportation infrastructures. I do not think that the maritimes should apologize for that federal help-far from me the thought. Far from me also is the thought that no work remains to be done.
Essentially what we are addressing here today is a reference to a committee to study the concept of using transportation as a development tool. What I am saying is that that concept has been very much in the mind of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and very much in the mind of Transport Canada. They have been co-ordinating committees at the interdepartmental level. There have been frequent meetings
Maritime Transportation
with provincial officials from all three provinces and they are being carried on on an ongoing basis, and there are federal-provincial management committees which meet regularly to review the progress being made on the transportation front.
I can come to no other conclusion than that the hon. member who posed this motion must be somewhat like Rip van Winkle and lived in a cave during this past decade.


Frank Oberle: You are certainly some clown.


Eymard G. Corbin: In 1973 for example, with the advent of decentralization and the negotiation of general development agreements with the Atlantic provinces DREE took a comprehensive look at all sectors of the Atlantic region economy, not just transportation. DREE is involved everywhere one can possiby imagine. In the opinion of the hon. member, DREE should be involved in energy issues. It is involved in energy issues because DREE sits on interdepartmental committees which arrive at decisions, for example, with respect to Fundy tide development and with respect to the nuclear plant in New Brunswick. I do not think that DREE should be electrified as is the suggestion of the hon. member.
That is not DREE's mission and, indeed, I would hope that DREE would remain in its present state, in spite of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) the other night. After what he said I wonder if that is another one of the departments which the Progressive Conservative party will drop after the next election. They have committed themselves to dropping Petro-Canada, Loto Canada, and we now have a statement by an hon. member from that side that DREE should disappear altogether. That is incredible. I think that the hon. members on that side of the House should first consult with Premier Richard Hatfield who thought it a very advantageous position last fall to carry an election campaign based on the programs of DREE in his province.
I do not think, on the one hand, that they can say there has been close co-operation with the federal government, DREE and Transport Canada and, on the other hand, stand up in this House and pretend that we have unco-ordinated policies. As a New Brunswicker and maritimer I regret that negative approach. I am prepared to say that we may not have been successful on all fronts, but I do not think that we should be faulted for not trying, and the figures are certainly there to prove it. Of course the transportation sector and the region's needs will be a matter of ongoing concern for all levels of government. Among other things, a comprehensive analysis, commencing a process of looking at transportation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 12, 1979