1962-03-02

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received communications from several members notifying me that the following vacancies have occurred in the representation:
Of Mervyn Arthur Hardie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Mackenzie River, by decease.
Of Hon. Paul Comtois, member for the electoral district of Nicolet-Yamaska, by reason of his acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.
Accordingly I have issued my warrants to the chief electoral officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts, respectively.



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a note I received from the chairman of the council of ministers of the U.S.S.R., N. S. Khrushchev, in response to my letter which was previously tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to inform the house that Canada has accepted an invitation from the British government to participate in a commonwealth conference in London from March 28 to April 13, to discuss the role of the commonwealth in the development of world wide communications systems based on satellites. The Canadian government has followed with keen interest the research which has been taking place in this field in recent years, mainly in the United States. We are very interested in exploring with other countries, including of course the United States, the
basis of future co-operation among the countries of the world in developing communications based on earth satellites.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to comment on that announcement, if I may, and say that I think the Prime Minister is well advised in doing what he has announced. There have been from time to time, originating in the Department of Transport, I believe, telecommunications conferences and the like which the Prime Minister has in mind, but this one of course has a much broader and wider view and I think the house will welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, this group has always had a continuing faith in the important role the commonwealth can play in world affairs. We are very pleased to hear the Prime Minister's announcement with respect to this one segment of Canadian activities in that role.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in announcing the forthcoming visit to Canada of Right Hon. John McEwen, deputy prime minister and minister of trade in the Australian government. He is expected here on March 15 and 16 for talks with Canadian ministers on a broad range of trade and economic matters.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position today to answer my question of yesterday, which was in substance: is the Prime Minister in a position to comment on the statement made yesterday morning by Secretary of State Dean Rusk regarding the attitude of the government of the United States toward sharing with Canada in the matter of nuclear weapons?
1418	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what has already been said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister, are we to understand from the reply he gave a moment ago that he does not propose to comment on the statement of the secretary of state of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has come to the right conclusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In that case may I ask the Prime Minister if he will reconcile his statement that there have been conversations between the Canadian government and the United States government in this matter with the statement made yesterday by Secretary of State Dean Rusk which is as follows:
The United States remains prepared at any time to discuss such arrangements with the government ot Canada and we have, of course, discussed such arrangements with other governments.
In view of this statement, implying clearly that the United States has had discussions with other governments and not with the Canadian government, how does the Prime Minister reconcile his earlier statements with this statement of the secretary of state of the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is giving his own interpretation of the implications. I said that discussions had continued from time to time. That is factual and absolute and is in no way contradicted by the statement made by Mr. Rusk.


Mr. Hellyer:: You have been smoked out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, to clear up all this confusion and uncertainty once and for all and to show his awareness that nuclear war would be suicidal, to consider declaring Canada's intention to renounce nuclear weapons for all time?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is putting a question that has been asked from time to time and which involves a very large question of policy. I think he is optimistic to expect that matters of this kind can be settled with the brevity which is required on oral questions before orders of the day.



ARCTIC ISLANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has had an opportunity of


looking into the question I asked him yesterday about Arctic air bases for the United States air force, and what report he has received from his officers in this respect.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): I am sorry, I have not as yet received the report. I inquired about this report about half an hour ago, and it is not yet ready.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or in his absence to the acting minister. The morning press carries the story that Dominion Tar and Chemical Co. Ltd. have announced their intention of building a plant in the United Kingdom. My question is, does the minister think this is a desirable trend, that plants should establish themselves in the United Kingdom to take advantage of the common market, while Canada seems to have no objective policy to keep them here?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will take this question as notice and report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that we are into a new month, could the minister say whether the budget will be brought down in March?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Time will tell, Mr. Speaker. I won't


Mr. Pigeon:: The minister will not.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question arises as the result of a news story appearing in last night's edition of the Ottawa Journal to the effect that Mrs. R. W. Dann of Edmonton has received currency bearing no serial number. Is the government keeping a record of the money now being printed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has been in the house for sufficient time to know that the government does not print money; that is a function which has been placed by parliament in the custody and jurisdiction of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada, of course, in accepting delivery of currency when printed takes elaborate precautions in relation to the numbers printed on the bills.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and ask him whether a meeting has been set up by the government of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada on the subject of further mine closings in Nova Scotia, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of February 28.


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I have been approached by the premier of Nova Scotia, and I expect to meet him next week.


Lionel Chevrier: Has any date been fixed?


Jacques Flynn: No definite date, but it will most probably be Wednesday.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF MODEL DESIGNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Did he receive copies of the six flag models proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate? If so, what are the designs?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive any such thing.
(Text):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration including a grant of $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $11,098,000
Mr. Carter:: Last night, Mr. Chairman, you gave me the floor about ten minutes before the committee was due to rise, and about half of that time was occupied by interruptions, mainly from the Minister of Public
Supply-Public Works
Works. My colleague the hon. member for Levis attempted to raise a point of order about this, but since you ruled that there was no point of order perhaps you will permit me to deal with this matter as a question of privilege.
When the minister intervened I was dealing with the government's housing policy. I had endeavoured to make the point that the fact the government finds it necessary to go so heavily into the housing business is an indication that there is something wrong with the government's fiscal and monetary policy which failed to produce the economic climate in which private enterprise, whose normal function it is to provide for the needs of the people, was able to operate in the housing field.
At that point the minister rose to interrupt. I thought he was going to correct an error I had made, because I recognize that we all make slips of the tongue especially when we are attempting to think on our feet. But the minister did not do that. What the minister proceeded to do was to debate my comment. In his rebuttal the minister did not deal with the point I was making with respect to housing policy. He proceeded to deal with public works, and made statements as to how much this government had spent on public works in my province. I intend to deal with that statement later.
My question of privilege is this. If the procedure is adopted by the house of allowing a minister or anyone else to interrupt at any time the member who has the floor in order to start debating subjects which are not under discussion, bedlam will result. The minister has no more right to interrupt than any other person.
Your Honour made the point that I conceded the floor to the minister. I did so because I thought he was going to correct a statement I had made, but the minister took advantage of that opportunity. We do not know what the minister is going to say when he rises. We have to trust to his sense of fairness and proportion in matters like this. When he does not observe the ordinary rules of procedure he is out of order. I do not mind conceding the floor if the minister requests that I do so and states for what purpose he is rising, but I shall not yield just to permit a red herring to be brought into the argument I am advancing.
Since the minister has undertaken to intervene in my remarks I would ask Your Honour to count my time as from now and not as from five minutes to ten o'clock, as would normally be the case.
As I said, a national housing policy should operate in such a way as to treat all parts of the nation alike as far as humanly

Supply-Public Works
possible. The figures the minister produced yesterday illustrate that the government's housing policy is creating an overexpansion in economic activity in one province and is doing little to correct the underexpansion in other parts of the country. In my opinion a government policy should operate with the purpose of having quite the reverse effect. It should try to level out economic expansion and make it more uniform throughout the whole country.
I pointed out to the committee that unemployment is always a serious problem in the Atlantic provinces, and during the winter months when it is at its peak it can reach and has reached in my province as high as 25 per cent of the labour force. The Minister of National Revenue seemed to ridicule that statement, and I want to put some figures on Hansard to support what I said. It is true that since 1960 we do not have a separate breakdown of percentages of unemployment in the various provinces; instead we have figures for the whole Atlantic region.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, on a point or order, I suggest that we are talking about public works, not unemployment, and I think we should at least keep on the subject.


Chesley William Carter: I am going to relate the figures I am about to give to the housing policy of the government. I think what I have already said proves that there is a relationship between housing policy and employment, just as there is a relationship between the fiscal policy of the government and the extent to which it has to engage in the housing business.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue is not here to listen to this, since he questioned my statement last night. In 1960, the last year for which we had a percentage breakdown by provinces, unemployment in the Atlantic provinces was 14.4 per cent of the work force. That was in the winter months. I believe in January, and probably not at the worst period. At that particular time when the average for the Atlantic provinces was 14.4 per cent the average for the province of Newfoundland was 25 per cent, and the situation got worse.
The figures released by the bureau of statistics a short time ago give the percentages as of the 13th of January, which is not the peak so far as unemployment is concerned, and the percentage for the Atlantic provinces was 14.7 per cent. If there were 25 per cent unemployed in Newfoundland in 1960, when the average for the Atlantic provinces was 14.4 per cent, surely it is reasonable to assume that the figure was at least 25 per cent and perhaps worse for Newfoundland

when the average for the Atlantic provinces was 14.7 per cent as of January 13.


Mr. McGrath:: What percentage of that 25 per cent were fishermen?


Chesley William Carter: Well, are fishermen not people?
Are they not workers?


James Aloysius McGrath: My hon. friend knows that fishermen cannot draw unemployment insurance and fish at the same time. They cannot fish at certain periods because it is a seasonal occupation. My hon. friend knows that the figures are not in proportion to the facts.


Chesley William Carter: I want to support my statement with some figures compiled by the Atlantic provinces economic council, and the source of their figures is the special surveys division of the dominion bureau of statistics. I ask the hon. member for St. John's East to listen to this, because I am now talking about averages for the whole year and not seasonal unemployment when the fishermen are included. In 1958 there were 20,000 unemployed Newfoundlanders out of a work force of 111,000. In 1959, according to the government's own publication, there were 22,000 Newfoundlanders out of work for the whole year out of a work force of 115,000.


William Joseph Browne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: In 1960 there were 21,000 out of work out of a work force of 118,000.


The Deputy Chairman:: I see the Solicitor General is rising on a point of order. I think I can anticipate what his point of order is. The statistics that are being placed on the record by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo relate to unemployment, and they would be more appropriately discussed on the estimates of the Department of Labour. I do not want to be unfair or unduly restrictive to the hon. member, but I do feel that his suggestion that he would relate these figures to item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works has not come through to me at this stage. I would ask him to move in that direction as soon as possible.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Would you let me say a
word on this point, Mr. Chairman? I submit that the minister should be ashamed of himself when he contends that these estimates for public works have no relationship whatever to unemployment. I think the minister should be ashamed of himself.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
say what the hon. member has just stated I said. When the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is talking about unemployment he

should relate it to this Department of Public Works, and not give us a long harangue about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to address myself to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, Your Honour will recall that the minister, in the opening statement he made yesterday on housing, in particular, mentioned that the consequence of government policy was that it had a direct effect on unemployment. If the minister was able to make that kind of argument I am sure that Your Honour, on reconsideration, will agree it is open to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to make a reply. That is all he has been doing.


Chesley William Carter: I think the record will show that these figures are related to the housing policy of the government, and the government has gone into the housing question in a big way, as the minister pointed out, to prime the economic pump. Last night the minister made the statement that this government spent three times as much on public works in Newfoundland as did the Liberal government. If that is so that is as it should be, because-


An hon. Member:: Give us credit for it, then.


Chesley William Carter: It is as it should be, because of the need to create employment in Newfoundland and also the need to even out the disparities in our economic development. If the housing policy of the government cannot achieve that, then certainly the public works program of this government should be operated in such a way as to make up for that lack. I am afraid that the minister's statements are not borne out by the facts.
We have raised the question of urban development in the northern section of St. John's for at least two years during the consideration of the estimates of this department. So far as I have been able to find out, that development has not taken place as yet. For a whole year the premier of Newfoundland was blamed for this situation. Over a year ago the premier went to the extent of making changes in the legislation so that the municipality of St. John's could cooperate with the federal government and leave the province out of the picture. However, this development is proceeding very slowly, and certainly there are no houses being built even though the project has been under consideration for at least two years and possibly longer.
If I may come back to the minister's statement about having spent three times as much in Newfoundland as his predecessors, I should like to take the figures for expenditures on public buildings in the years 1959-1960 to 1961-1962 inclusive. This government has
Supply-Public Works
spent $1.3 million on public buildings during that time, whereas their predecessors in the three years from 1954-1955 to 1957-1958, spent $8.5 million on public buildings, at a time when there was less disparity in the economic development of the various parts of our province. If we take the money spent on harbour development in the same period, we find that the total spent by this government according to the estimates, and I have only had time to go back three years, was $16.3 million as compared with $7.7 million under the Liberals. Now, that looks like a tremendous difference, but it is still not three times as great. If it were three times as great it would be $22 million. However, the figure of $16.3 million does not give the correct picture, because of that $16.3 million at least $9 million has been spent on the harbour of St. John's.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Chesley William Carter: There is nothing wrong with that; I should like to see more spent on improving the harbour of St. John's. However, there is this to be said about it. This $9 million that is being spent on the harbour of St. John's is not going into the pockets of Newfoundlanders. It is not increasing to any appreciable extent the purchasing power of the people of Newfoundland. This work is being done by a mainland contractor, and most of that money is going to benefit people on the mainland. I doubt if more than 20 per cent to 25 per cent of it is going into the pockets of the people of my province to increase their purchasing power.
If we take out this special amount for St John's, which as I said is not an important factor in the priming of our economic pump, then the average amount of money spent on public works per year by this government works out at a little under $3 million as compared with $4 million under the Liberal government from the years 1954-1955 to 1956-1957.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not correct that the official figures for 1952 to 1956 are $27,320,000 and for 1957 to 1961, $75,258,000 for expenditures on public works? This does not include housing, but is the amount that we have in our estimates.


Chesley William Carter: These are not the estimates You included 1952 to 1956, and you compared 1952-56-


David James Walker: It is 1952-53 to 1956-57, $27,320,000, and 1957-58 to 1961-62, $75,258,000 which was spent in Newfoundland on public works.

Supply-Public Works


Chesley William Carter: I don't know whether the minister's figures are correct or not.


David James Walker: I take them from the estimates.


Chesley William Carter: I also took the figures from the estimates, and if you want a breakdown I have plenty of time to put it on the record or, if the house will permit me, I shall table it. However, if you go back to 1952-56 why don't you go back to 1867?


David James Walker: You were not in confederation at that time.


Chesley William Carter: The figures I am referring to are the figures in the minister's estimates relating to public buildings and harbour improvements, and I am sure the $75 million which the minister has mentioned does not relate solely to public buildings and harbour improvements. He is probably taking the moneys spent on public highways and on the trans-Canada highway, and when he replies I would like him to give a detailed account. I am talking about the two items under the direct control of the minister's department, the money spent on public buildings and on harbour improvements. I know there are also moneys spent on operations, maintenance, dredging and other things.


David James Walker: You are quite right. I have included all public works including our contributions to the trans-Canada highway.


Chesley William Carter: There was no trans-Canada highway in 1867 or 1949.


David James Walker: But there was in 1952-56.


Chesley William Carter: There were very good reasons why that money could not be spent.


Mr. Bourget:: Tell him the public works program was planned by the Liberal government, including the St. John's harbour and the trans-Canada highway.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, and it was shelved.


Maurice Bourget: You were not shelved.


David James Walker: You had better stick to Levis.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am hearing
several speakers at the same time, and I think we should allow the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to speak for himself, which he can do very well as we all know.


Chesley William Carter: Yesterday the minister mentioned the winter works program dealing with post offices, but there has not been very much money included in his estimates for that kind of work in my province. There was only $156,000 in 1960-61, $205,000 in 1961-62 and I think $180,000 for the coming fiscal year. That is a cause of complaint in my province, as we have certainly as great a

need as any other province. The minister did not make it clear whether this winter works program constituted a change in policy. We have been trying to get post offices built in many communities, but the projects have been turned down because the community revenues do not warrant them. I think we should change that policy and make our decisions not on the basis of revenue but on the basis of need of the number of people to be served, and particularly on the need to create employment in provinces which economically are lagging behind.
The work on St. John's harbour will soon be completed, and the minister tells us he is looking around for new projects. That being so I suggest to him that he give consideration to building a transshipment port in Newfoundland. There is a good site for such a port at Mortier bay. I believe it has been refered to in the MacPherson report on transportation, and I know the western grain shippers are interested in linking up shipping facilities at Mortier bay with the shipping facilities in Fort Churchill. This could be of great benefit both to Newfoundland and the western farmers in allowing them to ship their wheat more cheaply, and I would ask the minister to give consideration to the project.
I want to thank the minister for the increase this year in the harbours vote. It is $7.2 million as compared with $6.6 million last year, and when we make the deduction for the special project at St. John's harbour that works out to about $2.9 million for the rest of Newfoundland as compared with $1.8 million last year. There is only one disappointment in this so far as I am concerned, and that is that the minister has not seen fit to include anything in the estimates for the settlement of Seal Cove. I have requested this for the last four years, and in 1958 the minister's predecessor said he hoped something would be done within the following year. Correspondence which I had with his predecessor and himself went so far as to say that $90,000 would be listed for consideration in the 1960-61 estimates, but we are now dealing with the 1962-63 estimates and there is still no appropriation for this community.
There must be some misunderstanding about it, because this is a very urgent need. This little community of 600 or 700 people is completely isolated during the winter. If they need the services of a doctor or want to bring in food supplies their only communication is by sea, and they have no decent harbour whatsoever. Not only that, the economy of the community depends on the fishery, and without a harbour they cannot engage in fishing. When I was there last fall there was a provincial bulldozer in the place and,

through the co-operation of the district engineer at St. John's, I made arrangements to have the bulldozer scoop out the sand in the harbour. This meant that 30 fishermen were able to do some fishing whenever the weather permitted last fall, but that was too late in the year.
We had a debate on forestry a couple of days ago, and we were told the trend now is toward more mechanization in the woods. Therefore the alternative employment which this community has in the forests is going to disappear, and there will be less and less work for fewer people. This leaves them with the fishery. In any event, there are many people in that community who are now too old to go into the woods, and they must have some other form of livelihood apart from relief. This is an urgent matter, and I would not be raising it if I did not think it was urgent. I hope the minister will find time to consider it and include some appropriation in the supplementary estimates for this community.
There are just two other matters I want to refer to, and one of these is dredging. I am very glad to see that $594,000 has been appropriated for dredging in Newfoundland. That is a large item compared with other provinces, but it is still small in relation to the need because we have so many harbours that have not been dredged for 50 or 60 years.
The $560,000 for new equipment pleases me very much. I hope the minister will tell the committee when he replies just what equipment is going to be purchased with this sum. It does not seem large enough to buy the big, heavy suction dredge that is so badly needed. I have a situation in my riding, in the town of St. Lawrence, where they have been waiting now for five years for the harbour to be dredged out. This work has been postponed year after year in the hope that we can obtain the services of the suction dredge employed in Nova Scotia, but so far we have not been successful. In the meantime this situation is getting worse and worse with every passing week. Therefore there is a great need for a heavy suction dredge to be assigned to Newfoundland, which with Labrador has a tremendous coast line; we have 1,300 coastal harbours to be serviced.
In addition to this need for heavy dredging equipment, we have a need for shallow dredging equipment. I have urged this year after year, but the government seems to prefer to have this work done by private dredging firms. However, the fact is that there are not enough of these firms to do the work that requires to be done. This is not expensive equipment. We have so many small harbours where ordinary dredges cannot enter and operate, and perhaps there is a greater need
Supply-Public Works
for this type of equipment in Newfoundland than elsewhere. I ask the minister to keep this in mind.
The only other comment I wish to make is in connection with the miscellaneous vote. I was very happy when I looked at it and saw the amount to be voted was $2.4 million, but when I looked more closely I discovered that only $1,250,000 of this amount was going to be allocated for harbour improvement. That really is not enough in view of the drain on this vote which will be caused by projects that will cost up to $15,000 without treasury approval and can go as high as $25,000 with treasury approval. The amount is only $1,125,000 for the whole of Canada. Newfoundland's share of that is not going to be very much, and it will certainly all be used up on about a dozen projects costing $15,000 to $25,000. We are now reaching the point when we have a greater need for these small works, so I do hope the minister will give prompt consideration to increasing the amount of this vote.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for listening to me so patiently, and once more I would pay tribute to the minister and his staff in Ottawa for the co-operation they have extended in the past. I hope the same degree of co-operation will be forthcoming with respect to the few items that I have drawn to the attention of the minister.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in answer to my hon. friend's question about the miscellaneous vote of $1,125,000 for Canada, of this amount more than one third is being spent in Newfoundland; the actual amount is $376,000. Is that enough?


Chesley William Carter: I am not complaining on behalf of Newfoundland; what I am saying is that the vote for the whole of Canada is not enough. The $376,000 represents only a small share for Newfoundland if you divide that amount among the seven ridings, because you only have $50,000 per riding; and with a project cost of $15,000 to $25,000 you can only finance three or four works in each riding, whereas there are perhaps 30 or 40 projects which need to be taken care of and can only be taken care of out of this vote.
Mr. Her ridge: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to thank the minister for his courteous attention to any problem related to my constituency which I have brought to his notice. I must say that he has given every case careful consideration, whether the result has been positive or negative. I extend the same appreciation to the deputy minister, the senior officials in Ottawa, the district officials and the local officials of his department.

Supply-Public Works
As I have said before, this is a rather unusual department as far as I am concerned. I can say this because I have lived in very close relationship with the public works of Canada for over 56 years. When you live in the wilderness you do depend on them to put in a few dolphins or something of that nature to prevent you being shipwrecked, and so on.
I have inquired around over the years and have noticed there has been a steady improvement in the administration of this department since the reorganization into divisions some years ago. I was distinctly under the impression prior to the 1950's that the department was, in the first place, carrying too heavy a load for the staff and organization, and was trying to carry on in ways that were only suitable for a much smaller amount of work and responsibility. I think there has been a steady improvement in the administration. One division which has improved a great deal has been the property division and the placing of responsibility upon certain people's shoulders for the administration of buildings, and so on.
However, I have a few suggestions. I make them not in a critical spirit, but I place them before the minister in a co-operative mood, shall I say. I notice that the minister, the deputy minister and some of the senior officials of the department have visited the larger centres in Canada. I can only speak from my experience in British Columbia, but they have visited only the district offices in the main. I go into the district office, which is in Vancouver-I have known some of those chaps for a good many years-and I find that the minister and deputy minister have been to Vancouver and possibly up the coast in connection with reviewing the work of the branch. I might mention that I have a complaint in this regard. The British Columbia district office is known as the Vancouver district office. That is far too limited a connotation; it should be known as the British Columbia region of the Department of Public Works of Canada.
I do suggest that the minister, the deputy minister and the senior officials, particularly under the present circumstances, should stray rather further afield. They should personally and more frequently visit some of these districts where problems are developing. I have particular reference to, say, the Arrow lakes region. I am sure the minister has heard of the treaty known as the Columbia river treaty. If unfortunately the provisions of that treaty were carried out as they are written at the present time it would have a most unfortunate impact upon the property of the public works of Canada for a distance of 145 miles on the Arrow lakes. It would mean the destruction of 20 docks and innumerable

dolphins and other facilities which, if that situation did develop, would have to be replaced.
I think the problem is of such magnitude that the senior officials of this department should be giving it consideration so they may have the answers. I am quite sure that at the present time there is no firm estimate on the part of the Department of Public Works as to what it would cost to replace these facilities. And do not forget this; these would be replaced at ten times the cost of the present docks and wharfs and landing facilities because of the great variation of water levels and the longer docks that would be required.
I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the minister. This department has been spending money on the upper Duncan river for 20 years, but a senior official has never visited the Duncan river to study the problem there for himself. I do not think it is fair to local officials that these decisions should be left entirely to them. It is a heavy responsibility at times. It is the same on the lower Duncan. There has been some $5,000 a year spent there for years, and to good effect, but there are problems arising with respect to other developments in that area and I suggest the situation is one which should be considered by the deputy minister and the senior engineers.
To illustrate this, I would refer to the Trail river wall situation. The people of the district appreciate very much the government grant of 37$ per cent of the cost of the reconstruction of the Trail river wall. But this is an important project, a project of such a type in relation to other developments on the river that I think the deputy minister or senior officials should pay very close attention to it and not leave the responsibilty entirely to one engineer. There are serious problems with respect to foundations and so on which were not anticipated in the first estimate, and others will develop as time goes on.
Another problem is the question of the pollution of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers. I will deal with that matter later, but this is a problem that will have to be faced in the years ahead, and I think it is a problem which should be on the agenda of the minister and his senior officials so they may have the background from personal knowledge, as a result of visiting this area, before they undertake any concrete action. I hope the minister will find it possible in between his engagements on television to visit the Kootenay district. This remark applies equally to the deputy minister and some of the senior officials, because there are some growing problems which involve other departments.

Another suggestion I wish to make is this.
I think there should be increasing co-operation among the various departments, namely the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Agriculture, because some of these things are directly related to the development of agriculture in the area. Once again I suggest that the local people in the district should be kept informed of what the department is doing.
I think this should be undertaken in two ways. I think there should be authorized press releases. It is amazing the amount of misinformation that can be given out as a result of speculation and rumour. I have even found men coming into the district expecting employment on a certain project because of false information which has been retailed in the press and elsewhere. I do think there is a place for factual information with respect to the work being undertaken by the department, and I think this is a necessary aspect of public relations. You would be surprised to know, Mr. Chairman, that although the government of Canada is contributing a certain percentage of the cost of certain projects, because of the lack of these periodic press releases containing factual information the public is not aware of the fact that the government of Canada is investing so much money in certain developments in co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities. I do suggest that this proposal of mine should be given further consideration.
Now I am going to repeat a suggestion which I think I have made on previous occasions, and one which I think is possible. In the first instance we should like the minister to come to the district and give us a television show or even address a public meeting and meet the local people. I want to thank the minister for a most enjoyable 30 minutes recently on the Toronto program which should be called "Financial Fantasy," I enjoyed it, and every time there was a close up of the minister's face I loved looking at that cherubic expression. My old landlady said "You know, that there old fellow couldn't do any wrong. He looks too innocent". Anyway, I do hope he gives consideration to this suggestion.
These are matters of importance to local communities. The people who live in larger centres such as Vancouver, Toronto, Peterborough and places like that are possibly not so greatly affected, but when you live in a district where there are a lot of small and isolated communities near which there is considerable expenditure of public funds by this department, it has an effect on the lives of the people in those communities. I do urge that even more consultation should take place between officials of the department and local
Supply-Public Works
organizations such as chambers of commerce, farmers' institutes and, in some cases, women's institutes; because you will find that in some cases the activities of the department are affecting a beach on which the women's institute has been spending money for years as a playground for the children of the district.
When contact is made with these and other groups it should be on the basis of calling on the executive, or on the committee. I am not one who believes in trotting around seeing one or two people, regardless of political opinions, who claim to represent the opinion of the community. Very often they represent only themselves. I realize there has been a tremendous improvement in recent years, but I think this co-operation should be developed further.
Now I come to my fourth suggestion, and that is that there should be more concern shown for casual or temporary employees. This is a most unusual use of the term, because a man may be a temporary employee after he has been working for the department for 30 years. As I say, more concern should be shown for the so-called casual or temporary employees. May I illustrate this by saying we have a dredge on the Arrow lakes known as Dredge Arrow Lakes which does this work of dredging, pile driving and things of that sort. There is a crew which has been on that dredge for many years. Some of these men have worked for the department for years and years. They are very capable. They understand the operation of the dredge. In a number of cases they have refused, shall I say, more profitable employment because they have been with the department for years, they like the work, and they have a sense of loyalty to the department, a certain esprit de corps. On occasions the work of this dredge is discontinued. It was discontinued in November of this year and the men were simply laid off without reason being given. I suggest we should retain this crew of good employees in these circumstances by an arrangement of the work done on certain projects and by timing so as to make it possible for them to continue doing some work, whether it is repairs on the wharves, river bank work or something else of that kind.
I do urge that further consideration be given to providing continuous employment for men who are in reality permanent employees of the department. I do not think it is good enough that they should be ditched at the beginning of November and told there will not be anything doing until the spring. There have been occasions when men were taken from other jobs to assist with certain projects, but I think those tasks could have

Supply-Public Works
been delayed and these men used for that purpose. The number involved is not large; the total is eight or ten at the most.
When the minister replies I wish some information with respect to the policy of the department concerning the design of public buildings. I believe we can arrive at a policy which provides in every respect for the functional and the beautiful. We have had no information to date which clearly outlines the department's policy with respect to the design of certain types of buildings, certain sizes of buildings, for certain types of sites, various communities and so on. I hope the minister will give us information in that respect before his estimates are completed.
The question of the trans-Canada highway has been raised. We are all pleased that the Rogers pass section of the highway will be opened some time this year. That will be a great achievement for the department and of great advantage to the people of Canada. Could the minister give us information concerning the latest dispatches from the front? In this connection I wish to direct attention to an article in the Revelstoke Review of February 15 which is not very enthusiastic about the hon. member for Kootenay West. The editor is a prominent Social Crediter; a nice chap but very misguided. I quote:
Gunners fight glacier slides.
Gunners of 2nd field regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery from Winnipeg, Manitoba, have had their busiest winter yet with their program of firing at potential avalanches in Glacier national park.
The avalanche control program is a co-operative project of the Department of National Defence and the national parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources designed to reduce avalanche danger to a minimum in the Rogers pass area where the trans-Canada highway is in its last stages of construction. The highway is expected to open in the summer of 1962.
The artillery detachment from the regular army use a 105-millimeter gun-howitzer and a 75 millimeter pack-howitzer to fire at specified potential avalanches. The gunfire either stabilizes the snow, or brings it down as a "controlled" avalanche.
It goes on to give the details of what was done in this respect. We would like a report from the minister concerning this interesting development. The minister is fortunate in having a former general as deputy minister. Years ago I had little love for generals, but I have since met one or two of whom I am very fond. The deputy minister, being a former general, should be in a position to give us the latest dispatches from the front and report on the success which this attack has achieved to date. I trust we will hear from him in this respect.
Mr. Pallet!: The N.D.P. has a love of general confusion.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not hear that interjection. We will soon be completing the trans-Canada highway. Others have mentioned the necessity of a second trans-Canada highway, and naturally most people support the route that would serve their district best. I am not parochial in my attitude. I always support the point of view which I think is of advantage to Canada. The hon. member for Cariboo may want the second highway to go beside his ranch. I do not go along with that point of view.
I suggest that the southern transprovincial highway in British Columbia should be a portion of the second trans-Canada highway for several sound reasons. First of all there is the population in the southern part of the province. There is also the production of the area and the tax revenues. Also it is an all weather route. I shall not speak at great length on the subject at this time. However, it is time the government gave consideration to the second trans-Canada highway. While it is doing so I trust the minister will give consideration to the many arguments that have been advanced with respect to the southern transprovincial highway in British Columbia being a part of the second trans-Canada highway.
There is another problem to which consideration should be given. Under the minister's jurisdiction there is the beneficent legislation with respect to grants to municipalities for the construction of sewage disposal plants, etc. We will have to broaden the base of this excellent legislation if we are to meet successfully the increasing problem of the pollution of our rivers and lakes across the country.
This provides a tremendous opportunity for co-operation among the federal, provincial and municipal authorities. I hope the cooperation is of such a nature that the results will be evident. It should be a co-operation which people can understand and in which they may participate in spirit. There is a growing problem on the Kootenay and the Columbia rivers caused by the increasing population. No individual industry or community is directly involved, and the problem has increased in recent years because of growing industrial development and the expanding population. The department will have to consider introducing legislation and improving existing measures to remedy the situation while it still can be remedied.
We have sewage disposal from the city of Nelson going into the Kootenay river. We have industrial waste and other limited disposal of wastes. There is industrial waste going into the river in East Kootenay. I hope my friend the hon. member for Kootenay

East is not aroused by my comments. All this waste is going into the Kootenay river. The municipalities are unable to meet the problem unaided because they lack the financial resources. I urge the department to give consideration to a study of the pollution problem on the Kootenay and Columbia rivers. Action cannot be taken without knowledge and facts. Then an effort should be made to interest the provincial government and local authorities. As a result of the cooperation among the three levels of government a solution to the problem must be found before it becomes more serious.
In connection with this problem I was interested to read in a recent issue of the Ottawa Citizen-the one containing a sketch of our recent leader-an editorial dealing with this subject:
A full-scale attack on water pollution.
This country is far from coming really to grips with the problem of pollution of its waters. Isolated steps have been taken, all of a commendable nature, but there is yet no vigorous and comprehensive national policy.
I am in complete agreement with that editorial statement.
The international joint commission has to its credit a co-operative program of several years' standing in restoring and maintaining the purity, as far as possible, of streams on both sides of the international boundary in the great lakes region.
I know from reading reports and sitting on committees of this house that the commission has done an excellent job with the co-operation of industry and municipalities in the area. I see that the hon. member for Essex East is listening to my remarks with great attention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always like to listen to the hon. member, even when in error.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have the same approach in that respect. I continue:
The federal government can point to its inducements to municipalities to build sewage treatment and disposal plants; this is a constructive step and represents one of the best things the present government has done in any field.
Yet much more needs to be done. The Ottawa river is still in a disgraceful condition. This has been pointed out many times but never more forcefully or with more detailed documentation than by Mr. Gustave Prevost, chairman of the recently published Quebec water purification board, in a paper prepared for the resources for tomorrow conference last fall.
The latest body to express concern about pollution of water-and in the air and on land as well- is the health officers of British Columbia, in an appearance before the royal commission on health services.
I bring this to the attention of the minister.
Supply-Public Works
The health officers submit that Canadian municipalities-and perhaps even provinces-are unable to cope with the problem, and that it should be attacked on a national scale.
In the commons recently a private bill introduced by H. W. Herridge of Kootenay West to levy heavy penalties on industrial firms polluting interprovincial waters met the usual fate of such bills and was talked out.
Even though the Prime Minister had introduced a similar bill in 1955.
Everyone who spoke was as much opposed to pollution as to sin, but no one seemed ready to do anything.
The government itself appears content for the time being to rest on its far from adequate antipollution measure which is hoped will result in the construction of more municipal sewage disposal systems. If the measure is effective, well and good, but the industrial wastes aspect will still remain. It is doubtful whether the mere imposition of penalties is going to bring desired results.
I do urge that serious consideration be given to having a study made of the major problems with respect to water pollution across Canada with a view to approaching the provincial and municipal governments for joint action by all governments so that this very dangerous situation which will face us in the years ahead can be corrected. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, once again here is a problem that requires local participation, in that you have to have local understanding of the problem and local support for the solving of it so that municipalities and other governing bodies will receive support for any taxation measures they wish to introduce to meet the cost of these very desirable works.
That is all I have to say at the present time on item No. 1. I have a few remarks to make with respect to particular items when they come before the house, but I shall now resume my seat.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks on item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. Inasmuch as the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre is in the middle of the city of Winnipeg, it is not favoured with too many public works projects, but I should like to thank the Minister of Public Works for the construction of a fine building last year which now houses the unemployment insurance commission. Although there were some difficulties with regard to the provision of public facilities, I understand that these have now been overcome.
I do not think there is anything in the estimates for the forthcoming year for the construction of further public buildings in my constituency, although there is some hope that sooner or later we may perhaps get a post office building constructed in the Weston section. However, I should like to thank the

Supply-Public Works
minister and the federal government for the announcement made last fall with regard to slum clearance in the city of Winnipeg, and in particular in my constituency. This is something that has been talked about by my predecessors in the house for the past 16 to 20 years, but nothing was ever done about it.
The fact of the matter simply is that in October of last year the federal government announced a plan to participate in a slum clearance project in Winnipeg North Centre in the amount of approximately $4 million. As I say, this is a major step forward, because in Winnipeg North Centre we have some areas that certainly deserve such treatment. I understand that the project itself still has not been approved by the provincial legislature, and so far there is no agreement between the city of Winnipeg and the province which would enable the minister to tell the house when a start can be made on the project.
I should also like to ask the minister if anything further has been done with relation to slum clearance in the area just south of the C.P.R. tracks and west of Main street. In the planning stage this was to have been the No. 1 project in slum clearance, but for some reason or other it has now become the No. 2 project. I should also like the minister to tell me, if he can, just how far negotiations have proceeded on this aspect of the matter.
I should also like to make one further point having to do with housing for our senior citizens. When we are dealing with such housing it is necessary now to go through the National Housing Act and pick out the applicable sections. I might say that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has done a good deal in this regard. In the city of Winnipeg many C.M.H.C. projects have been constructed which have certainly served the needs of some of our senior citizens. But the fact still remains that there is a need of accommodation for single old age pensioners, particularly for those who are just barely existing on the old age pension and have no other assets or alternative income. The C.M.H.C. projects already constructed for the benefit of senior citizens make provision for married couples and only those couples who are able to pay rent, which sometimes takes all their old age pension cheque.
I have in mind consideration of that type of construction known as hostel type accommodation. The minister is familiar with this. He has received representations from myself and other members from the city of Winnipeg with regard to the project undertaken by the aged and opportunity bureau in the city of Winnipeg two years ago. There is a crying need for it in my constituency because it contains a large low rental rooming house
[Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre).!
area where senior citizens who are single and have no relatives, exist, and I do mean exist.
The government has seen fit to do more for the old people of our country by way of old age pensions than any other government in our history, and I submit that it is time we took a look at housing for our senior citizens on a separate level entirely. Perhaps there should be a separate act with regard to housing for senior citizens, or if not a separate act there should certainly be a section in the National Housing Act dealing solely with the provision of housing for our senior citizens.
The hostel type of accommodation would fulfil a dire need, and when the minister replies I would ask him to advise me with regard to anything that has been done in the way of setting up, either under C.M.H.C. or in his department, a division to deal with this subject. I conclude by commending the minister and the government again for their direct attention after assuming power to the matter of slum clearance in the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to participate very briefly in the debate on a subject that interests a great many members of the house no matter on which side they sit, and I refer to the question of housing. I was interested in the minister's speech yesterday. I watched him as he began, and he seemed to be flushed by the effect of the rather heady wine of the personal praise of the Prime Minister-


David James Walker: My speech had not arrived.


John Richard Garland: -for his recent television extravaganza. The minister made yet another presentation to the house yesterday and, as he knows, I listened very carefully. In fact I have read his speech this morning. I believe this is an attempt to create a new image of him as a sort of great producer, now. I hope perhaps to show that this is a new interest, a new flair.
I have marked a few things in his speech upon which I should like to comment. According to page 1374 of Hansard, the minister referred in very glowing terms to the impact of house building and related industries on the national economy. He said that it had been revealed in all its sharpness and clarity by the giant forward steps taken, and so on.
I hope to be able to show that this was a period of feast or famine in the house building industry.
Further down on the same page I find the minister used a new term which sounds very well. He said:
-woven into the whole fabric of housing, bright and chromatic in its colours-

I thought perhaps yesterday I had misunderstood his language, and when he said "chromatic" I thought he said "aromatic". I think that would be a little more appropriate according to some assessments of the situation. In another sentence the minister makes reference to the lower income families in a very complimentary way so far as the government is concerned. Yet I think it can be shown that last year some 92 per cent of the people who borrowed under N.H.A. were earning more than $80 per week, which is more than the national average. I believe this statement in itself is an answer to the government's extravagant claims.
In the next sentence I find another term the minister used "most vividly impart to hon. members something of the drama of housing in Canada..." The drama of housing interests me. Here the minister shows he is not satisfied with just being an actor on T.V., as I said a moment ago; he now wants to be the producer. Another item that attracted my attention was his reference, on the following page, to the 2.5 million Canadians who now have new homes as the result of the present government's action. Well, that points up the 16 million Canadians who have houses that they acquired under more favourable interest rates and costs under the previous administrations.
I was rather intrigued by his reference further along to the unoccupied houses. The minister referred to 36 major Canadian urban centres in which there were 4,223 unoccupied houses. I know the minister's regard for figures, an interest that he displayed the other evening on television. Those figures used by the minister refer to the situation as of December 31, 1961. I should like to point to an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette just ten weeks earlier, which stated that there were 1,600 C.M.H.C. homes and 10,000 private units vacant in that area alone.
Without making any further comment, I just wanted to refer to that situation. Again, further down I find this:
-it has been necessary at the same time to maintain the lowest possible interest rate so that borrowers do not find themselves confronted by unnecessarily excessive costs for the money they have obtained.
Well, now, that is a strange observation. I should like to do something I have never done before, and that is refer to something I said in this house on an earlier occasion. I am going back to June 15 of last year, and I quote from page 6382 of Hansard:
As X mentioned earlier, today's main deterrent is not the scarcity of mortgage funds but rather the high cost of mortgage funds. In an earlier debate I dealt in some detail with this 61 per cent N.H.A. rate. Suffice it to say today that a person buying a $15,000 home over a 35 year period will pay $22,476 in Interest.
Supply-Public Works
How any one can associate that with keeping interest rates down so that borrowers will not find themselves confronted by unnecessary excessive costs for money, is indeed difficult to understand.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the one point that really struck me was the minister's reluctance to make a forecast of the situation for the present year. I suppose he has his reasons. I can think back to 1960, when a forecast was made by the then minister of trade and commerce to the effect that there would be 140,000 new homes in 1960. As we know, unfortunately the year ended with only 108,000 new homes started. The minister went on to use another phrase that interested me. He said there were too many imponderables. I thought to myself, what an accurate assessment of the fickle whims and fancies of some of his government colleagues.
The minister ended his speech on a very high note, and I think that reflects his broadening interest resulting from his travels. He referred to his travels in Europe and southeast Asia. As I say, he closed that section of his remarks yesterday on a very high plane indeed, for which we are all glad because, like most members of the house, I like the minister. We like him personally, and I certainly have received nothing but the best co-operation from his department, from his officials and from the minister himself. I sometimes feel a little bit sorry that he inherited the situation he did from his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to begin now, Mr. Chairman, where I left off in this house last June. Having regard for the requirements of the next decade, which I am sure will demand more and more of our attention and resources, and having in mind the social and economic ramifications of such a great program, I suggested that future governments might well give consideration to giving separate cabinet status to this important area of government responsibility. In this way the housing needs of our people and the economic influences resulting from an adequate program would be assured a strong voice in government, and would not be left to another division tagged on to another department as it is at the present time.
Now, I know the minister would like, especially if this is to be an election year, to have the public believe that all is well in housing under this newly developed Progressive Conservative socialist regime. The minister, encouraged by the Prime Minister, never misses an opportunity to make extravagant claims and try to create the impression that the Tories rescued the house building industry.
1430	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
What are the facts? In the past two years under this minister housing starts totalled
234.000,	while in 1955-56, the last two years of Liberal administration, housing starts totalled
265.000.	These are the facts, 32,000 fewer starts in the last two years under the Diefen-baker government. Yet, from the Prime Minister down, all government supporters have said during the past four years, from every platform where an audience could be found, that housing under the Liberal administration was at a standstill. If that be a proper description, then housing under the Tories in 1960-61 could be described as at a standstill minus 32,000.
Yesterday we had the minister pointing, as he has every right to do, to the employment resulting from housing, but on that basis there is a difference here of 80,000 fewer jobs. What better example could we find of a government misjudging the situation than to have housing, which is admittedly a good work providing program, grinding to its lowest ebb during 1960-61 when at one point over 700,000 of our people were looking for work? No amount of campaigning or campaign literature will ever get this government off the hook for such a blunder and miscalculation.
Let us examine the record further. First there was a frantic overstimulation of the house building industry by a nervous, inexperienced government, building the wrong houses in many cases for the wrong people in the wrong areas, a situation brought to the nation's attention by a prominent Canadian banker, Mr. Ashforth. This period, under the minister's predecessor, the present minister of external affairs, was described as a Tory housing binge; but following the binge comes the sobering up period, and that was handed over to the present minister which brought us to the greatest period of slack in house building, 108,000 starts in 1960, which served to aggravate the unemployment situation of 1960-61, the period of highest unemployment in our history.
Throughout this whole affair the ministry jointly must take the blame. We cannot accuse the Minister of Public Works of being solely responsible for this, not by any stretch of the imagination. The ministry talked and travelled and doodled. I just got the dictionary off the table a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, and I think "doodling" is the best description we can have. It says "an aimless scrawl while one's attention is engaged elsewhere," and I think this word is properly applicable to the ministry.
Under this government the period to which I have referred in the housing field has been one of the highest interest rates since the N.H.A. has been in effect. It has been a period of turning on and turning off the tap 

on mortgage funds. It has been a period of overstimulation of the house building industry, which resulted in higher costs through many inefficient would-be builders being artificially encouraged, and it has been a period of overpricing of land to keep pace with the overstimulation of the industry. It has also led to periods of slowdown. Without detracting from the number of houses built by this government during that period, may I say that in general it has been a period of high costs and uncertainty, a situation for which the government must take its full share of the blame.
I have one further observation to make of interest to Canadians. In their attempts to administer during this period, these self-styled champions of free enterprise in four years, have had to use approximately $1,500 million to support their on again off again housing program; while the former Liberal administration in an earlier period of greater economic buoyancy, with an extra drain on funds, was able to build a comparable number of houses and used only $100 million of public funds. Do you get the picture, Mr. Chairman; $1,500 million by the Tories and $100 million by the Liberals? What an example of Tory free enterprise.
Now, let us examine the present situation. After the war many small homes were built of the two bedroom style, but today the family which occupied one of these has grown and more space is required. The need for larger quarters is very real in thousands of cases across the country. The occupant of one of these homes is a prospective house buyer, but he is discouraged or unable to build or buy for several reasons which I would like to refer to briefly.
First of all, he is unable to get his equity out of the original house. Hence the need for extending N.H.A. lending facilities to assist him, and this is something we have been talking about on this side of the house for the past three years. There is another factor, and probably equally important, in that he is only paying 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent on his existing N.H.A. mortgage entered into during the days of Liberal administration. He is naturally reluctant to increase the size of the mortgage which under this administration would mean paying an increased charge of 6.5 per cent. In the back of his mind he knows that the present high interest rates are not necessarily permanent, and that is another factor. He remembers the lower interest rates of earlier days when the economy was buoyant and competition for funds was keen.
There is a further reason, and I believe a very real one. It is his lack of confidence and reluctance to take on added financial responsibility in view of this government's record

of failure to keep the economy rolling. We have seen a period of retrenchment, a recession, a slackening in job opportunities under this administration, and this is a matter of real concern to the prospective buyer when he is considering taking on new responsibilities. This government, despite increased spending and increased taxation, has not faced up to the unemployment problem, a problem which is worse in this rich young land than in any industrial nation in the free world. It is little wonder then that the prospective home buyer, despite his need for larger accommodation, is reluctant at the present time to take on added financial obligations.
The current year, 1962, without further encouragement may well be a year no better in terms of housing starts than 1961, which could be considered good only by comparison with the standstill year of 1960. We were naturally pleased by the government's effort to encourage the establishment of a secondary market for mortgages. The minister knows our feelings on this subject. For three years we have talked and argued about them in this house, and for the success they have had we are glad. If my memory serves me right something like $41 million worth have been sold. This is a small amount when we consider the amounts that are available, but when one considers the problem of disposing of mortgages at lower interest rates than those that have been disposed of, then one can have a fuller appreciation of the problem. Having taken this first little timorous step I think it is now time to give consideration to our second recommendation that envisages participation by small investors. This is something that we have talked about for a long time. I think it would have a very real effect in reaching the objectives that are so desirable.
We also noted with interest the reduction of one quarter of one per cent in the N.H.A. interest rate last fall. The minister knows our opposition to high interest rates and to the folly of his government's policies that led them to high interest rates, so he will understand me when I say that in regard to this one quarter of one per cent reduction, if ever the term "too little, too late" applied, it is here.
Last year saw another unfortunate development as a result of this government's policies and action. I refer to the Ontario sales tax. The committee will remember the scene at Massey hall, where our Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario stood arm in arm. The Prime Minister was introduced as the man who was going to give Ontario its just dues. When we look back to see what he has given Ontario; he has given that province a do it 26207-1-91
Supply-Public Works
yourself kit. Now Mr. Frost has gone, but the sales tax remains and is adding to the cost of housing every day.
I should now like to make a few suggestions, if I may.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I was just going to point out that the hon. gentleman was straying momentarily from the subject matter before the committee in the sales tax part of his address.


John Richard Garland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just about to make some suggestions. I make them without in any way trying to minimize or detract from the efforts of the government. I think the first matter that should be given consideration-I referred to it earlier-is the extension of National Housing Act lending facilities to older homes. I have referred to homes that have been bought relatively recently, but I am now thinking of those thousands of older homes-I have referred already to this matter and I apologize to the committee for referring to it again, but I think it is important enough to bear repetition-occupied across this country by elderly couples whose families have grown up and left. This is a great waste of housing accommodation. These people would be very anxious to dispose of their large homes and purchase something more in keeping with their present requirements. The problem, of course, is to finance the sale of these homes. I think there is room for great improvement in this field by the extension of lending facilities to older homes such as now exist for the construction of new homes. The present situation means a lack of sales and, the longer we wait, a lack of jobs.
I also suggest that the government give consideration to granting a rebate of the sales tax on house building materials used during the winter months. We not only have a problem of extremes in the financing situation in this country-the scarcity of funds and periods of plenty-but we also have extremes as far as the weather is concerned. I think anything that recognizes and helps to solve this problem would be useful.
I also return to another old complaint of this party. I refer to reducing or removing the 2 per cent premium which has been stubbornly clung to by the government to insure its own mortgages. This fund must be nearing $80 million. I think it was $72 million last year, and it would be about $80 million now. If that is not correct I am sure the minister will correct me. This may have been a necessary precaution in the beginning, but all it is now doing is adding about $300 to the cost of the average home.
Of course I should not let the opportunity pass without a plea for lower interest rates.
1432	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
The minister knows our views on this subject, and I am not going to delay the committee by repeating them now. At least we are consistent in this complaint; I am sure the minister would agree with that. I would refer the minister, for spare time reading, to the pages and pages of Hansard when his colleague the present Minister of Finance was on this side of the chamber, and to the outbursts from him to which we used to listen when there was an increase of perhaps only a quarter of one per cent. I remember that on one occasion the increase was one quarter of one per cent.
I should now like to say a few words about urban redevelopment and our hard pressed municipalities. The Canadian problem is not only to clear up slum areas, but as I see it it is also to prevent slums developing whenever possible. This calls for more planning, more land assembly, more municipal planning, more technical assistance. Here I return to where I began. This is the sort of thing that could be carried out even better with the full attention of a ministry of housing. This is a tremendous problem and as such it is a great challenge, especially against the background of the financial need of our municipalities.
I should like to refer to some public financing statistics published by the dominion bureau of statistics, which point out that in 1960 the municipalities incurred a net deficit of more than double the 1956 level; in 1956 the defiicit was $295 million and in 1960 it was $506 million.
The federal government contributes to the cost of blight areas only if the land is used for housing development. Often, however, a good, sound renewal project requires other kinds of development. A new Liberal approach would be to contribute to the cost of clearing land for any appropriate use and would include sharing the cost of renewing and improving basic services such as water, sewers and streets in the development areas.
The Liberal policy for municipal development would operate as part of a national development program. For the last four years the Liberal party has recommended the establishment of a municipal loan fund. This fund would be organized in consultation with provincial and municipal representatives. It would not conflict with existing sources of capital, and it would provide loans for sound municipal improvements of which the provincial governments approve but for which capital is unobtainable on reasonable terms from existing Canadian sources. These loans would create new jobs all across Canada.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Liberal approach in this municipal loan


fund program, in co-operation with the provinces, would provide money for municipal services and would do a great deal for housing in this country. We would increase the federal government's contribution to slum clearance; we would broaden the federal government's contribution to all kinds of urban renewal costs; we would provide special aid to municipalities and distressed areas; we would provide capital for rural redevelopment plans, and in co-operation with the provinces we would increase the construction of low rental homes.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. Fortin:: 
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis Fortin: Certainly.


Maurice Bourget: The hon. member just stated that a retaining wall was built at St. Nicolas and that the owners there did not want any. Did the hon. member really say that, because I do not want to put in his mouth words he did not say?


Louis Fortin: Many owners did not want any;
at least, that is what they told me.


Maurice Bourget: I must tell the hon. member that this wall was not erected under the Liberal administration, but rather under the present government. Moreover, the minister has on hand the requests from the property owners. Therefore, he can see that the minister did not show himself more generous to me than to others.


Louis Fortin: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), who had told his constituents that they had obtained that wall thanks to his efforts, should have destroyed in a few words what little credit he had claimed.


Maurice Bourget: I rise on a question of privilege.


Louis Fortin: The hon. member for Levis can do so when I have completed my remarks.


Maurice Bourget: I think the rules allow a member to rise immediately when he is being credited with remarks he never made. I never went to St. Nicolas to say that it was as a result of my efforts. The member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) is wrong once more.


Louis Fortin: I am happy to hear that. I know that he probably did not say that, and even if he had, he would probably have said something contrary to the truth because I am not sure that it is as a result of his work.

Supply-Public Works
In any case, I want to point out to the Minister of Public Works that even if some riparian owners asked that the wall be erected, I still think it was not needed at that place. I am convinced that it was throwing money away.
As for me, I am asking today for something that will be to the economic benefit of the district I represent. As I said, I have here the plans of a housing development that may number up to 300 or 400 houses.
At the present time, nobody will buy property for fear of erosion. That being the case, I am asking the minister to relieve unemployment which, fortunately, is not too severe in my constituency. I am asking him to assist in that development by giving consideration to the construction of a retaining wall even where it is forbidden by the regulations.
I am asking that the regulations be given a broader interpretation, so that just to save approximately $20,000, a project worth two or three million dollars will not be blocked.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet who asked the minister to have a retaining wall built in the district of Montmagny-L'Islet.
He also said that the previous administration had been generous to the former member for that riding, the then minister of northern affairs and natural resources, now premier of the province of Quebec. I believe that wall was justified since that part of the land in Montmagny-LTslet is located along the river.


Louis Fortin: Things have not changed.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to point out to the hon. member that I am not opposed to his request. Furthermore, if he would read my previous remarks in that respect he would find out that I wanted the minister to change the regulations, providing for the building of a retaining wall only when damage is due to erosion.
However, I find it odd that that retaining wall was refused the member for Montmagny-LTslet while the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) had one built on a river not used for navigation, which means that there was no justification for it under the regulations. I am wondering how the member for Montmagny-LTslet managed that. He let the member for St. Hyacinthe take advantage of his suggestions and have a wall built in a

non-admissible area according to the regulations while he cannot get one himself for land located along the river.
(Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as much as I respect my hon. friend, we have not yet reached the item relating to harbours and rivers. We are still on item 1. I appreciate that my hon. friend is answering a question, but could we not proceed with item 1? Perhaps if everyone has spoken on item 1 we could proceed with the other items.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, since when are we not entitled as members of this committee to say what we wish to concerning these items? Never in the 22 years during which I have been a member of this house has a minister asked any member to refrain from speaking about the items in the blue book. I feel I am fully entitled to speak to this subject and I believe the point of order raised by the minister is not a real point of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: It has been the practice in the committee to consider the first vote of any department as a catch all item. Accordingly it is difficult to restrict the debate within narrow confines. I shall not rule that the hon. member is out of order in view of the past practice.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to add one or two words to my reply to the hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet.
(Translation):
I come back now to the matter of the construction of a retaining wall at St. Nicolas. As I was saying, the hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet, who comes from Levis, knows the place very well. He knows that this part of the St. Lawrence river is the narrowest, the channel being only five or six hundred feet wide. Surely, if there is one place where the construction of a retaining wall is justified, it is at St. Nicolas.


Mr. Forlin:: The waves do not even reach
the land but stop at the beach; the hon. member should know that because we went swimming there together.


Maurice Bourget: I am not going to embark on a controversy with the hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet. But if he looks at the estimates for this year 1962-63, he will see another ground for my argument because there is a $70,000 item provided for the construction of a wall in a community of the Lotbiniere riding which, I think, is surely justified.

I certainly fail to see why the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet should say that the construction of a retaining wall at St. Nicolas is not justified.
That is all I had to say, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with the estimates submitted by the Minister of Public Works, I shall take this opportunity to fulfil an obligation on behalf of the people I have the honour to represent here, that is to thank him and his staff for the generosity and kind attention bestowed upon me each time I have had to deal with any member of public works personnel.
Through the co-operation of the departmental staff and with the approval of the minister himself, federal buildings have been built in my district. To begin with, a building to house the various services was provided in St. Hyacinthe. Post offices were also built in two of the most beautiful villages in my constituency. And one should not forget to mention the great many retaining walls which were also erected.
As opposed to what was done in the past, our political friends were not the only ones to obtain retaining walls along their properties.
Through the length of the village of St. Denis, for instance, as well as at St. Charles, we have put up retaining walls along all properties regardless of the owners' party affiliation. This was not done in the past. Just three or four weeks ago, I was glad to hear that, in the village of St. Charles, the department intended to complete the job by erecting a wall at those places still unprotected.
Speaking of retaining walls, and since my hon. friend from Levis, the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works, if I am not mistaken, has had his say in this matter, I myself should like to take a few minutes to refer in particular to the retaining wall at St. Joseph in Yamaska.
I must at once acknowledge the word of commendation extended to me by the hon. member for Levis for having obtained that which, he himself, backed by the minister whose parliamentary assistant he was, did not succeed in getting during the many years he held that post. But the whole truth of the matter must also come to light and the whole story should be told about what happened concerning this St. Joseph retaining wall.
Supply-Public Works
The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) must know or at least he should know that in 1939-40, a retaining wall was built near St. Hyacinthe to prevent the floods which used to cause damage in that city every year.
Under the act, there are two reasons for which a retaining wall may be erected: when erosion is caused by navigation or when it is due to the presence of a federal structure.
That is precisely what happened at St. Hyacinthe. The construction of a retaining wall on the city side resulted in the deviation of the Yamaska river thus causing erosion of the properties on the St. Joseph side.
The previous government never could understand the situation. That is why the present Conservative government whose characteristic it is to see things as they should be seen asked the Minister of Public Works to visit the site at my request.
I should like to say a few words also about the trans-Canada highway.
Anyone who is familiar with the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is aware that my constituency and the surrounding district are known as the "garden of the province of Quebec''.
Very few districts in the province have as good farm land as that area.
That is why when the Department of Public Works' estimates were under consideration last year, I called the public's attention to the fact that the provincial government, by the new route it was suggesting for the trans-Canada highway, was going to cut in half the finest farm land of my riding and of the whole province.
This point is most important if you consider that only 4J per cent of the whole area of the province of Quebec is suitable for farming.
That is why-and also because farmers asked me to make representations on their behalf-I raised this matter last year as 1 am doing now. In so doing, I feel that I am fulfilling my obligation to look after the best interests of my constituents.
Our farmers in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, more particularly in the parishes of La Presentation, St. Thomas d'Aquin, Ste. Rosalie, St. Simon and St. Hugues, have the best dairy herds not only in the area but, I would venture to say, in the whole province of Quebec.
I feel it is my duty, in view of the importance of agriculture, to bring the representations of my friends, the farmers, to the attention of whom they concern.

Supply-Public Works
In October 1960, a quick survey had been made, but the present government of Quebec, more out of spite than for any other reason, I would say, decided to disregard all that had been done previously and to adopt a new system. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the new route of the trans-Canada highway will not only force the people of St. Hyacinthe to travel an additional 15 miles to get to the heart of the city of Montreal, but it will cut the best land in my riding in two. I submit that, from the agricultural point of view, it is a shame to go through the best land of the province of Quebec in this way. So I am asking those who can bring common sense to that team now in Quebec-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The wonder team.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -to exert all their influence to have that wonderful district of ours protected, for in a few years from now, I believe it will be very difficult to develop those farms, because they will be bisected.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Ask for elevated highways over your lands.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are probably many other methods that the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who just made this interruption, probably does not understand, but which are nevertheless good.
Mr. Chairman, in order to show that I am not the only one to be conscious of that situation, I should like to read into Hansard a resolution passed by the municipal council of La Presentation, on December 4, 1961:
Whereas in St. Hyacinthe the opinion does not as yet justify the construction of the section of the trans-Canada highway and the completion of highway No. 9 with two lanes between the town of St. Hyacinthe and St. Hilaire.
Whereas the preliminary route of the highway affects about 20 of the best farms in the municipality of La Presentation since these farms would be completely disorganized as a result of the construction.
Whereas the municipality of La Presentation would be affected by a loss of value of such uneconomic farms.
Whereas our farmers need sufficient security and income to adequately practice their profession.
Be it moved by alderman Adrien Beauregard, seconded by alderman Philibert Poirier, and unanimously resolved that the municipal council of the parish of La Presentation supports the request of the taxpayers in connection with completion of highway No. 9.
That is the two lane highway between St. Hyacinthe and St. Hilaire.

Now, Mr. Chan-man, I should like to bring to the minister's attention some information which I received and which, is a cause of concern not only to myself, but to my fellow citizens as well.
With respect to the construction of the trans-Canada highway, in my constituency and in others through which the highway will run, so-called good patronage is at work. I understand that in the province of Quebec, there are two kinds of patronage: good patronage, that is the one practised by the "wonder team", and bad patronage, that is anything that does not come from the provincial government.
I made inquiries, and I shall prove in due course, with supporting evidence, that no one can work on the trans-Canada highway project without having his membership card with the Liberal association or without having been recommended in one way or another by the organizer of the Liberal party in the riding or parish concerned. I would ask the minister to look into the matter and see that the situation is corrected, because, Mr. Chairman, you will agree that it is not fitting that only a selected few be allowed to work on the trans-Canada highway. Recognition should be given here to the principle we followed for the construction of retaining walls and for other federal projects in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. On those projects, we never showed any preference because of political affiliation, we always employed anyone who wanted or needed work and we always relied on the local unemployment insurance office for labour.
I feel it is my duty to draw this matter to attention once again. If the present proposed route in the parishes of St. Thomas d'Aquin, La Presentation, St. Charles and elsewhere is adhered to, an agricultural abomination will be committed and future generations will not easily forget it. As I said earlier, only 41 per cent of the whole area of the province is suitable for farming and, considering the general industrialization which is taking place in Canada, legislators have a duty to ensure that every inch of farm land is preserved.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to challenge any of the assertions made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), but since, once again, he proved to be much less serious than we thought he was, it is my duty to set the facts in their proper light.

When the hon. member lor St. Hyacinthe-Bagot talks about patronage and pretends that membership cards are required before jobs can be obtained on the trans-Canada highway construction, well, I must say he is not serious. He is not serious, because if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot had evidence of all this, he had the opportunity of stating his case in this house today. But he has been relaying the assertions of the leader of the opposition in the Quebec legislature, and let me tell him today that he may rest assured that the shameless patronage which so often used to take place under the Union Nationale is now a thing of the past in the province of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have 20 affidavits or so to attest to what I have been saying.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) examined yesterday the items we are being asked to approve by the Minister of Public Works for 1962-63. That examination was made in the minister's presence and he did not in any way question the accuracy of the figures quoted by the official opposition critic for that department.
It is obvious from that analysis of the facts that the department is not taken seriously and that it does not play its part in the difficult situation we are in at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, those departmental estimates are being decreased at a time when over-all government expenditures have reached astronomical figures.
That examination has definitely shown that we now have a second government orphan. The Department of Labour was one and there is a second one now, the Department of Public Works. The first to suffer from this state of affairs are the thousands of Canadians who have been suffering from a shameful unemployment situation for the last four years.
I have no intention of going into details about the problem of unemployment but, as it is directly linked to this department, I will just mention some figures that were published in La Presse on February 16. I quote:
Unemployment Insurance:	601,200 people registered at the end of 1961.
And further on:
The benefits paid out totalled $29,400,000 in December. They stood at $20,900,000 in November.
Supply-Public Works
What else but inaction, neglect or misjudging of the situation would explain the fact that the expenditures of that department, which totalled $220 million in 1958-59, were reduced to $203.8 million in 1959-60?
What else but unconcern would explain the fact that in 1960-61 we were asked to vote $195.9 million, another decrease in, the estimates compared with those for the previous year?
Yesterday the hon. member for Levis made this comparison which is much more eloquent than any speech. If we do not take into account the expenditures for the construction of the trans-Canada highway-statutory expenditures that can increase or decrease according to needs-we find that those estimates of $195.9 million for the fiscal year 1960-61-that is a year of unemployment and want-were in fact only $7.9 million higher than those for the year 1956-57, a year of prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, what explanation is there for the fact that for the next fiscal year, 1962-63, there is a decrease of $463,343 in comparison with the previous year? What explanation is there-


Jacques Flynn: That is quite an argument.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, that is quite an argument except for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who is certainly blindfolded and buries his head in the sand in order not to see the truth.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member sings to himself; he is telling himself stories.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: How can that be reconciled with the fact that during the last two years of Liberal regime, in 1956 and 1957, there were more housing starts across the country than during these last two years of Conservative administration? And at this point let me quote the following figures: for 1955 and 1956, 265,000 houses; for 1960 and 1961, 234,000 houses, a decrease of 31,000 houses. Represented in employment figures, that means 80,000 less jobs than in 1955 and 1956.
Well, Mr. Chairman, one wonders- (Text):


David James Walker: Does the hon. member want an answer to that at the moment?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Oh, no. The minister had an opportunity to make a speech explaining

Supply-Public Works everything, but instead of making the speech which he should have made, his was only a childish effort. He did not give us the accounting of his department that he should have done. He may have the opportunity later on to discuss this and comment on it. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, one wonders-


Louis Fortin: If you are not afraid of an answer, sit down and listen.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: One may wonder whether Conservative members, the Minister of Public Works and his colleagues from the cabinet are aware of the people's urgent needs-or is the Minister of Public Works not taken seriously by his fellow members of the cabinet.


Lionel Chevrier: That is obvious.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I just quoted some figures according to which in 1955-56, that is in a year of prosperity, more houses were started than during the last two years, where, because of the economic difficulties we experienced, we should have gone ahead in that field. But the Minister of Public Works was not up to the situation.
(Text):
In fact we are wondering what he is doing. We can ask ourselves who does he think he is? What does he think he is paid for-to sit tight in his big chair all day long and do nothing? The minister has even forgotten the promises of 1958.
(Translation) :
That attitude of the Minister of Public Works is found again in an extraordinary statement he made, as reported by the Toronto daily Star of September 13, 1960, and which indicated an unexplainable irresponsibility. I hope that the minister will not tell us that he was misquoted. The title of that statement is:
(Text):
Public works poor way to make jobs: Walker.
Federal public works minister, David J. Walker, said last night it is uneconomical to construct public buildings to fight unemployment.
"We can only justify the expense of any such building if Canada needs it," he said. Public works for the sake of providing jobs he termed "one of the most expensive ways" of creating employment.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I say this shows only too well not only the attitude of the Minister of Public Works, but that of the government.
However, there is a thing for which I give the Minister of Public Works full credit, and that is his frankness. But he will understand if I disagree with him.


Mr. Chairman, if the unemployment situation is alarming today-and we know it is- I submit that we should all make an effort to lessen the hardships resulting from such a situation. I believe that all departments should tackle the problem and resort to every possible means, long term and short term measures, and we know the Department of Public Works could take some short term measures which would partly relieve the unemployment situation. But that statement of the Minister of Public Works indicates that he and the government do not care to spend the necessary amounts to check unemployment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As for us in the Liberal party, our policy is well known. We are ready to pay whatever it will cost to put back to work Canadians who are unemployed. And it is easy to note the difference between the attitude of the present government and that of the Liberal party. We are consistent and we have the right to speak here, for during the years when we administered the country-*


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There was unemployment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -unemployment only
stood at an average of 2.8 per cent for the ten year period extending from 1946 to 1956.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Order, order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It so happens that this average was equivalent to full employment.
Mr. Chairman, at the request of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), who does not like to hear about unemployment, no more than his colleagues, I will leave this subject-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since we are now considering the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I believe that an hon. member is not entitled to start a discussion on unemployment. Unemployment is an altogether different thing from the estimates of the Department of Public Works and I submit that we should stick to the consideration of the estimates now before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, my opinion is that the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) was not dealing with the unemployment situation as a whole, and that he was fully entitled to discuss the subject since the Minister of Public Works himself dealt with it during the course of his remarks yesterday. I therefore believe that the hon. member was fully entitled to speak the way he did.

(Text):
The Depuly Chairman: I am referring to the minister's statement on page 1376 of Hansard earlier today, when I was dealing with a similar point of order. In that statement he said, among other things-and I am not using his exact words-that house building had provided so many man years of employment. To that extent, by way of analogy I am sure the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is in order in dealing with this matter.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, I want to be fair with the minister. If his department lacks enthusiasm, vision and ideas, I am not ready to put upon him alone the burden of his failure.
When a man has done everything he could, when he has reached the limits of his capacities, his failure is noted but the blame cannot be cast upon him.
We must be fair. It may be that the Minister of Public Works, having been connected with the courts of law for many years, could have been an excellent solicitor general. It is not his fault if he is not in the right place at the head of the Department of Public Works. I believe his outbursts of temper, which sometimes hide arrogance, should be forgiven. I think he rather deserves our sympathy and that we should attempt to assist him, for the sake of everybody.
I should like to say a few words on the trans-Canada highway as part of the joint projects. Yesterday, when the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) had the floor, some Conservative members raised the question of joint programs. They tried to show a difference between our stand now concerning those joint programs and the stand we had in the past. Well, I wish at this point to put on record a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) which was published in Le Soleil of November 7, 1961:
The Liberal leader said he thought the federal government should withdraw from joint plans of a permanent nature. That suggestion applies especially in the field of social security.
Upon ending its financial participation in those programs, the federal government should compensate the provinces by giving them more room in the field of direct taxation and by adding equalization in order not to increase their financial burden. Such a system does not mean however that the Liberal party will not put forward in the future any new joint program, but it means that those new plans, if they require a permanent and rather regular expenditure, will not be in effect for more than five years before being handed over to the exclusive control of the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, having read that statement of the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to read also into the record a sentence from the speech made by the present premier of 26207-1-92
Supply-Public Works
the province of Quebec at the federal-provincial conference last year. That quotation may be found on page 35 of the proceedings of that conference. I quote Mr. Jean Lesage:
In our opinion, this situation has become undesirable. The existing joint programs have played a stimulating role in the economic and social development of the country; in several cases, they have supplemented provincial initiatives. But these programs are now sufficiently well established on the provincial scale to enable the federal government to cease taking part in them and to vacate these fields. The federal government should be prepared to accept this request. Obviously, in such a case, it would be necessary to compensate the provinces fully for the additional financial responsibilities assumed by them. This financial compensation should take the form of additional taxation rights specifically reserved for the provincial governments and of correspondent equalization payments. If this were done, each province would be free to use its revenues as it sees fit in the fields of jurisdiction that belong to it.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that our position has now been made clear, as well as that of the government of the province of Quebec, about those joint plans.
I should like to add this. It is quite obvious that for those works or undertakings of a national character, we must consider both the constitutional aspect of the situation and the public welfare.
No one will deny that a trans-Canada highway was essential to this country, that such a project involved provincial problems and that it could not be undertaken otherwise than on the basis of federal-provincial cooperation. That is my view, as it has always been. There is nothing new in the fact that when those plans are set up they must in no way be permanent, and that the sooner we get out of them the better.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to draw the conclusion that naturally evolves from the consideration of those estimates by saying this. The government is not taking this department seriously. It does not give the Minister of Public Works, in the present circumstances, the important and essential part that should be his. And finally, it is quite obvious that the government has no plan nor any specific policy to solve the economic problems we are now facing.
(Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member-and I will only be very brief and will not trade insults with him-the actual total expenditures in the Department of Public Works for 1955-56 to 1956-57 inclusive averaged $82.1 million; for 1956-58 and 1960 to 1961 inclusive they averaged

Supply-Public Works
$204.7 million. No matter how you insult or exaggerate, the figures speak for themselves.
In housing it is the same record. If in 1960 and 1961 the figures were not as high as before, it is because in the two years 1958 and 1959 they reached the enormous and astronomical number of 164,632 starts in 1958, and in 1959 the figure was 141,345. As a matter of fact I have gone into those figures before to indicate that the housing under our administration so far exceeded the housing under the Liberal administration that it is only an hon. member such as comes from Maisonneuve-Rosemont who would even have the audacity to get up and compare the figures. No matter how he uses that virulent tongue of his and no matter how he dishes it out, the departmental figures do not lie and they speak for themselves. Is it not about time that we had an end to all this nonsense?


Mr. McFarlane:: First, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on the excellent showing that has been made in this past year. I would be very remiss if I did not also pass along my thanks to the officials of the department for their assistance during the year.
I should like to support the hon. member for Kootenay West in what he had to say about the contentious question of sewage disposal. At the present time this problem is not too serious in my area but with the expansion that is going on I can see that within a very few years we shall be facing the same situation. Likewise, I should like to mention my support for a southern trans-Canada highway. This will be classed as our number two highway. We have just about completed the first highway and with any luck it should be opened this year. What we need now is a trans-Canada highway running through the southern section of the province of British Columbia.
I should like to bring the minister's attention to some of our problems in British Columbia; they may be a little different from those which have been raised so far. I realize that British Columbia is not too popular a province at the present time-


David James Walker: It is with this government.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: We are going to make some changes. Our problem at the present time has to do with flooding conditions, and I will begin at the top end of the constituency of East Kootenay. East Kootenay has generally been considered as the lost lamb of the province of British Columbia; it was too far from Victoria to be considered, and it was too far away from Ottawa to be known about. My difficulty at the present time is to present the facts about the needs

of East Kootenay and bring them to the attention of this committee. First I should like to begin at the northern end of the district where we have a flooding problem. It is in the municipality of Golden, which is steadily expanding. The village of Golden is situated on an ancient flood plain or small delta, mainly built up from materials brought down by the Kicking Horse river to its confluence with the Columbia river. It consists of firmly packed coarse gravel overlaid by a thin mantle of silt. As such, in an area with limited land suitable for building purposes, the delta of the Kicking Horse river has become a valuable townsite building area. On the other hand, the Columbia river, north and south of Golden flows in a swampy silt filled valley, where the waters easily seek new channels and courses. In the environ of Golden the river maintains a permanent position along the rim rock of the west side of the valley. Though this advantage exists, making it possible to build a town at Golden, the condition is in delicate balance. During the three months of summer freshet the Columbia spills over its channel on to part of the townsite, and the water table rises over a large area to an undesirable height.
Flooding in this area has become periodic in recent years and the situation is gradually becoming worse. The main cause would appear to be the influence of the Kicking Horse river upon the free flow of the Columbia river. The alluvial deposits, mostly pebbles and round rock up to six inches in diameter, spill into the Columbia and have built up bars and shoals for several hundred yards downstream. This action has slowed the free flow of the river so that the Columbia is filling its channel with gravel and silt above the confluence with the Kicking Horse river.
Another factor which congests the flood waters of the Columbia in the environ of Golden is a narrow reef of bed rock which crosses the river a few hundred yards below the Kicking Horse junction and which outcrops on the east bank of the Columbia in the form of a small obstructive island.
We have made several recommendations to the departments concerned, both federal and provincial, but so far we have not been able to get any government to accept the responsibility for alleviating this flooding condition. I have with me today a brief submitted by the people of Golden. We are asking for the assistance of the government, and the question that arises is: which government is responsible? Is it the provincial government, is it the federal government or is it both? I feel it is up to this government as the senior government in the dominion of

Canada to take the lead in this matter and, if necessary, to put it on a fifty-fifty basis. Let us do this so that the people in the area can be assured that they are not going to be flooded out year after year.
A similar situation exists in the village of Athalmer further down the Columbia river. Streams running into the Columbia bring down shale and rocks, and have built up the river to such an extent that in some cases the water is actually running up hill. This can easily be seen. The people in this area have built up a certain amount of equity in their homes, businesses, motels, and so on, and the problem today is to prevent the flooding which threatens the existence of much of this property each spring.
I am going further down the valley, and we now come to the Kootenay river. Similar flooding conditions are encountered there, especially where the Goat river runs into the Kootenay. This government is very interested in the Kootenay because it will be part of our power project as soon as the necessary arrangements can be concluded.
I have brought up these three points as a matter of interest and I should like to ask the minister if he will consider taking action on a fifty-fifty basis. As I said earlier, I believe we should take the lead in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. I notice that a proposal has been made to spend approximately $63 million this year on a flood control program around greater Winnipeg and that the federal government is to pay approximately 60 per cent of the cost. A similar plan was undertaken a few years ago when Vancouver was experiencing flooding difficulties. Many millions were spent in order to control these floods. It seems to me that although the large centres are provided for, the smaller centres are not being given the consideration to which they are entitled.
I do not think there is anything I should like to add at the present time. I should be pleased to discuss this matter either with the minister or with his officials to see whether this problem can be approached in such a way that the people of this area can be assured that their land, their property and their belongings are not going to be washed out during the freshet season. I have received numerous letters from the department in which it is claimed that this is not a national emergency. Believe me, when a man sees his home and his business going down the river he knows it is a national emergency for him.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in answer to my hon. friend who asked me to reply may I say this. As this is a municipal and provincial question-and I am shocked to think they have provided no relief up to the present 26207-1-92i
Supply-Public Works
time to my hon. friend's area-there is no possible way in which the Department of Public Works could intervene.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to compliment the minister on being such a nice, co-operative gentleman with whom to deal during the years he has held his present office. At the same time I think the minister is a complex fellow. We have had two exhibitions of his complexity within the last week. The first was on television the other night. The program was thoroughly enjoyed by everyone I spoke to who had seen it. The second demonstration was the performance we witnessed in the house yesterday. As a result I find it almost impossible to understand why, when he is such a capable fellow privately, the minister must try to make a public idiot of himself.


Mr. Caron:: And succeeds.


Murdo William Martin: The minister appears to have a split personality. His schizophrenia is so extensive that I have known him to privately apologize for public insults.


David James Walker: That will be the day.


Murdo William Martin: In any event I do not think I should pursue this subject or I shall be guilty of indulging in the same language that the minister used yesterday, which I do not think is in the best interests of the discussion in this committee.
Yesterday he attempted to drown the committee with figures. He attempted to lay claim on behalf of the government for every house and building constructed in Canada by federal governments, provincial governments, municipal governments, co-operatives, school boards, credit unions, private citizens, and so on. In view of his television performance I would not be surprised if the minister had a count made of all the beaver houses built last year in order to place a value on them and claim them, too. I do not wish to take away from the minister any credit of which he is deserving. I am perfectly willing to admit there has been a marked improvement in his department, particularly compared with his record during the first year he served in that portfolio. Speaking in this house at that time I remember pointing out that the minister regretfully did not follow the excellent example of his illustrious predecessor in the department. The first year there was a considerable falling away and I am pleased to see the minister is now attempting to take up the slack. I think it would be advantageous if he were to spend less effort patting himself on the back and more energy attempting to determine what remains to be done.
There are three matters in which he should take more interest in the future than he

Supply-Public Works
appears to have taken in the past. The first is the shameless exploitation of labour in the housing field, especially that coming under his jurisdiction. There has been a shameless exploitation of immigrant labour.
I fully realize that the minister and government members may say that a large part of this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is true but the fact remains that in the public mind and in the eyes of the people involved the federal government is responsible and will receive the blame for it. People consider that because these houses are being built with the taxpayers' money the government must assume some of the responsibility and manifest a keener interest to ensure that these conditions are corrected.
Another aspect of this problem has been brought to my attention as it affects my own and other ridings where people building houses through various means are attempting to evade the responsibilities which our society requires employers to assume. Instead of letting out contracts, some are attempting to evade responsibility such as that of providing for workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance and so on. Again in the eyes of the public and those concerned the blame is laid squarely at the door of the minister and the government. Even when you explain the federal government is not directly involved, people take the position that it is federal government money that is being expended and the government should ensure that these conditions do not prevail. This will reflect on the federal government until the minister shows more interest than he has in the past.
Another way of looking at it is this. If the minister wishes to take credit for every building constructed in Canada he will also have to accept the responsibility and blame arising from any problems in the construction field.
Another matter in which the minister should express more interest is that of the calibre of the housing being built across the country particularly when public funds are Involved directly or indirectly. There is a growing list of complaints in this regard. People are becoming increasingly critical of the calibre of material being used in buildings. They do not want the building to collapse before the mortgage is cleared off.
On two occasions, through the present minister and his predecessor, I have had to call for investigations into public housing built with public funds in my area. On both occasions while the construction appeared to meet minimum standards I can assure the minister the people blamed the federal government and were far from satisfied with the calibre of materials.

It is significant that although the minister had extended time yesterday to present his estimates neither of the points I have raised was mentioned during the course of his remarks.
A third matter deserving more attention is that of slum clearance. No mention was made of present or future plans in this field. The minister outlined the department's plans for the construction of public buildings, post offices, harbours, bridges, and wharves across the country but gave no indication of recognition of the problem of slum clearance let alone mentioning any plans to deal with it.
With that in mind I wish to read from the daily Star of June 3, 1961 an article entitled "Ottawa Should Lead" which accuses the minister of doing little more than lecturing the municipalities in this regard, and knowing the minister that is perhaps a correct assessment. The article reads:
Scoldings don't clear any slums, not even when the scoldings come from Canada's public works minister himself.
In Halifax this week, Mr. David Walker complained that Canadian municipalities were "not making nearly enough progress" in getting rid of slums and halting the spread of blight. He said that Ottawa offered "generous assistance" to the municipalities for these purposes, but the municipalities weren't making full use of it.
Then it goes on to say:
But the municipalities know from experience- for example, Toronto with Moss park-that being offered this kind of assistance is one thing: actually getting it is another. Because Ottawa has a big financial commitment in projects of this nature, Ottawa tightly regulates them and is painfully slow to approve them-if and when It does, In fact, approve them.
The proof of this legislation, as of any other, Is in what it accomplishes. For all the years that slum clearance and public housing have been on Ottawa's statute books, scarcely anything has been done to clear slums or to build public housing. (For the last ten years, construction of public housing in Canada has averaged fewer than 800 units a year.)
The trouble is not just in one quarter, but all along the federal-provincial-municipal line-too little in the way of leadership; too much in the way of governmental and intergovernmental complexities.
As for leadership, it should come mainly from Ottawa, which is the main source of money and authority in this field. Rather than rail at the municipalities, let Mr. Walker rally them to the cause of self-improvement.
I have spoken on many occasions in the house about the blight of slums on our society in every city and town in our country, and I do not intend to go into the details at this time. But I should like to point out once more that slums are responsible for enormous costs, for crime, social problems and degradation for fire traps, sickness, unemployment and additional welfare costs. Until such time as the federal government really takes the lead in this field and gives some leadership

to the provinces and municipalities in the form of a long term program we will not have met the problem. It is no use just taking one area, tackling the problem, meeting it there and thinking the job is done because while you are doing that slums are growing up all around you. This is not something you can do once and forget about it. It is a long term project. That is the only way the problem can be met, and the costs involved would be more than offset by the savings in other fields if and when the problem is met. Before the debate ends I hope we will hear something from the minister with regard to this field. I think he would be much better advised to spend his energies in this field rather than in a back-patting exhibition such as we saw yesterday.


Mr. Henderson:: First of all, I should like to compliment the minister. He is one of the best we have ever had at Ottawa. He has done a great deal for the region from which I come. The people there did not know anything about housing until he became the minister but now we are getting plenty of houses. Let a Liberal, a Social Crediter or what have you run in my riding and he will see what the people who live there think. The minister has done a real job. We have a suburban development with good houses and people are living in the houses they really want.
But that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about a road to provide means of communication for one of the most beautiful towns you ever saw, the town of McBride. The town nestles against the Rocky mountains but there is no road out. There is a highway six miles away which stops abruptly. I have spoken to the Department of Public Works and tried to get some action to have the road finished. Thousands of people live in that beautiful country, one of the richest parts of Canada. I hear talk about the countryside around Ottawa and in Quebec. You have not seen anything until you have seen McBride. The people are prosperous but they are cooped up against Mount Robson. Any of you who have traveled west by the C.N.R. know that the train stops on the way through the Rockies so that the passengers can look at the mountains and the guest camp that has been there for years. It was there when I was a child.
There are ranches in that area, plenty of timber and beautiful dairy farms. When you get a chance to go west you should take a look at McBride. People from the United States are coming in there. We Canadians seem to be asleep because the Americans are buying land there. There is an influx of settlers from the United States at the present time.
Supply-Public Works
As I say, it is magnificent dairy country but we need a road so that people can go to Edmonton or through to Prince Rupert. I am not going to waste the whole afternoon talking about this matter. I hope the minister will take a look at the situation and see that we get a road, because we need it badly. Talk about Newfoundland, Ontario or Quebec; here is a wonderful place, but without a road- and you have got to have roads in that country. You cannot go through there with an automobile at all. Forty years ago work was being done on the railroad but there has been no advance so far as a road for automobiles is concerned.
When I first came here I thought I would have no trouble getting a road. I have not succeeded yet, but I am not going to waste good time by talking all afternoon because the minister knows the problem and I am sure he will do something for us. As I say, he is the best public works minister we have had for many a day.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister some questions which he can answer when he replies. First of all, I should like to ask him if there is any chance in the immediate future of a reduction in the interest rate on N.H.A. mortgage loans. When the minister announced the reduction from 6J per cent to 6i per cent he put on record the amount of the saving to the home owner paying off a mortgage.
I maintain that the mortgage rate is too high at the present time and I think the minister will probably agree with that. However, I believe he said yesterday that mortgage money was being obtained at a reasonable rate. When the Minister of Finance and other members opposite were in the opposition I have a vivid recollection of hearing them lament in long speeches in the house about the high rate of interest on N.H.A. loans when the rate at that time was in fact 5| per cent. When the rate was increased to 5| per cent they really became frothy about it. They claimed they were speaking for those people who were paying on mortgages, the little man who was paying off his mortgage.
Members of the government party patted the minister on the back when he reduced the interest rate from 6J to 6J per cent. Under the former government by far the great majority of N.H.A. mortgage loans were made at 5J per cent, but under this government the great majority have been made at the rate of 6j per cent over a 25 year term.
I might say that the mortgages carrying a 5J per cent interest rate were for a term of 20 years.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on item 1 and mention what we regard as an urgent problem in Canada, the need for community growth. We believe that there must be a responsible and well conceived national plan which will help municipal development. It would appear, sir, that some years ago the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Diefenbaker, felt this to be of importance.
I have been checking back on some of the statements that were made in 1957. The Globe and Mail of April 26, 1957, quotes Mr. Diefenbaker as saying:
We cannot face complacently the fact that we have rising tax bills, rising debt both provincially and municipally.
In his opening campaign speech on April 25, 1957, one of the arguments which he made was:
We believe there can be no national unity in this nation until there is a realization that the federal-provincial matters have handcuffed the provinces of this nation; have denied the municipalities adequate sources of revenue; have placed the provinces and the municipalities in a position where they cannot discharge their constitutional responsibilites.
Then, on April 26, 1957, a Canadian Press report in the Winnipeg Free Press indicated that Mr. Diefenbaker pledged to work out new tax sharing arrangements with the provinces which would strengthen Canada's federal system and give provinces and municipalities the funds to carry out their responsibilities.
Probably there is no area of government labouring under greater difficulty at the present time than our municipal governments. We all know that there are plenty of useful things waiting to be done in this field. I live in an old part of Canada which was developed many years ago. It is along perhaps what could become the most beautiful riverfront in the world, with a community extending pretty well from Kingston to Cornwall, all of which was developed in the very early pioneering days. With some sort of assistance much could be done to improve living conditions in that part of the country, particularly at a time when we have an urgent unemployment problem.
Mr. J. J. Deutsch, speaking on Canada's economic problems in the winter edition of the Queen's Quarterly mentions the fact that the first half of 1961 indicates an average rate of unemployment of about 7.5 per cent of the labour force. It is clear from this article, and other articles published by economists, that during the past five years the Canadian labour force has grown twice as rapidly as in the preceding five year period. These are conditions which this administration has to face, and the problems are not going to end there
Supply-Public Works
because the projection appears to indicate that the expansion in the Canadian labour force over the next five years will be equally as large as in the last five years, and here to compound the problem is automation.
If you are really serious about recovery, and we believe recovery can take place with foresight, thought and direction, then serious attention must be given to the problems of municipal governments as well as those of provincial governments. This seems to be a need which is quoted by a great many publications. The Listening Post of February, 1962, which is the organ of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, asks a question which I think would not have been asked a few decades ago, perhaps not even 10 years ago. Its editorial is titled "What will the federal government do about municipal borrowing" and it says:
In the fulfilment of this need-for public transit, water supply, sewage disposal, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, recreation facilities and the renewal of blighted areas in the central cores of our cities and towns-there exists one of the greatest potential opportunities for increasing the employment of Canadian plant capacity and Canadian manpower in the years ahead. Surely, in any well-conceived government policy, one of the nation's primary efforts should be focused on such basic programs of development in our cities and towns.
The editor of the paper indicates that this would of course be beneficial to all segments of the nation's economy, and it is sound and responsible, particularly because it is largely self-liquidating. He speaks of borrowing being "an indivisible responsibility" and says:
The chief obstacle to community development is not the reluctance of senior governments to make outright grants to local authorities. It is the lack of co-operation among the three levels of government in examining together the whole range of their capital requirements and in arranging the necessary borrowing.
It is the problem of paying. How are these municipalities going to pay for the things we know should be done in each of our towns and cities in Canada, and which can be done with a little bit of help? What these municipalities are asking for now is the full and continuing co-operation of the federal government in mobilizing the capital needed for such works, and that is why the comments made from this side of the house are so germane to the growth problems facing the local municipalities.
The N.H.A. amending legislation relating to sewers is the kind of thing for which we commend the minister and his department. We know this is important and we can see the results of it in small towns and cities. However, this major step in the right direction has got to be extended to cover a good many
1446	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
other basic needs such as roads, subways, bridges, water supplies and conservation projects. It is not a policy of handouts which is being sought. It is the mobilization of capital as a national responsibility and this is the place where we must make this demand understood and known.
It is the attitude of the Liberal party that loans from a municipal loan fund in Ottawa would create new jobs all across Canada and will help to get our economy moving again on sound projects. The improved community services which we need are largely the responsibility of the municipalities and most of our municipalities have adequate plans for further development. In the area which I represent we have the community of Westport where it would be of great benefit to have better dock facilities. The city of Brockville, the town of Gananoque and the village of Athens all have plans for water supplies, schools and so on, and these projects could be implemented if there were a possibility of these municipalities borrowing at some advantageous rate.
In my riding I have been concerned to see that we have not used the winter works program in the fullest sense that might be possible, but I And it is simply impossible because the municipalities are stretched to the limit in their expenditures and cannot go beyond them.
The January, ,1962, edition of Local Finance, which is published by the Canadian tax foundation, a wise and helpful organization for citizens who are interested in better government has an article dealing with "The changing pattern of responsibilities". It says that what were once thought to be municipal responsibilities are no longer thought to be simply that. This article indicates that most of the essential local services which originally were the responsibility of local governments alone can no longer be precisely defined, and that government action in response to an increasing public demand for more government services and for better standards of performance for existing services has served to obscure the division of responsibility between governments.
When one studies what local governments do today in their executive and administrative problems in fire protection, law enforcement, street lighting, public works, streets, bridges, roads, sanitation, waste and in many health services and social welfare agencies, and add to that the obligations of education and recreational facilities and the problem of debt charges and utilities, their appropriation reserves for all the contingencies that are necessary with respect to uncollectable taxes and accounts receivable and property acquired for taxes, we see the great burden


placed on this level of local government in country and urban places in the provinces.
Referring to the winter, 1961, edition of Queen's Quarterly, and an article called "Urban Communities" written by Stewart Fyfe, the author talks about the expansion of the urban community, which is of course the principal reason why there has been this great increase of debt on our local governments.
Inevitably we see new demands on municipal government to provide new services and to raise the standards of existing services. We see the growth of our communities, a growth beyond the boundaries that existed five or ten years ago. In the United States the complexity and scale of the problems of urban growth have brought suggestions that the federal government establish a department of urban affairs. While suggestions have been made in Canada that the federal government should devote more attention to urban problems, there has been no suggestion of such a department being established. That is why we look to this genial and dedicated minister to solve these problems. He has told us of his efforts and interests and we have evidence of this. We know that this is the department and the place where we must properly raise these demands before the country.
We have to take a new look at urban development. We know that if real action is to be taken to improve this unemployment situation, it has to be done with the assistance of Ottawa; it is not enough simply to pass it on to the provinces.
A few days ago I was speaking to a man who had considerable experience of unemployment in the 1930's. He was discussing unemployment in the 1930's and comparing it with the situation today. He said that one of the great cushioning effects that we have in the 1960's to a serious unemployment situation-which has become aggravated, particularly in the last two years-is the fact that with our system of unemployment insurance people do not travel, and therefore we do not have them riding freight trains and hitchhiking across the country in one manner or another. We do not find, therefore, the long queues of men gathered for assistance and relief, because they are kept and contained in their own areas.
However, if we had something like 719,000 people last year, and 609,000 a few days ago looking for work-and we know that in our own areas this work problem is very serious-then surely this is the place and the department to whom we must look for assistance with respect to an expanded public works program.

I have found it difficult to believe that in an area as wealthy as the one I have the honour to represent,-from Cornwall to Kingston-we have pockets that are serious indeed with respect to the extent of unemployment. The unemployment situation in Cornwall is perhaps a special case, but it is frightening in its size. Prescott is very, very bad when we consider that the average unemployment last year was over 800 people in a town of that size. I would indicate to the committee, sir, that the unemployment figure reached 15.5 per cent of the population.
Gananoque is one of the most attractive little towns in the country, and yet we have had an increasing unemployment situation. It has increased regularly from 1959 to a degree that is alarming, but at the same time there are many things that need to be done in Gananoque and the local government knows what these things are.
We see even with this somewhat stagnant condition of our economy the "awesome appetite" as it has been described, of the towns and cities. The author J. Campbell Merrett takes a look at urban development in "Canadian Chartered Accountant", volume 78, 1961 and speaks of the wanton wastefulness of agricultural land, the deplorable destruction of rural amenties and the unnecessarily expensive servicing of municipal undertakings.
This problem must be dealt with, and there is no place where direction and guidance can be given better than from this particular department in a broad sharing of responsibility and effort. We look to this department for that quality of leadership.
I was reading on the microfilm a few moments ago an article in the Financial Post of September 13, 1961 entitled "Are we really trying to get rid of slums." S. L. Buckwold, who was president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, argued a very strong case in 1960 before the Senate manpower committee and said that city planners and officials agree that N.H.A. is not nearly generous enough; that all major Canadian cities and many towns are suffering from a condition of "suburban sprawl" and "centre town blight". This problem could well be given more attention.
Our Minister of Public Works said at that time, as reported in the Financial Post of September 30, 1961:
I do not think enough use is being made of the very generous provisions of the N.H.A.
I wonder whether the minister can now report a more favourable use of the provisions of the N.H.A. Are these provisions sufficiently generous, or is the judgment of Mr. Buckwold correct when he says they are not?
Supply-Public Works
Mr. K. Grant Crawford, in a study on the aspects of provincial-municipal relations says this:
-With increased financial assistance from the provinces came increased supervision and increased direction. .. They-
He was speaking of local municipalities:
-have seen that ever increasing provincial contributions will mean loss of local control and at the same time have been forced by their financial plight to make persistent appeals to the province for more and more assistance.
I think there is a genuine concern on the part of some of our municipalities right now lest they become too dependant upon provincial governments. They want to grow; they want to develop. They have at their helm and in their local councils, I know, some of the best brains we have available in our communities. Sometimes it is easier to get a good man to serve on a municipal council than it is to have him run for provincial or federal office. We have many competent, able and dedicated people prepared to give hundreds of hours in the year to thinking out wise developments at the municipal level, but they need assistance.
Mr. Crawford says:
To accomplish these purposes the municipalities must not be merely agencies of a higher level of government-
That, sir, is not what we are suggesting at this point.
To resume the quotation. The municipalities-
-rather must have ultimate responsibility within their sphere of jurisdiction and must have a sphere of jurisdiction sufficiently broad to make them seem significant to the citizens and thus attract into public service competent men and women in both elective and appointive offices.
I must say that over the past number of years we have seen excellent local government in the areas I represent. I know that these people have given earnest thought to development and improvements. I hope they can be encouraged by the kind of assistance at the federal level which I have suggested.
Mr. John Pratt spoke about Canada's centenary in an article in Maclean's magazine recently. He said: Let's clean up our littered countryside. He was referring to what Canada might hope for, and he suggested that there was nothing better we could do than to clean up our towns and cities and beautify this country.


Mr. Jones:: It is usual to refer to hon. members by their constituencies.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: The
hon. member for Saskatoon has drawn attention to the point that has bothered the chair this afternoon, that is, that hon. members

Supply-Public Works
from both sides of the committee have been referring to other hon. members by name rather than by their constituencies.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point of order, the point which has been raised is a correct one; it is the practice of the house to do that, but it is also the practice that when an hon. member wishes to raise a point of order he does so by rising in his place and not sitting down as the hon. member for Saskatoon has just done. I think Your Honour should have taken notice of that.


Henry Frank Jones: On that point of order, which is absolutely spurious in view of the continual interruptions which are made, usually from the Liberal ranks, by hon. members always speaking from their seats, with the exception of this last intervention, may I say that the question raised had to do with whether or not members should call other hon. members by their names or refer to them by their constituencies. That is the point I raised, and I think it was a proper point.


Mr. Howard:: Before you proceed to deal with this matter, Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the hon. member for Saskatoon use the word "scurrilous"-


Henry Frank Jones: I am afraid your hearing is not too good. It was "spurious".


David James Walker: Honi soit qui mal y pense.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon for calling attention to the fact that the author of this article is a member of parliament. I was reading from Maclean's magazine. It was an excellent article and I was thinking of the author not as a member of this house but, rather, as an able journalist. The article says that we might well-
-devote the next six years to cleaning up. putting our house in order, and establishing the necessary routines that will ensure that our country will ever after remain one of beauty and cleanliness.
To this, I subscribe.
One thing which can help toward the beautification of an area is the presence of suitable public works, and we look forward in the town of Brockville to the federal building, provision for which I find in these estimates. I thank the minister for the co-operation and the courtesy extended to the opposition member for Leeds by his department and by some of the kind and helpful members of his staff.
The importance of this building to our community is very great. Architects have been doing things in Canada which give us hope that there may be a revitalising of many of our cities. The federal building at Brockville
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave) .1
is to be built on a location which might well be called a gray area of the town. It is something which could alter and change the character of our new city. It will bring with it a great deal of neighbourhood pride. Margaret Fullerton has written recently on "the new amenity" in the Canadian Architect of September of 1961. She speaks of the importance to a community of a building the size of the federal building which we are anticipating, as well as the importance of a park area. We are fortunate that through the recent beneficence of the Hon. Arthur C. Hardy we are to have a beautifully landscaped piece of open space on the river. We are expecting this proposed federal building at Brockville will alter the face of an older area of the city. Perhaps, seeing that a general election may not be so imminent as was once thought, there may be an opportunity in the spring or summer months for the minister to forget politics and come on down to the most beautiful waterfront in Canada, and travel with me by boat from Gananoque to Brockville and look at the parts of our community that lie along the shoreline and form a picture of all the tremendous things which could be done there.


Mr. Regier:: You have not been in Burnaby.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would join us. We would certainly like to see him there, too.


Erhart Regier: I do not intend to be very long Mr. Chairman. However, I am a little disturbed to note that the total proposed expenditure outlined to us in the estimates of the Department of Public Works reveals a decline exceeding $4 million.
I should like to think that this government would use, as one of its instruments of stabilizing the Canadian economy, the Department of Public Works. We still have a regrettably high measure of unemployment in our country. Economic activity needs every stimulant we can possibly find at this time. I feel this is the wrong time for a government to reveal a decline in expenditures in the field of public works. I believe that this department is one of the most important instruments the government has at its disposal to regulate the economy. At a time of business expansion I believe a decrease in expenditure on the part of the Department of Public Works might well be warranted. However, at a time when our economy is either declining or stagnating, I believe that an increase in the expenditures of this department would serve a very useful purpose. In the light of the willingness of the government to incur huge budgetary deficits I cannot understand why the estimates now before us should indicate an expenditure less

than the expenditure of a year ago. I believe, as I said before, that a decrease in the proposed expenditures of the department as a whole is not, in existing circumstances, in line with the best interests of our nation. I noticed the very limited proposals in regard to public buildings. I recommend to the minister that a careful examination be made of the rentals being paid by the federal government for buildings owned by private individuals or corporations. I do not recommend that these necessarily be replaced by new buildings but I do know of a few instances where the interests of the government and the taxpayers would be well served if the existing premises were purchased upon expiration of the leases that now obtain. The government is paying fantastic rentals in ever so many cases and the interests of the taxpayers are not well served. The possibilities of purchasing existing premises or erecting new buildings ought to be explored. I believe the problem I now raise warrants the appointment of a special investigator, if necessary, to carefully review each and every instance where the Canadian government pays rent.


David James Walker: May I ask the hon. member a question? Could he give us some instances of exorbitant rents? Otherwise I would respectfully suggest he should withdraw.


Erhart Regier: No. With deference to the minister I have the right to express my opinion in the committee without the minister asking me to withdraw what I have stated as my belief.


David James Walker: I ask the hon. member to state facts.


Erhart Regier: I will give the minister the facts.


David James Walker: Go ahead.


Erhart Regier: Let the minister investigate the rental the taxpayers pay for the post office at Port Moody. It is one of the highest rentals paid on a square footage basis by any business in the country.


David James Walker: How much is it a foot?


Erhart Regier: I will not bother the minister with the details.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: The minister has resources at his command by which means he can obtain the information.


David James Walker: More socialistic bluff.


Erhart Regier: I happen to know the rental. I happen to know all the details.


David James Walker: Let us have them. Put them on the record.
Supply-Public Works


Erhart Regier: The minister is not doing the taxpayers a service when he asks me to involve the committee in a controversy because hon. members of the committee do not know the local situation and would not be competent to determine whether the rental is economic or uneconomic. This government ought to buy that post office or as an alternative build one. The owner of the post office-


David James Walker: Is a friend of yours?


Erhart Regier: -is willing to sell but is also happy to continue to accept the extraordinarily high rental to which this government is committed.


David James Walker: Words, words, words.


Erhart Regier: It is a reflection on the efficiency of the federal government. However, this government is not initially to blame because the agreement was arrived at by the previous administration. This government inherited the situation.


David James Walker: It is not our fault then.


Erhart Regier: I have repeatedly called the attention of the government to this particular situation. I will not give another example because I have other things to say. The minister asked for a specific example and I have given him one. I know the minister has good intentions and is patriotic, and will investigate this situation. I will be proved right or wrong.
In dealing with harbours and rivers I have difficulty distinguishing between the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Works and his colleague the Minister of Transport. I may be completely out of line in saying this. I notice there is a division in the minister's department called the harbours and rivers engineering services. I am happy to note that within recent months the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for External Affairs-I hope the minister can spare a moment to listen to the complimentary remarks I wish to make-have lent a sympathetic ear to the proposal that an engineering survey be conducted to determine the feasibility of a canal being built along the ancient river bed of the Fraser to connect the Pitt river to Burrard inlet. I know that representations have been made to the minister in this regard by a number of his colleagues one of whom has given great assurances to the citizens back home.
I do not wish to publicly endorse the canal project which lately has been labelled the Kilmer canal. Miss Jane Kilmer was my opponent representing the Conservative party in a recent federal election. I admire her integrity and the useful service she has rendered the people of my constituency for

Supply-Public Works
many years. I wish her continued success in her efforts on behalf of the community as a whole. I know that many years ago a close relative of hers first proposed the canal. We have had assurances that the federal government is prepared to undertake an engineering survey in line with the recommendation of the Fraser river board in 1945 indicating such a survey might well be warranted.
I speak for people of all shades of political opinion when I say I hope this request that has been made by so many organizations in the constituency will be taken seriously. This is not a political football. If the canal is proved feasible it will be of tremendous benefit to the province of British Columbia and particularly the lower mainland.
I hope the minister after adequate consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who knows every road if indeed not every little alley in the area, will ensure that the feasibility of this project will be explored and that we will have a feasibility study and a detailed and scientific report. I am not advocating that a specific sum be spent on the canal. I am not prepared to endorse this project but I do feel that the potentialities are so great that the minister should heed the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and make sure that a full engineering report will be available very shortly.
In the matter of housing I noted with interest yesterday the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton South when he spoke on these estimates. He referred to activities under the National Housing Act with regard to limited dividend housing. We regret that in British Columbia there has been practically no action. As a matter of fact, I believe I can safely say that within the last three or four years there has been no action whatsoever under this particular section of the National Housing Act.
The basic reason is obvious. The permissible returns to the investor are below the earnings that can be obtained by the purchase of government bonds. I happen to be involved in housing in our province and I have had a number of regrettable experiences where a lot of housing might have been constructed if we could have interested individuals and corporations in the limited dividend housing section of the act. The limits that now prevail under the terms of the act are such as not to encourage investors to take any interest in this aspect.
I should like the government to reconsider this matter carefully. I do not like high interest rates and in principle am opposed to them. However, when the government offers

bonds that yield a higher return than an investment under the National Housing Act which involves a certain degree of risk and returns a maximum yield lower than that provided by bonds, I believe that the government might be warranted in reconsidering the existing legislation.
There is another matter I wish to raise. I notice there is an additional vote with respect to water supply for Churchill, Manitoba. When we are spending the taxpayers' money on this project I hope that the installation of the new services will be of benefit to the citizens of Churchill generally and not merely to those in the military camps in that area.
So far as the national capital commission is concerned, I ought to be the last person in the world to advocate that citizens be limited in their right to self-determination. I am not now speaking for my party but only for myself. I am afraid my own personal conviction is that, in the light of the heavy contribution made by the taxpayers of all of Canada and considering that the city of Ottawa belongs to all Canadians, the local civic administration has shown itself repeatedly as being so thoroughly incompetent that the government would be entitled to take a very close look at the situation to see whether or not, in the interests of national pride and in the interests of protecting the investment in their national capital being made by the taxpayers of Canada as a whole, it might be advisable for the government of Canada to establish a department or commission to operate the civic affairs of the city of Ottawa. I have been in many cities of Canada and I have yet to see a more disgraceful civic administration.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: That is utter rot.


Erhart Regier: Look at the snow situation and the potholes. There is a lack of civic responsibility. You only have to read the press to become aware of the goings on at the local city hall. It is a disgrace to Canada. While I say again that I ought to be the last one to advocate such action-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: You certainly should be.


Erhart Regier: -and while not advocating at this time that the government of Canada move in on behalf of the people of Canada, I do say that the local situation can stand real consideration because obviously those who administer the affairs of Ottawa are more interested in their local petty parish pump politics than they are in developing a capital city of which all Canadians can be proud.


David James Walker: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, it is only because it is five o'clock that I do not reply to the outrageous attack by the hon. member on the city of Ottawa.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the Representation Act (Title changed from "An Act to amend the Representation Act and the Canada Elections Act").


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly and leave a thought with the government with respect to this bill in the light of the discussion we had yesterday. There was some thought expressed yesterday that perhaps the powers of the chief electoral officer were sufficiently broad to allow him to make the necessary appointment of additional election clerks and other officers without the necessity of making a specific amendment to the Canada Elections Act. I find that the only such power of this sort is contained in section 5, subsection 2 of the Canada Elections Act, where specific and extraordinary powers are given to the chief electoral officer. I would point out that he can only exercise those particular powers to appoint additional people after the election has been called. I think that the vast area covered in the electoral district mentioned in the bill before us, would make it clearly impossible to conduct an election with any degree of efficiency and provide for these people, if the necessary steps could only be taken during this period between the calling of the election and election day.
There is one other point I should like to leave with the government. The proposed clause 4 in the bill which preceded this one, and which sought to amend the Canada Elections Act, made reference to the delegation of authority. At the present time there is no such authority in the Canada Elections Act.
Canada Elections Act
I pass these thoughts along and perhaps we could get an indication from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) as to whether or not the government has looked further into this matter, and whether or not we could expect a resolution and bill introducing an amendment such as that which we had to delete yesterday.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The matters of law to which the hon. member has referred are within the knowledge of the government. We are consulting the law officers of the crown with respect to them, but we have not yet received a formal opinion. I would not be surprised if a layman's opinion woud be just as correct as a written, legal opinion would be. If the opinion is as suggested, then the government will have to give careful consideration to the action it will take if this bill is to be implemented. It appears to me to be the desire of all hon. members in this house that the bill shall be implemented.


Frank Howard: Will the minister permit a question before he resumes his seat? Can he indicate whether or not discussions have also taken place with the chief electoral officer, because I think he would have intimate knowledge of his responsibilities and the possibility of implementing the bill before us.


George Clyde Nowlan: There have been no discussions, so far as I know, with the chief electoral officer, although I think possibly Mr. Speaker may have been in touch with him with respect to the ruling he gave yesterday. He is, therefore, fully conversant with the circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Erik Nielsen: May I just impose upon the good nature of the house for a moment to express the gratitude of all northern residents in these two districts for the fine cooperation of all members of the house in seeing that the franchise, which for many years was denied, has been finally granted to these northern Canadians.
Bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to amend the Canadian Elections Act (Age of voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the house has been so agreeable on three separate occasions now to extending the franchise to a group of people who live in the northern part of the

Canada Elections Act
country, that I am quite sure it will be equally agreeable in giving passage to this bill in order that another group of people in the country may have the franchise extended to them. I am talking of that group of people who are between the ages of 18 and 21. The bill before us has the one principle of extending the right to vote in federal elections to citizens in the country who are 18 years of age and over.
This matter was raised by me-I do not say this was the first time it was raised-during the time the standing committee on privilege and elections was considering amendments and revisions to the Canada Elections Act in 1960. It was in that committee in May 19, 1960, that the proposal I made then, the same one as I am making now, was considered and defeated by a vote of 8 to 2. Subsequent to that, in the same session of 1960, when the bill was reported from the committee, we moved a procedural motion on third reading with the clear intent of providing the right to vote to people of 18 years of age. This amendment did not receive the support of the majority of the members of the house. The Liberals voted with us on that occasion, even though they had voted against us in the committee.
The members on the government side supported the contention advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it was not the appropriate time to extend the franchise to people of 18 years. At that time the Prime Minister made an interesting comment or two which I should like to quote. I find this on page 6279 of Hansard for July 14, 1960:
I think it is one of those things that might very well be studied in detail by a committee at a subsequent session of parliament,-
He also said:
In a subsequent session I will join with hon. members in giving the membership of the house an adequate opportunity to fully explore all the considerations relative to this question:
Now, I quoted those words, Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of a bill identical to this which was dealt with at the last session and debate upon which was entered on February 14, 1961. There were five other members representing the other two parties in the house, in addition to myself, who spoke on the bill. None of them objected to extending a franchise to people of the age of 18, although there was some slight disagreement expressed and some reluctance indicated about whether or not 1961 was the appropriate time to proceed with this measure. I do not intend, because I do not believe it really helps, to go into these specific objections which were raised. I feel they are relatively minor compared with the basic principle of the extension of the right to vote to people who are 18 years of age.

Some of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, have a voting age which is less than 21, notably my own province of British Columbia, which some time in 1954, I believe, extended the franchise to those 19 years of age. The adjacent province of Alberta also has a voting age of 19, while Saskatchewan has a voting age of 18. The bill which is before us now seeks to establish a voting age of 18. I suppose as between 18 or 19 one could make an equally effective argument, depending on which age one chose. I am not adamant that it must be 18 years of age, but the basic principle is that it should be lowered to take into account certain factors which exist at the moment and which have been developing in Canada, as in other countries, for some time.
In 1960 during the hearings of the committee on privileges and elections there was placed a tabulation on the record at pages 323 and 324, a tabulation prepared by the chief electoral officer from material contained in the Statesman's Year Book of 1959, indicating the number of countries which have voting ages which are less than 21 years. It also indicates that there are some countries which require that persons be older than 21 years of age before obtaining the right to vote. The tabulation extends from 18 years of age, as is the case in the province of Saskatchewan and the states of Georgia, Kentucky and Alaska, to 25 years of age as required in the Netherlands. However the majority of countries place the age at 21 years.
I do not intend to make specific reference to each country listed in the tabular form. That information is readily available and I am sure the Statesman's Year Book for the years subsequent to 1959 would bring that information up to date.
These are some of the reasons why I think we should extend the franchise to those aged 18 years. First, over the last few years-and this has been greatly intensified since the start of world war II-there has been a great change in the form of communications both within a country and between countries. This has been due to the advent of television and radio, and with the placement in other countries of representatives of news service agencies we find that normally on the day which various political events occur in other countries we know about them here. They come to our attention as adults, and persons who are 18 years of age also know about them.
Then too, during the last few years-and I hope this will continue-there have been more opportunities for people to acquire a higher education. There have been more opportunities to proceed further in school and in formal education than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. Also there is the other factor of

the attraction to individuals to leave school in order to work in industry at fairly decent wages. There is the attraction for them to marry at a younger age and I believe all these factors tend to make our 18 year old people more mature and give them a better understanding of political and sociological matters than was the case a number of years ago.
Sometimes one hears the argument that a person aged 18 years is not mature enough to make a reasonable or mature decision with respect to voting and might be misled by a variety of factors, and thus not be able to make a mature judgment in so far as the party he or she should support is concerned. However, we sometimes find that age and maturity are not necessarily connected. I am sure most of us have run into individuals who are 25, 30, 35 or 40 years of age who have cast doubts on the maturity of individuals in those age groups. It is true, however, that if we talk about young people aged 9, 10 or 11 years then there is some validity to the argument about their ability to express a mature judgment on matters such as this.
That is why I said earlier that I am not particularly tied to the age of 18 but selected it arbitrarily, the same as the age of 21 was selected arbitrarily and is now a sort of arbitrary determination. The impact of greater educational opportunities, the participation by younger people in our economic life, their participation in the married state and in a variety of other things all bring them a better understanding of political and socio-economic matters. Therefore I believe they have a sufficiently sound ability to judge and vote. It would be a correct thing to recognize these factors and to recognize that here is a group of people which, to all intents and purposes in a general way is contributing to a large extent to our economy, to our tax structure, is concerned with activities in the House of Commons and participates in political matters to the extent that it is able to do so. The way to recognize the group is to extend it the right to vote in federal elections when its members reach the age of 18 years.
I believe this bill, if it receives second reading, should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections, as was indicated by the Prime Minister. Of a former occasion he indicated that and said he would support such a motion at a subsequent session. Apparently the last session was not the subsequent session to which he referred. Perhaps this is the one he means, and I would be glad to have it referred to the committee in order that an opportunity might be afforded to people who are interested in this matter to appear before the committee and
Canada Elections Act
express their views so that the committee can evaluate the question itself, can assess the body of public opinion that exists either in favour of or against it, and report the bill back to this house after it has been given careful consideration.
As I said earlier, the house was so agreeable to the bill which preceded this one, extending the franchise to people who heretofore had been denied the right to vote, that I would point out this bill does substantially the same thing except that it is not a geographic extension. It is an age extension and I hope the house will be agreeable to giving the measure its support.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, when we were examining the Canada Elections Act, I supported the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who, at the time, recommended that the voting age be reduced from 21 to 18.
I could add that the platform of the Liberal party provides for such a reduction in the age of voters.
However, I disagree slightly with the member for Skeena who said a while ago that the age of 21 had been chosen arbitrarily. That is incorrect. At the time, that age was adopted because 21 is the age when a person becomes legally of age and can act on his own and for himself.
The reason we are now recommending that the voting age be reduced to 18 is that young men of that age are liable to be enrolled for the defence of their country.
They risk their lives and yet they have no choice about it. They do not even have a word to say about decisions which could cause them to die prematurely.
Consequently, since they can be enrolled at the age of 18 for the defence of their country, they should have the right to decide on their own what they should do.
Some will say that the voting age for our force members is 18. That is true. Members of the active forces are allowed to vote at 18.
It is precisely because they can be enrolled and because, at present, only their elders can take definite decisions in that connection, that I feel they should have the right to vote. Since they can be the victims of such decisions, they should at least have a part in them.
This does not mean that everything will change.

Canada Elections Act
Some may feel that young people are not mature enough to decide how to vote. I recall what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) used to say when the matter was brought up: "At the age of 18, being from a Conservative family, I was a Conservative; upon reaching 21, the age of reason, I became a Liberal".
But that is one case. I know that the majority of young people, today, have had much more schooling than those of 21 and over had 10, 15 or 25 years ago. Today's youth is better informed because of television and newspapers, which fill modern homes. Nowadays, the young people are much better prepared to play their part in the community at 18 than people of my generation were at that age.
Well, for all those reasons, we can support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Skeena. I think the Liberals will be happy to support this bill and specially to send it to the committee on privileges and elections, so that those who have representations to make can put them before the committee and thus better inform the house.
(Text):


Walter Clarence Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this bill a year ago and I was in favour of reducing the age limit for voting to 18. I believe that when I was 18 years old I was just as good a man as I am now, and I was a good Conservative.
In our country, where they work big machinery, a boy does not wait until he is 21 to run a tractor, a combine, a big disker or anything like that; he is up on them when he is 16 or 17, and when he is 18 he is a mature man. Many a time I have been by fields and seen a boy of 18 driving a big combine. They are raised for that.
We are living in a different world altogether to the world in which we were living when I was a kid. My father probably would not let me go in the barn when I was 18; he was afraid that I was just a big kid and I would get hurt. But now I can go anywhere. In the army I met numerous boys 18 years old and younger, and they certainly should have had the vote. They were just as good when action started as the fellow who was 21, and a lot better than the fellow who was 35 or 40, whose nerves had been hurt by his wife or something like that.
As I say, I am in favour of this age limit being reduced to 18. If young people are not smart then, they never will be smart. We get
[Mr. Caron.)
all kinds. We get many who should not have the vote-we know that-but we cannot make a distinction here or there.
I am going to end my little talk by saying I am in favour of people voting at the age of 18. I think they will do as well, and if a war comes along-and the clouds are loaded with that-a young man of 18 will be one of the first to be called up and he will have to say his piece.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have given a great deal of thought and consideration to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and I am inclined to support it. I am going to spell out the reasons why I support it. One cannot help thinking that age 21 is an archaic age limit that was set in times gone by when it was thought that at 21 a person was of mature age and could make decisions. In our law of contract right now a person under 21 years of age can enter into a contract, which he or she can repudiate upon reaching maturity. They are considered minors in the eyes of the law until they are 21 years of age. Unless they are 21 they cannot enter into a contract of sale without there being the risk of their repudiating it upon reaching maturity. However, I believe that the right to vote cannot be put in the same category as the right to enter into a contract.
The age at which the right to vote is given varies in different countries. As the hon. member for Skeena has mentioned, in Holland it is 25 years of age. Apparently the Dutch feel that a person is not mature enough to make political decisions until he is 25 years old. In Denmark it is 23 years of age, in Turkey 22, and in Costa Rica 20, but it is 18 if the person is married or is a school teacher. Apparently in the eyes of those people marriage gives a person a certain maturity.
In many other phases of our life 18 is considered a mature age, and in this connection we cannot help but think of our marriage laws. In most of the provinces-I believe in all the provinces; I know it is the case in Manitoba-a female who is 18 years of age can marry without the consent of her parents. Marriage, apart from the fact that it is given a certain sanctity by the church, is a contract; a young man or woman enters into a contract to love, honour and obey and take the other partner for better or for worse, often for worse. Many marriages of young people have proven very successful; many have been more successful than the marriages of those of a more mature age. The marriage contract is a contract of which society approves. These young people take

on the parental obligations of raising a family and they are considered mature enough to do this. A young man and a young woman are mature enough to renounce their freedom by joining with each other in a partnership and living together.
There is another profession where a person is considered mature at 18. I have in mind the teaching profession. We do not hesitate to engage a teacher, male or female, when he or she has reached the age of 18. We do not hesitate to entrust our children to their care. We trust them not only to educate our children but also to mould their characters. Our departments of education do not hesitate to grant them certificates whereby they are qualified to teach in our schools. The responsibility of a teacher is a great responsibility. If we adhered to the old, archaic idea that no one is mature before the age of 21, we would not trust these young men and women with the care of our children. But there are thousands of these young people teaching in our schools today and doing a mighty wonderful job at that, raising Canadians to become good and loyal citizens. Proper guidance from them supplements the education which the children receive from their parents.
I think of something else. Our young men and women graduate from universities at a considerably younger age nowadays than they did in my time. My daughter graduated when she was 19 and thousands of men and women graduate from universities at that age with honours and degrees. Could they be considered as people whose judgment is so immature that they cannot make up their minds what party to choose or what party to vote for? Are they not mature enough at that age to use correct judgment as to the various platforms or policies submitted by the political parties in this dominion of ours?
One is led to think that we are depriving these people of a right to express themselves by saying that regardless of intelligence and regardless of mental maturity the only yard stick shall 'be the age of 21. One of the speakers who preceded me mentioned military service. I am in complete agreement with what he said. If a young man is old enough to accept command or to give commands, to understand discipline or to understand the cause for which he fights in the defence of this country he is, I believe, mature enough to be granted a vote. I realize that as the law stands those who are serving in the armed forces have the vote. But in time of crisis 18 is the age at which we draft young men into the army. Eighteen is the age at which we accept them as volunteers. The age of 18 is however, according to our present
Canada Elections Act
law, the age at which a young man or woman cannot use good judgment in deciding on the issues of the day.
It is interesting to note that a number of South American countries have a lower voting age. That is not popular in Europe. As I have already said, some European countries such as Holland, hold on to the age of 25 as being the age at which a person can vote. But Bolivia, Venezuela and Mexico all permit people to vote at the age of 18.
Speakers who preceded me have mentioned the fact that there are three provinces in Canada which have lowered the voting age from 21. But taking it all in all there is another argument which I would advance in support of my contention. The young Progressive Conservatives and, I believe, the young Liberal associations have on many occasions considered resolutions to request their parties to lower the voting age. In the limited time I have had at my disposal I have not been able to find any record of resolutions in the past, but I know this is in the minds of these young people, and I think it is nothing but fair.
I know there are others who wish to express their opinions on the subject and therefore I am cutting my remarks short.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In
the idea of an earlier voting age I can find little flaw. The argument against it seems to follow two lines, first, that 18 year olds are erratic and in secret communion with far leftists or worse, and that though they are able to use logarithms, count down space missiles, have babies, make pills and fly jets they do not have the acumen, the perspective or the judgment to make a choice among political candidates-that is, unless they have already volunteered to be shot at, whereupon we give them the vote.
We allow these young people to go to jail in Canada but not to the polling booths. They cannot, it is said, make legal contracts but has anyone heard of the Department of National Revenue turning away an income tax return because it is signed by an 18 year old? In one democratic domain where the fires of freedom seem to us to burn as fiercely and gleam as brightly as they ever did, men heaved tea chests into the sea six long generations ago precisely in defence of this principle. "No taxation without representation", they said, and away went the tea chests.
It is said that Canada's 526,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 21 and her 511,000 young women between the ages of 18 and 21 are radical. Good. Anyone who means to make anything of life ought to be radical at some time. What finer, gayer, more wonderful time

Canada Elections Act
is there to be radical than when you are young? I believe that 99.9 per cent of the world's advancement has been brought about by people who would not conform because they could not conform.
What is a radical? Most people some of the time and some people all of the time define a radical as a man or woman who does not agree with them. Suppose we use softening words, that instead of radicalism we speak of youth's erraticism, instability, wobbling, immaturity? Who can say that immaturity automatically ceases and maturity begins on one's twenty first birthday?
In between the nuclear tests what are the marks of 1962's adolescents? No trimming and no trembling; devoid of timidity and baseness; tremendous when they are right and even more tremendous when they are wrong, as they occasionally are, not yet having reached the safety first or guaranteed existence; still free from fear and gain-those old perverters of mankind.
In the United States it is said that every young American is born a Democrat and stays that way until he acquires a mortgage, whereupon he becomes a Republican. Nothing gives a sense of responsibility like being made responsible. Eighteen year olds marry, have babies, pay taxes, go into the army, share in the costs of government, share in the duties of the state, but do not share in the rights so long as they are denied the vote.
Mr. Speaker, the prosecution rests.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to participate in previous debates on this and similar bills both in the house and in the privileges and elections committee when this question came under scrutiny at the time when that committee reviewed, and in my opinion greatly improved, the Canada Elections Act a few years ago. I am not going to take up much of the time of the house today because there are several other hon. members who wish to record their views and who have been deprived of an opportunity in the past.
It seems to me that the usefulness and value of the discussions during the private members hour has been illustrated in an important way. Following my remarks and submissions in previous debates, my contributions being far less eloquent than those of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat although generally along the same lines advanced by the hon. member in his arguments today, I received a number of phone calls and letters and had a number of discussions.
Having supported the principle of this bill, as I said, I was confronted by an argument which I found very difficult to refute. If this bill does go to the committee I hope the single

point I am about to raise will come under careful scrutiny. I also hope that hon. gentlemen who follow me in this debate will address themselves to this question.
I have reference to the incidence of automobile accidents and the risk attached to the driver of a car under age 21, and the reflection of that risk among that age group not only in the accident rate but in the insurance rates that are charged. While this does not support the proposition it is a factor in the argument which has to be confronted and answered.
I have not had sufficient time to pursue this matter as I would like to, but I am given to understand that the number of accidents and the corresponding insurance rate is much higher at the age which the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring this bill proposes to establish as the voting age.
I am reluctant to go beyond that. I will only repeat that this argument has been raised and I have not really been able to effectively refute it. I feel that consideration should be given to it in any future action taken along these lines.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the bill this afternoon I realize, as one who is over age 21, that we who are addressing ourselves to this question do not wish to give the impression that we are speaking of the "haves" as opposed to the "have nots". I must say that when I was considerably younger I would have viewed this bill with a great deal more enthusiasm than I do today.
In the last 25 years or so we have seen agitation for this change in the voting age. Some of the provinces-and only the provinces-have acceded to the request to make changes allowing people under age 21 to vote. It might be instructive to inquire into the motives of those provincial administrations that have made this change. I think we should get to the bottom of this. One of the points we must consider in determining whether a person should have a right to vote is that this is a right, a privilege. I think all hon. members will agree that a right implies a responsibility. There is no such thing as a right without a corresponding duty or responsibility. If there is a right to vote there must be the responsibility of the exercise of that right.
In certain parts of Canada in certain types of elections there is a notorious degree of disinterest on the part of the electorate. The voting age in the province of Alberta has been lowered to 19. It would be most illuminating to know just what proportion of the age group between 19 and 20 exercised in the provincial elections the right that was

given them as a great boon and bounty. I would put it to hon. members of this house, that from my observation they were somewhat less active in exercising their right than were those of a more mature age. We also know that in municipalities voting is still limited to those 21 and over. I stand to be corrected if necessary in what I am about to say. I do not know whether a property owner under the age of 21 would have the right to vote as a burgess, but I would be of the opinion that the overriding qualification of the age of 21 would apply.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made one point with which I agree fully, that age does not equal maturity. Certainly we will agree with that because we know there are some people who at the age of 16 are quite as mature in their approach to affairs of a public nature as their neighbours who may be double that age. There is an old adage that there is no fool quite like an old fool. Yet one must arrive at a dividing line somewhere. What is it going to be? Is it to be the yardstick of age?
I will be the first to admit that this yardstick may not be the most perfect, but before we seek to make a change I suggest that we must find a better yardstick and at the same time one that must be practical. It might be suggested that an intelligence test might be a better yardstick for voting qualification or possibly a test as to awareness of public affairs. But just how would you administer such a test so as to qualify people?
I thought the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) developed an argument which I cannot let pass. He stated that because young men and women may be inducted into the armed services at the age of 18 they should have the right to decide whether they should be brought into the armed services. We know that once they have entered military service they are entitled to vote, but I submit that this is a concession to or derogation from the yardstick of age that we have adopted in view of the fact of military service. It is not a concession to the reasoning that the median age should be 21.
To get back to the argument of the hon. member for Hull, I think we could say quite easily that as parents we make very serious decisions which affect our teenage children. Sometimes they object; but is it ever suggested by anyone of serious mind that such decisions within the family should be based on a majority vote, including the vote of teenagers? I think we would have a rather difficult time. I know some of them might like it but we do not accept it as a normal course of conduct.
I think we have to come back to the overriding principle that within practical limits
Canada Elections Act
we are trying to determine what shall be the median age. As I indicated before, this may not be the most perfect way, but I submit to hon. members that in advocating a change it must be a change for the better, and I wonder whether one can say that a change in the voting age would bring a greater awareness of public affairs and that as a result we would get better administration. I seriously question that.
There was something said about young people today being much more aware of public affairs than young people were a generation ago. I submit that is entirely a matter of opinion. I have attended many functions in some of our schools. I have heard young people talk on matters of everyday life and I do not think this generation is any better in that regard than its predecessor or those who went before. They are still interested in those things which, frankly, do not come within the scope of public affairs on which they would vote.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I adopt the attitude that we must have a yardstick. In the light of experience the yardstick of 21 years of age has proved to be reasonably good. It certainly ties with the legal concept of majority, and unless one can find cogent reasons that will give us definite advantages I do not believe we should change the voting age. I am sorry, but at the moment I do not think I can support the bill.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, no one is more conscious of the fact than I am that in speaking against the bill I am laying myself open to the certain criticism that, as an old man, I want to maintain the status quo. Those of advanced years are always open to that accusation and I face it in advance.
I should like to use the words that were used by the hon. member who just took his seat because he expressed what is in my mind. The mover of the bill referred to the age of 21 as arbitrary. I was on the point of asking him if he thought that was an entirely fair statement having regard to the fact that it is presumably in line with the age of 21 being the age of legal liability and to that extent it is not wholly arbitrary. It is a basis and, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, there should be cogent reasons for changing it. As it has been accepted for years and we have got used to this state of affairs, I think it is reasonable that we should ask that there should be cogent reasons for making a change.
The only member who seemed to me to come anywhere near giving cogent reasons was the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris). He had a very tidy, neat and well worked out

Business of the House argument that dovetailed quite well but I rather thought that in his final words his argument had an American flavour. The thing that is difficult to face is the fact that we do take men in the army at 18 but to some extent at any rate their case is covered by legislation. While there is no one who has better reason to know what those between the ages of 18 and 21 can do in wartime, nevertheless it seems to me that the tests which should apply are quite different. Gallant fellows from 18 to 21 do things that nobody else could do and do them partly because they do not bother with questions of judgment. They do not look before and after. They have a headlong attitude toward life which has been very valuable to this country but which would perhaps not contribute to the exercise of balanced judgment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. I see it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for Monday and Tuesday, if the acting house leader can so indicate?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to indicate to the house that on Monday and Tuesday it is proposed to deal with legislation. Looking at today's order paper, the first matter with which we will deal will be No. 3, that is an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Then, having concluded that, we will proceed with No. 4 on today's order paper, and then having concluded that we will proceed with No. 5 on today's order paper. Having
concluded that we will proceed with No. 9 on today's order paper. I am speaking now, Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of dealing with these matters both on Monday and Tuesday because of the proposal to deal with legislation on both days. These matters will be dealt with, so far as I know now, subject to any unexpected change in the order in which I have called them.
Then, if time permits, we may deal with No. 10 on today's order paper, a resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We also may deal or will deal with No. 1 on today's order paper, the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-67, in the name of the Minister of Transport. I do not want to state definitely to the house that we will deal with the latter two in the order in which I have given them. Then, if the house concludes consideration of these matters we also may deal, without saying this will be the order after having dealt with the first four items, No. 2 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-38 in the name of the Minister of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if it is the intention to revert to either supplementary estimates or the main estimates on Wednesday?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would not want to give a definite commitment to that effect at the moment, but I believe we will be dealing with estimates after Tuesday and go on with either supplementary or main estimates or both during the rest of the week.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 5, 1962