1964-06-01

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I have the honour of welcoming to this house the President of Ireland, Mr. Eamon de Valera.
Mr. de Valera is President of a state which is more than a country; it is the motherland of millions of citizens of many other lands. The emerald isle and its friendly, warm and hospitable people have endeared themselves to millions who have not the privilege of having Irish blood in their veins. Ireland is a land which has sent to the world poets and presidents and policemen. It is a small island, but it has been responsible for great things including nearly two million Canadians of Irish birth or descent.
Our two countries have the closest and friendliest of relations. They have worked together at the United Nations and elsewhere, closely and harmoniously for peace, security and freedom in the world.
We welcome our guest to this parliament, not only as President but also as a man of great personal distinction, of passionate patriotism, of intellectual achievement and of great moral integrity. We hope that the president and the minister for external affairs, Mr. Aiken, who is with him, and other members of the party will have a happy visit to Canada. They are very, very welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, all of us will join with the Prime Minister in his words of welcome to the President of the Republic of Ireland. The Prime Minister, with that modesty that all of Irish origin have, did not point out directly that he is a distinguished descendant of ancestors among those two million Irish or of Irish origin who came to Canada and have established themselves here. Indeed, outside of the emerald isle, the United Kingdom, and the United States there are more persons of Irish origin in Canada than in any other country of the world. We welcome the President for what he is, the position he occupies, his contribution to world peace as president of the league of nations and as one
whose dedication has been to good relations with the other countries of the world.
I had the privilege of visiting the republic in 1961, when my wife and I were guests of the President and Mrs. de Valera for lunch. At that time I was able to view something of what Ireland's contribution had been to Canada. On that occasion I presented a plaque in commemoration of what had been done by Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who in 1848 left Ireland in rather precipitated circumstances and in 1864 or 1865 became one of the tribunes of our confederation. I would point out that only very recently have we discovered, as a result of the writing of the history of Canada by Gustave Lanctot, that the Irish were the first to find North America. Up to the present time it has been generally believed it was the Vikings or people from the Nordic countries, but according to this historian the Irish were here in 874 A.D., some 660 years before Jacques Cartier discovered Canada.
I recall with deep interest my visit to Ireland and an experience that I hope the house will allow me to clarify once and for all. Before I arrived there the Canadian ambassador received a cable to the effect that I would be arriving and Champagne would be with me. That caused a great deal of surprise and consternation. One of the members of my staff, Mr. Gilbert Champagne, was in my party, and it was only after arrival that the matter was clarified not only for the Canadian embassy but also for our hosts in Ireland.
I join in welcoming this distinguished visitor, and I hope that for many years to come he will continue to adorn the position he holds; that he will pursue the ways of peace and the leadership he has given to his own country, as well as through the United Nations in the interests of peace everywhere.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party join with the government and the official opposition in extending a welcome to the President of the Republic of Ireland. Mr. de Valera is one of the great figures of Irish history. He has dedicated his life to his belief in the right of the Irish people to govern themselves, and in his struggle to bring that belief to fruition he was the outstanding leader of the Irish rebellion and for the past quarter of a century has been the leader of the Irish people.

Distinguished. Visitor
One of the great characteristics of the President of Ireland has been his unyielding integrity. This has been paid tribute to not only by his friends but even by his opponents. Mr. Lloyd George once wrote of him "Mr. de Valera is perfectly unique, and this poor distracted world can be thankful that he was unique". Mr. Speaker, he has used his unique gifts not only for the benefit of his own people but for the benefit of mankind at large. He was, as has already been mentioned, president in 1932 of the league of nations council, and in 1938 president of the league of nations assembly. Today Irish forces are partners with Canadians in the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.
As one who was bom in Scotland, we Scots have a deep feeling of kinship with the Irish since we both have had some trouble with the English in days gone by. However, our approach was different. The Irish chose to fight them; we infiltrated into England and took over all the positions of influence. The end results however, Mr. Speaker, I think will in the long run be for the good of humanity.
Today the President of Ireland is an honoured guest in Canada, he is full of honors and we bid him a thousand welcomes.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and with the leaders of the other parties in this house in welcoming President Eamon de Valera to our midst. We pray that his visit to Canada will convey to him the keen and warm friendship which all Canadians have toward his country and toward himself. As I look back on the period of history which Mr. de Valera represents I cannot help but think of him as a man who put aside his own personal interests and dedicated his life to a dream, saw that dream become a nation, and then had the privilege of leading that nation to a position of respect and high regard amongst all freedom loving peoples of the world. Thus on behalf of our party I join with others in saying welcome to Canada.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure for us, on this side of the house, to extend the warmest welcome to Canada to the President of the Republic of Ireland.
In the province of Quebec there are a great number of people of Irish origin, and we are very glad and very proud to have them as Canadian citizens and citizens of the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can assure the President of the Republic of Ireland that the history of the people and the President of Ireland in the conquest of their country's independence is well known in the province of Quebec. The people of Ireland has certainly set an example for us and the whole world by its courage and energy. We are glad to welcome in our country the President of this valiant nation.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity of extending to all honourable Senators and all hon. members of the house, especially those of Irish origin, an invitation to meet the President of Ireland in the Speaker's chamber shortly. We will meet there within a few minutes, and I hope we will have a quorum left in the house.



PROCEDURE


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Edmonton West, under whose genial chairmanship I have been a member of the special subcommittee on procedure and organization, I am pleased to move concurrence in the eighth report. It is a simple report and was approved unanimously by all party membership of the committee. It will serve to clarify the order paper, giving the week's business in the proper order. This should be of some assistance, even to the older members of this house, let alone the newer members, who have had some difficulty in following the week's procedure.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I am
glad to say, on behalf of this committee, that this is a very acceptable amendment. While I was not a member of the subcommittee, I can say the report was discussed and approved with unanimity at a meeting of the main committee. As the hon. member who moved the motion said, this change will serve a very useful purpose. Apart from anything else, I hope when it is put into effect it will help us, by merely looking at the order paper, to know where we are and where we are going.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: the first reading of Bill No. S-26 (from

the Senate), respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campo-bello international park.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Coates: How many man hours of employment were available to residents of Westchester, Cumberland county, N.S., in the construction of the post office in that community?


Mr. Deschateleis:: A total of 269 man hours.


GRANT TO HIGHLAND VIEW HOSPITAL, AMHERST, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 95 7-Mr. Coates:
What is the amount of the grant that will be made available to the Highland View hospital commission, Amherst, Nova Scotia, to assist in the construction of the extension to the Highland View hospital?
Miss LaMarsh:: Federal assistance approved under the hospital construction grant, to assist in construction of the extension to the Highland View hospital, Amherst, Nova Scotia, amounts to $283,500.


IMPROVEMENTS TO CENTRE BLOCK OFFICES
Mr. Tucker: 
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Plans for renovating the centre block will include ventilation improvements and will be carried out as soon as possible. Temporary ventilation improvements are not advisable as the electrical and power distribution systems could not carry this additional load.


FATAL ACCIDENTS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): During the calendar year 1963, how many fatalities occurred in Canada as the result of (a) aircraft accidents (b) boating accidents (c) fires (d) motor vehicle traffic accidents?
Answer: Fatalities due to certain types of accidents in 1963: (a) Aircraft accidents, 220. (b) Accidents involving watercraft, which includes rafts to large ships, according to the international classification of diseases: 20220-240
Questions
drowning involving small craft (under
10 person capacity)	271
drowning involving other watercraft 20 falls involving watercraft	7
machinery accidents in watercraft 1 other accidents involving watercraft 8
Total	307
(c) Fires, 584. (d) Motor vehicle traffic accidents, 4,367.


SAFETY STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Is the government contemplating the introduction of any legislation which would require motor vehicle manufacturers to have their products meet certain safety standards as far as design and manufacture are concerned?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The federal government has not contemplated such legislation as safety features on motor vehicles have been regulated by the provinces under the various highway traffic acts.


* REPORTS OF RADIATION PROTECTION DIVISION
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Have any experiments been carried out recently in Canada, similar to those taking place in England, to determine whether there has been an increase of strontium 90 in children's bones in 1963 and, if so, will the results of these experiments be available to the house?
2.	What further research has been carried out in tests being conducted among the Eskimos and in samples of reindeer meat and bones to determine the concentration of Cs 137 and strontium 90?
3.	Was a monthly report published since February 1964, by the radiation protection division?
4.	Did the radiation protection division issue an annual report for 1963?


Mr. Munro:: 1. Studies of strontium 90 in human bones from all age groups are a continuing part of the fall-out program conducted by the radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and welfare. Results are published as they become available in the monthly report "Data from Radiation Protection Programs". The February report was tabled in the house on March 24 and the March report on May 20. The next report is expected in a few weeks.
2.	The study of fall-out levels in the north is a continuing one. In addition to the air, precipitation and soil measurements which have been going on for a number of years, a special investigation of caesium 137 in reindeer, caribou and moose meat and in urine specimens from northern residents was initiated last year. Some animal bone samples were also analysed for strontium 90 to obtain a preliminary estimate of the need for strontium 90 studies; these have now been replaced with requests for human bone specimens. Results from this program are also reported periodically in the monthly report

Questions
"Data from Radiation Protection Programs".
3.	Yes, the March, 1964 report has just been published and was tabled in the house on May 20.
4.	No; the complete set of monthly reports vol. 1, Nos. 1-12, contains all the data gathered by the division during the year.


ARDA PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacEwan: What are the ARDA projects in the province of Nova Scotia, and the location and particulars ot each?
Answer:
[Mr. Munro.l
20220-240J
ATLANTIC REGION - Nova Scotia
__________________________________________ARDA PROJECTS
Number	Description	Status3001	Alternate land use-acquisition of marginal and related lands for forestry and recreational purposes	Approved	3002	Alternate land use-development of the Cape Mabou community pasture, Inverness county	Approved	3003	Alternate land use-development of the Minudie community pasture, Cumberland county	Approved	3004	Alternate land use-development of the Cape John community pasture, Pictou county and the acquisition of 200 additional acres	Approved	3005	Alternate land use-development of the Wickwire community pasture, Kings county	Approved	3006	Soil and water conservation-development of rural ponds for irrigation, stock watering, fire protection and recreation in five delineated pilot areas during 1963-64	Approved	3007	Soil and water conservation-development of rural ponds, as outlined for project 3006, throughout the province during 1963-64	Not approved3008	Soil and water conservation-land clearing and surface ditching to bring into production good agricultural land on small farm units in five delineated pilot areas during 1963-64	Approved	3009	Soil and water conservation-land clearing and surface ditching, as outlined for project 3008, throughout the province during 1963-64	Not approved3010	Soil and water conservation-tile drainage to improve farms in five delineated pilot areas during 1963-64	Approved	3011	Soil and water conservation-tile drainage to improve farms throughout the province during 1963-64	Not approved3012	Soil and water conservation-land clearing, surface ditching and the construction of rural ponds to enlarge farm units, improve production and provide a water supply in five delineated pilot areas during 1962-63	Approved	3013	Soil and water conservation-land clearing, surface ditching and the construction of rural ponds, as outlined for project 3012, throughout the province, during 1962-63	Not approved3014	Soil and water conservation-tile drainage to improve farms in five delineated pilot areas during 1962-63	Approved	Shareable portion of total cost	Federal share$	S17,540.00	8,770.008,000.00	4,000.0024,800.42	12,400.2114,000.00	8,333.0014,000.98	7,000.4936,000.00	18,000.0021,000.00	7,000.0075,000.00	37,500.0045,000.00	15,000.0033,700.00	16,850.0014,500.00	4,829.0034,000.00	17,000.0015,470.35	5,156.78ll.OOO.OQ	5,500.00JUNE I. 1964	3775
Questions
[Mr. MacEwan.l
ATLANTIC REGION -* Nova Scotia


ARDA PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Number
Description
Status
3015	Alternate land use-purchase and development of the Cheticamp Island community pasture in Inverness county, serving 15 to 20 small farms, to be
leased to the co-operative group presently owining the area	 Approved	
3016	Research-to extend and complete work on a land usage study in the Annapolis
valley area	 Approved	
3017	Alternate land use-acquisition and development of marginal lands as the Cape
Mabou community pasture in Inverness county	 Approved	
3018	Research-to provide added research resources in order to hasten the completion
of explorations into a developmental model and central study for Digby
county	 Approved	
3019	Research-to carry out a socio-economic study of the Musquodoboit river
valley area	 Approved	
3020	Soil and water conservation-to complete the Dewey creek pond at Canard,
King's county	 Approved	
3021	Research-to conduct a study in the Bridgeport-Gardiner area of Cape Breton
county to ascertain the feasibility of promoting agricultural development.,. Approved.
3022	Research-residential adult education study in association with P.E.I. and
N.B. (projects 2018 and 4016) to examine the need for residential education facilities and resources, and to develop a plan to establish centres for continuing education if a need is shown	 Approved	
3023	Part of over-all plan to provide additional training for selected staff members,
who may be expected to assume important roles in the development and implementation of the ARDA program in Nova Scotia	 Not approved
3024	To obtain soil capability ratings of all soil units which have been mapped by
soil survey organizations	 Approved	
3025	Soil and water conservation-to carry out temporary protective measures to
prevent serious river erosion damage to agricultural land situated in the
Stewiacke river valley	 Approved
[Stage Direction]
3026 Soil and water conservation-to undertake a limited amount of erosion control work to alleviate some of the more urgent problems of river erosion and to obtain experience and knowledge in techniques and methods, which can be used to correct or control problems of river erosion	 Approved
Shareable portion of total cost
[Stage Direction]
12,802,50
1,200.00
18,000.00
5.000.	00 1,800.00
2.000.	00 2,000.00
4,500.00
21.735.00
13.500.00
6,000.00
60,000.00
Federal
share
[Stage Direction]
7,651.25
600.00
10,000.00
2.500.00 900.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
2.250.00
10.867.00
13.500.00
3,000.00
30,000.00
3776	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
3028
3030
3032
3034
3036
3038
3041
To investigate the hog industry within a large hog breeding station at Scotsburn,
Pictou county to arrive at solutions to problems of the industry in the pilot
rural development research region	 Not approved
Research-to investigate methods of weaving and suitable types of looms as a
basis for establishing a cottage craft industry in western Nova Scotia. Approved	
Alternate land use-to acquire marginal and related lands for recreational
purposes during the year ending March 31, 1964	 Approved	
Alternate land use-to acquire marginal and submarginal lands for reforestration
purposes during the year ending March 31, 1964	 Approved	
Alternate land use-to acquire marginal and submarginal lands for the development of municipal forests	 Approved	
Alternate land use-to extend the demonstration area of the maple sugar pilot
plants in Guysborough and Cumberland counties	 Approved	
Alternate land use-to develop submarginal and related crown lands as picnic areas	
Consideration deferred until rural development areas designated	
Alternate land use-to give technical assistance and advice in woodlot development	
Approved
Alternate land use-development of crown lands for blueberry production.. Approved
A study to determine the quantity and quality of the peat moss in the bogs of Guysborough county with a view to the feasibility of establishing an industry in this field	 Approved
Alternate land use-to employ a land-breaking supervisor to work on projects 3008 and 3010 so as to fill the need for technical advice and administrative assistance	 Withdrawn	
Research-to stimulate and encourage rural residents to organize themselves
into some type of community, county, or area development body	 Under consideration
Soil and water conservation-to continue the work outlined for project No. 3006
during 1963-64	 Under	consideration.
Soil and water conservation-to continue the work outlined for project No. 3010
during 1963-64	 Under	consideration.
Soil and water conservation-to continue the work outlined for project No. 3008
during 1963-64	,.,.Under consideration.
10,000.00
1,000.00
90.000.	00
70.000.	00
15.000.	00 9,000.00
20.000.	00
20,000.00
12,000.00
2.650.00
2.650.00
18.900.00 36,000.00
33.700.00
86.650.00
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Regan: 1.	How many persons have registered to date for social insurance number cards?
2.	Of the estimated eligible total, what percentage has registered to date?
3.	Of the total registered, what percentage has registered voluntarily?


Mr. Byrne:: 1. 3,722,840.
2.	62 per cent.
3.	Not available.


REHABILITATION PROGRAMS FOR RETIRED SERVICE OFFICERS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Will service officers who have been forced into premature retirement be allowed to qualify for the benefits of the Veterans Land Act?
2.	Specifically, in what other rehabilitation programs will these officers be permitted to participate?


Mr. Teillel:: 1. The personnel concerned may apply for qualification for the benefits of the Veterans Land Act provided they are eligible to do so on the basis of their service in world war II or with the Korea special force and, if they have had alternative rehabilitation benefits to those of the Veterans Land Act, provided it is possible for them to restore their eligibility.
2. No such programs are available through the Department of Veterans Affairs unless an officer had qualifying service during world war II or in the Korea special force.


TRADE MISSION ON PREFABRICATED HOUSES
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian trade mission leaving the country on May 22 in order to study the question of outlets for prefabricated houses in Europe and what are, in detail, the aims of such a mission?
2.	To which countries were the main exports of this industry directed last year and what was the value, by country, of such exports?
3.	What countries will be visited by the mission?
4.	What countries indicated their intention of meeting the delegation?

Answer: 1. The members of the Canadian trade mission are the following:
Mr. Harold H. Alexander, President of Muttart Builders Supplies (Ont.) Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Mr. Sol Burke, vice president of The Colonial Homes Limited, West Hill, Ont.
Mr. Peter G. Dueck, General Manager of Dueck Homes Ltd., Clearbrook (B.C.)
Mr. D. K. Geburt, Executive Assistant, M. F. Schurman Company Ltd., Summerside <P.E.I.)
Mr. L. Greenall, President of Greenal Bros. Ltd., Burnaby, B.C.

Mr. T. Jankowski, General Manager of Laminex Products Ltd., Quebec, P.Q.
Mr. Robert Johansen, architect, Les Industries Treco Inc., St. Romuald, P.Q.
Mr. W. A. Kaye, President of W. A. Kaye Enterprises, Haliburton, Ont.
Mr. V. S. G. Lewis, consultant engineer, General Manager of Nelson Lumber Company Ltd., Lloydminster, Alta.
Mr. P. M. Shearer, President of Precision Prefab Products Ltd., Rexdale, Ont.
Mr. A. D. Monkhouse, secretary, Forest Products Division, Commodities Branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ont.
It is to help industry take advantage of the opportunities afforded by a shortage of housing in the four countries to be visited, that the Department of Trade and Commerce has organized this Canadian mission concerned with prefabricated houses. The mission is responsible for examining on each market the following factors and to make a report to the Canadian industry:
a)	the proportion of the total demand for housing during the next few years which could be satisfied by imports of wooden prefabricated houses;
b)	the changes it will be necessary to make on designs to have them comply with local and national construction rules;
c)	the problems of shipping and transport, the costs and the competition to be expected from all kinds of established suppliers, including the optimum degree of prefabriea-tion suitable to the different markets;
d)	the construction methods being used on the spot and available means for the settingup and the finishing of Canadian-made houses;
e)	the best means of association or affiliation with organizations and builders on the spot;
f)	other pertinent factors, such as buying power, availability of land, local preferences as to style, designs, and conveniences in housing.
2.	Prefabricated houses are not included separately in Canadian export statistics. They are included within class 960-35 among other types of prefabricated buildings and structures. Total exports of prefabricated buildings, structures and parts, for the 1963 calendar year, are shown in the attached table.
3.	The mission will go to Spain, France, Germany and Great Britain.
4.	Officials of housing agencies in each of the countries mentioned in paragraph 3 will be among those who will meet with the Canadian trade mission.
Question 2.

Questions
Country	Value
Class 960-35	
United Kingdom	$ 117,717
Belgium and Luxemburg	76,168
France	8,899
Western Germany	50,105
Italy	3,600
Portugal	1,520
Iraq	3,463
Israel	1,065
Lebanon	1,000
Libya	310,741
Ghana	16,690
Algeria	226,179
Liberia	197,504
India	1,701,751
Malaya	1,289
Pakistan	496,597
Burma	14,017
Japan	227,230
Philippines	1,759
Australia	2,365
Bolivia	12,002
Chile	61,344
Venezuela	208,566
Bahamas	229,003
Bermuda	12,673
British Honduras	2,800
Barbados	2,634
Jamaica	50,391
Windward Islands and	
Leeward Islands	53,985
Greenland	17,000
St. Pierre and Miquelon	4,994
United States	6,044,494
Total	$10,159,545


CANADIAN ACTION FOLLOWING DEATH OF FINNISH SOLDIER
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has Canada, as a member of the United Nations force in Cyprus, sent any message of sympathy to the government of Finland as well as to the family of soldier Juhani Matikainen, a radio operator killed in action in Cyprus?
2.	Has Canada sent an official note of protest to the Turkish Cypriot leaders in connection with the incident?

Answer: 1. Yes.
2. No. General Gyani, commander of the United Nations force, made official representations to vice president Kutchuk in that connection.


TRADE MISSIONS TO SOUTH AMERICA
Mr. Laiulippe: How many Canadian trade missions went to South America in the last two years and (a) who were the members of such missions, and which firms did they represent (b) what firms received new business with South American countries as a result of these trade missions?

Answer: During the last two fiscal years 1962-63 and 1963-64, eight Canadian trade missions visited South American markets.
(a)	Here is a list of the members of such missions and of the firms represented:
Canadian mission of the heavy equipment industry to Latin America, April 1962:
Mr. D. H. Struck, sales manager, Preston Woodworking Machinery Co. Ltd., Preston, Ont.
Mr. A. R. Hamilton, vice president, Hydraulic Machinery Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. L. R. Douglas, Marketing Manager, Appliances Department, Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Peterborough, Ont.
Mr. K. D. Landell, vice president, Marketing, Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. Colin T. Gray, exports manager, Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. A. A. Irvine, vice president, Sales, Foster Wheeler Limited, St. Catharines, Ont.
Mr. Allen Schroeder, United Automobile Workers of America, Windsor, Ont.
Mr. L. T. Hansson, Engineering and Equipment Div., Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian mission of the organic chemistry products industry to Latin America, November 1962:
Mr. Morris R. Jones, marketing officer, The Ontario Paper Co. Ltd., Thorold, Ont.
Mr. Eric Gudgeon, executive secretary, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, Montreal, Que.
Mr. L. Mcllroy, Exports and Development manager, Hart Products Company of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Mr. G. P. Dewar, Director, Sales Division, Chemical Products Department, Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto, Ont.
Mr. J. A. Stenstrom, marketing manager, Canadian Chemical Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. G. S. Delmar, president, Delmar Products Ltd., Lachine, Que.
Mr. A. G. Billingsley, Chemical Products Division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian mission of forest products industry to Latin America, October 1962:
Mr. T. A. Costen, exports manager, Columbia Pulp Sales Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. J. Wansbrough, exports manager, The
E.	B. Eddy Company, Hull, Que.
Mr. J. T. Trenaman, assistant manager, Export Sales, Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd.. Montreal, Que.
Mr. R. B. Rolland, vice president, Paradis & Fils Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. W. H. DeCew, president and manager, DeCew Lumber Company Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

Questions
Mr. R. D. Reid, division director, Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. H. L. Ladd, president of area No. 2, International Woodworkers of America, Weston, Ontario.
Mr. A. D. Monkhouse, forest products division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian mission of power industry and distribution in Latin America, May, 1962:
Mr. Leo Payer, Payer Electrical Fittings Co. Ltd., Nicolet. Quebec.
Mr. D. F. Martin, vice president and sales manager, Ferranti-Packard Electric Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. A. D. Burford, director, exportation, Amalgamated Electric Corporation Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. G. A. Cooper, chief-trade mission division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Claude Rousseau, president, Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Montmagny, Quebec.
Mr. E. Durham, director, export division, Canada Wire and Cable Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. K. Cummings, vice president, National Union of Public Employees, Toronto, Ontario.
Canadian mission of electronics in Latin America, September, 1962:
Mr. C. R. Hughes, president, Automatic Electric (Canada) Ltd., Brockville, Ontario.
Mr. Earl H. Mann, assistant general manager, electronics division, Ferranti-Packard Electric Limited, Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. L.-H. Potvin, manager, Spilsbury and Tindall Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. H. C. Ashdown, vice president, Sales T.M.C. (Canada) Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. B. S. Shapiro, Latin America division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. G. N. Cox, vice president and general manager, Marsland Engineering Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario.
Mr. M. L. P. Cheney, Canadian Marconi Company, Montreal, Quebec.
Mr. R. Sangster, engineering and equipment division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian mission of steel and steel products in Latin America, October, 1963:
Mr. N. H. Cuke, sales manager, Quebec Iron and Titanium Corp., Sorel, Quebec.
Mr. W. J. McDonald, manager-exports, Western Canada Steel Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. I. Ryckman, manager-export credits, The Steel Company of Canada Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario.
Mr. J. E. Souccar, Atlas Steel Ltd., Welland, Ontario.

Mr. H. R. Gulliver, exports sales manager, Dominion Steel and Coal Corp. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec.
Mr. B. C. Varah, assistant vice president, marketing, Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario.
Mr. Carson Weeks, vice president, sales, Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Mr. O.-L. L'Esperance, metals and minerals division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian mission of industrial chemicals in Latin America-November 1963:
Mr. Stuart Dyson, Sales Manager, Howard and Sons (Canada) Ltd., Cornwall, Ontario.
Mr. F. B. Parker, vice president, The Bate Chemical Corporation Limited, Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. L. M. Reese, General Manager-Eastern Area, G.H. Wood & Company Limited, Montreal, Que.
Mr. Adolph Monsaroff, vice president, Marketing and development, Domtar Chemicals Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. F. O. Newson, manager, Fine chemicals branch, Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. W. M. Karn, manager, Export sales, Electric Reduction Sales Co. of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. G. H. MacDougall, manager, Foreign sales, Shawinigan Chemicals Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Mr. A. G. Billingsley, Chemicals Division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian mission of food products and fish processing equipment in Latin America- March 1964:
Mr. G. Allen Jones, assistant manager general, McNamara Engineering Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. G. T. G. Scott, Canadian-British Engineering Consultants, Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. A. Edgar Jones, Phillips, Barratt & Partners, Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. D. A. Eisenhauer, vice president, Atlantic Bridge Company Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S.
Mr. E. H. Sinclair, R.T. Tamblyn & Partners Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. L. T. Hansson, Engineering and Equipment Division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Ontario.
(b)	The main concern of those trade missions was not to make a sale during their visit; the department sent them, first of all, to study market conditions and report on them so that Canadian industry as a whole might benefit therefrom. The reports made

by the missions helped to awaken in Canadian companies a new interest lor those markets; several took some individual steps, after considering the opportunities or difficulties that had been reported. Several firms take active interest in those foreign markets, but they do not have to inform us of their sales or progress. It is impossible to list all companies which established new business relations following those trade missions.


REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE BY AUTOMOBILE FIRMS
Mr. Latulippe: Have the firms of Peugeot, Renault, Volkswagen, Chrysler, or American Motors requested assistance in any form from the Department of Industry to assist in deciding whether to set up business in Canada and, more specifically, in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Drury:: No.


INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION PROFIT
Mr. Latulippe: Did the international civil aviation organization make a profit during 1962-63, and, if so (a) what was Canada's share of such profit (b) what percentage of the organization's profit did Canada receive?

Answer: No. The international civil aviation organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, is entrusted with the establishment of principles and techniques in the field of international aviation.


MASTER OF FISHERIES PATROL CRAFT &quot;SCATARIE LIGHT&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Who is the master of the fisheries patrol craft
Scatarie Light?
2.	Where is his residence and what are his qualifications?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What are the qualifications required as master of the fisheries patrol craft Scatarie Light1
Answer: 1. Peter Gerald Boudreau.
2.	Petit de Grat, N.S. He holds a temporary certificate as master of a steamship of not more than 40 tons valid on the coastal waters of Cape Breton island and the adjacent mainland.
3.	April 16, 1964.
4.	A master's certificate of grade adequate to cover the operation of the vessel in the patrol area. Adequate relevant experience, knowledge of area to be patrolled and of fisheries therein, personal suitability, good physical condition.
Inquiries of the Ministry


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN ICAO COUNCIL
Mr. Latulippe: Is Canada a member of the council of the international civil aviation organization and, if so (a) since what date (b) what is the contribution of Canada to that council (c) what was the cost last year of membership in the council (d) does the council submit reports to the Department of Transport?

Answer: Yes;
(a)	since 1947;
(b)	the council is an agency of the ICAO and Canada does not contribute in any way to the council as such, except for its contribution to the whole organization which in 1963, amounted to $211,392.43.
(c)	The cost to Canada was $34,307 for all expenses due to its membership in the ICAO council;
(d)	The council as such does not submit any reports to government departments, but the organization reports and is responsible to the governments of the countries which belong to the ICAO.


*R.C.A.F. STATION EDGAR-USE FOR UNIVERSITY PURPOSES
Mr. Rynard: Has a study been made with regard to the feasibility of using R.C.A.F. station Edgar, which is being closed, for university purposes and, if so what are the results of this study?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is understood that a feasibility study concerning the use of the R.C.A.F. station Edgar, Ontario, for university purposes is being undertaken, but this is not yet complete.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any foundation for press reports to the effect that the resolution covering the two flags is now to be divided and the matter proceeded with in separate motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of departing from the two resolutions which are on the order paper and which will be proceeded with in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking particularly about the motion dealing with the flag. Will it be proceeded with as an entirety rather than in subdivided form?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be proceeded with as one resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I should like to ask the Prime Minister this. What flag, if any, flew during the week end from the flagstaff at the Prime Minister's official residence at Harrington lake?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a question that is of any interest to the House of Commons. The flag that flew over my residence in the country surely is a matter for my decision.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker; this is the residence of the Prime Minister of Canada. I ask him again, did he during the week end fly the flag with three maple leaves and not the red ensign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I still think this is a matter not appropriate for parliamentary consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: It isn't? Why?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a free country, Mr. Speaker, and I take it any Canadian can fly any emblem he wishes over his private house if he so desires. But, Mr. Speaker, seeing that the right hon. gentleman obviously is attempting to make some controversial point-


John George Diefenbaker: No; to get the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I refrain from asking him what flag he flies over his own residence
__I will be glad to satisfy my right hon.
friend's curiosity about my flag habit by telling him that, as is customary, the red ensign was flying on Sussex street over the week end when I was there and at Harrington lake when I was there. During part of the week end I thought it would be interesting- and it certainly was-to fly the design which has been put before the House of Commons in a resolution and circulated in colour to see what it would look like in textile form flying from a flagstaff. I will tell my right hon. friend that it looked wonderful.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not asking the Prime Minister about the aesthetic properties of this flag. What possible business of the Prime Minister of Canada is it to use a flag that has not been designated, and fly it over a home bought and paid for by the people of Canada as an official residence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend has been doing some very deep research during the week end and he has now discovered that this flag was paid for by the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of very considerable interest to those concerned with this matter to have a look, on the flagstaff, at the flag which is being submitted for parliamentary decision.
I think it might be of equal interest to members of the House of Commons, who in due course will be asked to make a decision on this matter, if this flag could be displayed for a time on a flagstaff outside the House of Commons so they could see it flying, as well as seeing a coloured reproduction of it on paper. If hon. members would like this to happen I would be glad to help accommodate them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into an argument at the moment except to say it would be a perversion of parliamentary rights, completely unjustified, to do that. What about the other 2,999 models? Would you fly them too in order to test their aesthetic acceptability?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a great many models, some on nylon and some on textile, and I had the pleasure of flying some of them to see how they looked on a flag pole. I would tell my hon. friend that, in addition to looking at the flag yesterday, I also went fishing.


John George Diefenbaker: And did the Prime Minister have with him that cultural group of ministers who viewed the film of himself by the C.B.C., in order to arrive at a conclusion on the attractiveness of this flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not, Mr. Speaker, but if I had I am sure they would have enjoyed watching the flag flutter in the breeze as much as I did.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West, I am glad to say, is a close friend of mine, but aside from that he did me the courtesy of sending me notice of this question. Therefore I have had time to think about it and to consult, and in my opinion the question in effect calls for a referendum and is out of order for several reasons. I would like to give the reasons to the house because they may be of some interest.
1.	The question is far too long. In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits. Here we have a series of statements embodying a series of questions.
2.	The question contains observations which might lead to debate.
3.	It refers to a debate or to answers to questions during the current session.
4.	It embodies a series of questions which should be moved as an address or order.
5.	It anticipates an order of the day.
6.	It raises a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
7.	It is, in effect, making a proposition which should be the subject of a notice of motion.
8.	It proposes a referendum and sets out the details, and any such question does not fit on orders of the day.
My authority for these reasons can be found in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 171, as well as the statement respecting questions on orders of the day given by myself on Thursday, October 31, 1963, and appearing in Hansard, at pages 4205 and 4206, as well as the rules given to me by the house itself on April 20 and continued on May 21 to the end of the session.
Therefore I come to the conclusion that in my opinion the question as raised by the hon. member is out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this out of order question when it is in order at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid if the question is out of order we cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister that relates to the first question he was asked. Will he definitely tell the house when his two flag resolution will be presented for debate here?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution concerning the national flag will be presented to the house very shortly, but I am not exactly sure of the date. It appears, Mr. Speaker, there are two or three pieces of legislation on the order paper which we consider should
Inquiries of the Ministry be disposed of because there are reasons why it is urgent they should be disposed of soon. It therefore may not be possible to introduce the resolution concerning the national flag until next week.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: As
a supplementary question, is it correct that the Minister of Transport has had an audience with the Queen with reference to the flag issue and, if so, would the Prime Minister assure the house and the country that the Canadian government will not permit Her Majesty the Queen to become embroiled with the flag issue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can unhesitatingly answer yes to the last part of the question, and I am sure that would be the wish of every member of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the first part of the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the first part of the question, I do not know whether or not the Minister of Transport had an audience with the Queen. He is returning this evening, and I will be glad to find out.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether he agrees with the view expressed by the Societe Saint Jean Baptiste de Montreal, to the effect that two flags mean two nations, two different ethnic groups? [Text]
Yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is clearly out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I want to discuss this matter at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: A question that is out of order cannot be debated at ten o'clock. [Later:]


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Remembering that he is a former professor of history, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if the indicated delay in the presentation of the two flag resolution may be interpreted as the government's intention to give careful consideration to the suggestion of 12 outstanding scholars who wrote to the Prime Minister on May 27 advising the withdrawal of his favoured design in favour of something more meaningful and of more historical significance for this country.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the weakness of professors of history when they start mingling with contemporary events. Perhaps their letter indicates it. For one thing, the letter was given to representatives of the press and to all members of the House of Commons before I received it, which is an unusual procedure if they wished to have a reply. For another, the letter I received was not signed; there were a number of names typed under it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Could I suggest to the Prime Minister that had he been in Canada he might have received this letter in time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was in Canada.


Mr.   L.-J. Pigeon@Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question supplementary to another one put to him.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, at Harrington lake, in the province of Quebec, during the week end, he also flew a union jack to test the attractiveness of a foreign flag on Canadian soil and compare it with the other flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


MANUFACTURE OF FLAGS AND PINS WITH MAPLE LEAF DESIGN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Leader of the Opposition asked whether the Department of Defence Production had set aside the sum of $90,000 for the manufacture and procurement of one of the two flags mentioned in the resolution before this matter has been discussed by parliament. I should like to reassure the hon. gentleman that no such set-aside in contravention of the rights of parliament has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any consideration been given to providing that amount, and has any manufacturer been communicated with in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No such consideration has been given by the Department of Defence Production, nor has any manufacturer been communicated with in that regard.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to


the question about when the flag could be debated, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it was not his intention, by today, to tell us about the priorities of house business, with particular reference to the Canada pension plan and when we are going to get the resolution that seeks to amend the British North America Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I had hoped to be able to do that today, but we have not received all the replies from the provinces on the constitutional amendment. Over the week end I sent telegrams to those who had not replied. We have had one more reply this morning, and I would like to get them all in because this is a very important part of our legislative program. We hope to have all the replies in by Wednesday morning, and if that is the case I will make my statement on Wednesday afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the resolution respecting the amendment to the British North America Act be proceeded with just as soon as all the replies are in?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is certainly in our priority program and should be proceeded with, if it receives the approval of the house, in order to get the approval of the parliament at Westminster at the earliest possible date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before it adjourns?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before it adjourns.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could now give an answer to the question I asked last Thursday and Friday in regard to the provinces that have answered the request for changes to the British North America Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry; I do not have that information with me. I do know, however, that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have all agreed to the constitutional amendment formula submitted to them. The province of Quebec has agreed to the formula but it has to be put before the Quebec legislature for approval. Quebec is the only province which has this requirement. We have had indications of approval from two other provinces, but they have not been confirmed by telegram as yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the statement just made by the Prime Minister, I ask him whether it would not be wise to proceed with this matter, which is of urgent importance, before beginning a long and protracted debate on the flag resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that suggestion makes sense, and that is why it is difficult for me

to say today on exactly what date we should proceed with the flag resolution; we should get the constitutional resolution through at once to ensure that action may be taken at Westminster, if they desire to take action, before that parliament adjourns.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Will the provinces which will establish and administer their own pension plan be able to ask that the constitution be left unchanged as far as they are concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think any such contingency will arise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question with regard to the communications the Prime Minister has received from the provinces. Press reports indicate that Premier Roblin wrote the federal government a few days ago on the whole question of the Canada pension plan. Did the premier, in that letter, make any reference to the question of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think so, but I should like to check. As I remember it, his letter did not deal with that point.


CONFERENCE OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL RESPECTING REPATRIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question to ask the Minister of Justice following the rather vague answer I got from him last week. Has any date been fixed for the reconvening of the very important conference of the attorneys general on the question of assuring Canadians the right to amend the Canadian constitution?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: No
date has been fixed yet, but I will be pleased to advise my hon. friend and the house whenever a date has been agreed upon.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the hon. gentleman or his immediate predecessor made any formal requests in writing to the attorneys general of the provinces for the reconvening of such a conference?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
1.	1964	3785
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


U.S. COUNTERVAILING DUTY AGAINST CANADIAN AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the treasury department of the United States has given formal notice that it will consider representations regarding the application of a countervailing duty against Canadian automobiles and automobile parts. Further, I ask the minister whether the Canadian government is making any representations to the United States government regarding this very serious matter.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been under consideration by the United States treasury department for some months. Under their law, when complaints of this kind are made they are required to refer the matter for investigation by the bureau of customs, and that is what they are doing. They are merely complying with the technicalities of the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, does the minister consider this is a retaliatory move, as the press report indicates, or is this merely a routine action as a result of some pressure from congress?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we were in touch with the secretary of the treasury when he was here for a meeting at the end of April, and subsequently. I think it would be quite incorrect to say this is a retaliatory move in any sense. It is merely a measure that is required to be taken by the secretary in connection with the existing law.


REQUESTS FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS TO ASSIST AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker?
Does the government intend to grant tariff reductions on the importation of automobile parts from countries like France, in order to make easier the establishment at home of automobile factories, such as Renault, etc.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is looking into that question at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. I understood him to say that the government was giving consideration to the proposal for tariff concessions. Can he say when the government will be in a position to make an announcement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


FRASER VALLEY, B.C.-REPORTED DANGER DUE TO DELAYED RUN-OFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Current reports indicate an increased flood threat in the Fraser river area due to delayed run-off from the snowpack. Does the minister consider the situation as being a cause for concern and, if so, is he satisfied with the diking arrangements?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I know the hon. member is referring to the fact that we have had an abnormally late, cold season in British Columbia with the result that at the week end the flow at Hope, which is our checkpoint, was running at the rate of
250.000	feet per second only. In the flood year of 1948, on May 28 it was running at
535.000 feet per second. In the case of a river having a catchment area as great as that of the Fraser, there is always concern when melt conditions extend so late in the year; and when all the forces of nature are turned against man it is difficult to make a prediction.
The ultimate solution lies, of course, in the report I laid on the table six weeks ago, the report of the Fraser river board. I got in touch with the responsible minister of the British Columbia government, Mr. Williston who replied at once and is now preparing the engineering study on the reinforcement of the dikes in the lower Fraser valley from Hope to the mouth at a cost of about $5 million. Then we will proceed under the Canada Water Conservation Act to make provision for the building of a number of small dams on the tributaries of the Fraser where the fish will not be interfered with.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question

to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When the hon. gentleman was in Winnipeg and made that historic speech, if I may use the expression, regarding Eskimo affairs, did he state that the federal government will retain jurisdiction over the health, education and welfare of Eskimos while indicating that responsibility for municipal services will be turned over to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Yes, with very great qualifications; to the extent that if the right hon. gentleman would read the report in the Winnipeg Tribune-and I made reference to this the other day when I suggested 1 had been inadequately quoted; I am certain that most members reading the two reports would hardly believe they were taken from the same notes, yet that was the case-


John George Diefenbaker: Which newspaper had the correct, unexpurgated edition?


Arthur Laing: The paper which satisfied me most, of course, was the report which appeared in the Tribune, because I think it more accurately represented what I said. That is the only reason. However, I did suggest that for the present it would appear that the responsibility for education and welfare would remain with the federal administration for some time, but there were consultations going on between my officials and those of the government of Quebec leading to the assumption by Quebec, and the participation by that province financially, too, in services which might in a mature provincial set-up be called municipal.


John George Diefenbaker: Does all this mean, boiled down to simple words, that the minister has offered to the province of Quebec municipal control of the Eskimo population in northern Quebec but that the balance of the powers respecting Eskimos will be exercised by his department?


Arthur Laing: The right hon. gentleman knows we have no power to offer the province of Quebec the right to administer municipal facilities. We are dealing with a part of Canada which is the province of Quebec, and they have full authority to carry out those functions. At the present time we are dealing largely with areas in which the population is entirely Eskimo with the exception of our own employees. The province of Quebec is now moving in certain people and we have had discussions with them on these lines; that instead of accepting at once responsibility for everything in these areas, including education and welfare, they function in the area of what I have described as normally

municipal in provincial affairs. These are discussions. It is not a question of my offering anything to the province. I have no power to do that, of course. But discussions have taken place between my officials and those of the government of Quebec along these lines.
Hon, Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue): I wonder if the minister can say what has been the reaction of the government of Quebec to these new proposals.


Arthur Laing: I think it would be wrong for me to attempt to reply to that question at the present time, because a further discussion along these lines took place as late as Friday last and there will be another, I take it, this week. I do not wish to impair continued good relations.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Can
the minister indicate whether there has been an opinion given by the law officers of the crown with respect to jurisdictional responsibility over these Eskimos?


Arthur Laing: No, I do not have that.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. members for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) asked questions about Mr. Harry Hooper who was deported from Canada recently. Four main questions were asked.
First, was Mr. Hooper advised that he was entitled to counsel?
Second, was he given a chance to exercise that right?
Third, was he aware that he could get legal counsel free of charge?
Fourth, was he told that he would remain in prison until he had answered the questions?
Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter and with the leave of the house, I would like to answer each one of these questions.
Mr. Hooper had already been deported from Canada three times. Every time he was informed of his right to legal counsel. The last time, on March 16, he fell under the jurisdiction of the immigration branch. The inquiry was postponed until March 23 and
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hooper was told that he had another chance of seeking legal counsel if he wanted to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer.
At the opening of the inquiry, on March 23, he was again informed that, if he wished, he could be represented by counsel. He was also told that it did not have to be a lawyer, but that it could be a relative, a friend, a priest, a clergyman or any other person interested in his welfare. He was then asked whether he wanted to be represented and he replied he had nothing to say and the special investigator could do as he pleased.
When the inquiry was reopened, on April 7, Mr. Hooper was told once again he had the right to be represented by counsel and was asked if he had taken any steps to get one. He refused to answer. Mr. Hooper was clearly informed of his right to be represented by counsel.
With regard to exercising one's right to secure a lawyer, I think that point was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I must say first of all that persons who want to be represented by counsel, when their deportation case is heard, must do it at their own expense. That provision has been in the Immigration Act for several years. The immigration branch sees to it that the interested parties are aware of their right to get a lawyer. If they want to be represented by counsel, investigations are postponed to enable them to get a lawyer.
As I said before, Mr. Hooper, although knowing that he had the right to get help from a lawyer, never indicated that he wanted it. He could have tried to get free legal assistance from the jail's lawyer or from various benevolent societies which offer such services. He knew about these societies. The authorities of the Don jail have confirmed the fact that members of these societies regularly visit the jail and that prisoners are well acquainted with their services.
As for the duration or term of the detention, Mr. Hooper was advised that he would be detained until he was ready to answer questions. Refusal to answer questions is, under the Immigration Act, a violation liable to prosecution. Mr. Hooper answered that he did not care, that anyway he had nothing better to do.
Immediately after the adjournment of the inquiry on March 23 the special investigator submitted the matter to the headquarters of the department of immigration in Ottawa in order to obtain instructions. It has been decided to reopen the investigation and to proceed taking into account other evidence available.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the available evidence was

Inquiries of the Ministry to Mr. Hooper's advantage and that it was in his interest that such supplementary evidence be examined.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the four main questions which hon. members asked last Friday. My answers may be summarized as follows:
First, Mr. Hooper had been informed of his right to obtain legal counsel.
Second, he had every opportunity to do so, had he so wished.
Third, he was aware that he could secure free legal advice.
Fourth, immediately after the inquest of March 23, while Mr. Hooper had been informed that he would be detained until he answered the questions, the matter was brought to the attention of the immigration department at Ottawa for instructions. Shortly after Mr. Hooper was specifically informed that refusal to answer the questions constituted under the Immigration Act, an offence which would entail legal proceedings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The minister has made the statement that any legal counsel would be at the prisoner's expense. In view of the fact that this man was in impecunious circumstances, I would like to ask whether the Ontario law society, which provides a legal aid service, was informed that this man would require legal advice and that he was not in a financial position to procure it himself.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that this special group had been informed of the need of Mr. Hooper, but I have been advised by my department that those services were made available to Mr. Hooper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I follow that question with one other supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister why, since this man was ordered for deportation on April 7, the department took until May 25 to decide to enforce that deportation order rather than proceeding to arraign this man on a charge of refusing to answer questions? In the statement made by the Minister of Justice last Thursday the minister said the department held off taking any action on deportation pending instructions from the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration here in Ottawa as to whether the man would be deported or whether proceedings would be taken against him. May I ask the minister why there was this long

delay and why, after this delay, proceedings were not instituted against this man and he was deported on May 26, when he could just as easily have been deported on April 7 without this long period in jail?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. When the Toronto office submitted the case to the Ottawa office, there were, at the time, some representations to the effect that Hooper was married to a Canadian and had a child born in Canada. It was therefore most important to refer the case to the department. The accuracy of that statement had to be checked, and it was just to give Mr. Hooper a chance that, for three weeks the department officials considered the problem most seriously, though they finally arrived at the conclusion that this would not -because of certain reasons which I do not have to give the house-justify any delay in carrying out the deportation order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Brewin:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have risen twice to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: So has the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, and he was two seconds ahead of you.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Following the minister's answer, can he tell us whether the government is ready to submit to the house a bill which would immediately eliminate, from the Immigration Act, any discriminatory factors which brought about the incident in question and a denial of justice, like in the case of Mr. Hooper?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I accept in no way the second part of the question of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. But I agree with him that there might be some reason for the house studying that aspect of the Immigration Act.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister say when the government will introduce such a bill in the house?


René Tremblay: In due time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Citizenship and Immigration a supplementary question. During the time Hooper was held for 90 or 100 days, or in the case of others who may have been incarcerated under the same circumstances, was there a period in which they, including Hooper, were held incarcerated when there was no charge laid? In other words were they held incarcerated without a charge being laid?
While I am on my feet, in order to save time-the minister can think about that question-No. 2, I would like to ask the minister whether he changed his words in Hansard at page 3728 when he replied to the leader of the New Democratic party last Friday. I suggest he did.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No, he didn't; it was the translation.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, during all his period of detention, Mr. Hooper was held under the Immigration Act, the provisions of Which allow the detention of any individual who is in Canada without a visa, before carrying out a deportation order. On the other hand, as the deportation order has to be carried out as soon as possible, the department must make the necessary arrangements for the deportation.
This involves not only transportation arrangements but also arrangements with the country where the individual is to be deported, in order that all the papers be ready at the time this individual is transferred from Canada to another country.
During the period of detention, I think that legally, and under several other sections of the Immigration Act, the department had every right to bring the case before the court. I believe the department had full right to hold Mr. Hooper without making any charge, and this under sections of the act other than that allowing the department to detain an individual who holds no visa allowing him to remain legally in Canada.
As concerns the second question of the hon. member, I believe what happened-and, Mr. Speaker you mentioned it yourself- was the result of an error in translation: the part where I said Mr. Hooper had had every opportunity to obtain assistance from counsel was not translated, and when the leader of the New Democratic party asked why that had not been allowed, I said this question should be addressed to Mr. Hooper, as I thought the hon. member was aware of my reply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. How many times during those 100 days was Mr. Hooper, accused under the
Inquiries of the Ministry immigration act, brought before the court and asked whether he would answer the questions which the department or the officials wanted answered? In other words, was he brought before the court every eight days according to the practice, and was he permitted to be out on bail during that time? How many times was he asked whether he would answer the questions?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to prevent hon. members from asking questions but the discussion on this matter, although extremely important, has gone on for a considerable time. It seems to me that the type of question the hon. member for Bow River has just asked requires a detailed answer of which the minister is at least entitled to notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, although I bow to you ruling, I think this is an important matter. I asked the minister whether this man had been charged. He was held because he refused to answer the questions asked. He might have been held there for five years. Surely the minister can say whether he was asked five times or six times.


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked how many times. The minister may know and he may not know, and is certainly entitled to check the records before he answers. Therefore I suggest this question be put on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when this matter came up on May 29 I asked the minister this question, as reported at page 3730 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, was he not told that he was going to be kept in custody until he answered questions?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, according to the information on file, I am not aware that such things occurred.
If I understood the minister correctly today, he now finds that this actually took place and that the man was kept in custody because he refused to answer questions. Under all the circumstances and looking back on the situation now-it cannot be repaired -does the minister not feel that the arbitrary conduct in this case deserves an apology to one who suffered from an unbelievable course of conduct on the part of the department of immigration?


René Tremblay: We informed Mr. Hooper that he would stay in jail because we had some very serious reasons for that, as I already have said twice in this house. As a matter of fact, I believe that it would have been dangerous to release Mr. Hooper.
3790	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
During all the time he was detained, he was informed that he would remain in prison; and as concerns a certain statement that has been made in the house to the effect that Mr. Hooper had been threatened to be kept in jail until he spoke, I can say that the officials of my department have checked and reported to me that such a threat has never been made.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not speak about threats, Mr. Speaker. I spoke about statements, because he was told he would not get out until he talked. I now ask the minister, what about the case of Harold Nurse of Trinidad? Was he held in the Don jail for 87 days while his case was reviewed?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this is a further supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the department worked out any system whereby some senior official at Ottawa is kept informed in the case of people being detained for, say, more than a week?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have organized such a system in the department. The department will be informed each day about all the cases which are before the courts or of people who are in jail.


Mr. Nesbitt:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to cut off any
questions on this important matter, but we have spent a very considerable time on it. Unless questions are really urgent and require an immediate answer, may I suggest that hon. members put them on the order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a supplementary or perhaps a related question. Last Friday the minister indicated that he would be able to report to the house today concerning the case of a Greek seaman who was held in London, Ontario, for some 90 days, also without benefit of counsel and, in addition, without benefit of an interpreter since the man could not speak English. Would the minister now be prepared to give a report on this matter?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Oxford repeated a question he had asked on April 17 regarding Stylianos Yiannopolous, a Greek seaman who


deserted his ship in Canada. The hon. member will recall that some weeks ago my executive assistant provided him with an oral report on the Yiannopolous case and he agreed that a reply in the house was unnecessary. However, in view of this last question I am pleased to provide the following information.
This man deserted his ship in June 1961. He was apprehended in London, Ontario on January 16, 1964. A deportation inquiry was ordered on January 23 but was deferred at Mr. Yiannopolous' request in order to give him time to obtain counsel. He did get a lawyer who asked for a further deferral. It will be seen, therefore, that contrary to the assertion of the hon. member for Oxford, Mr. Yiannopolous did get counsel and was represented throughout all proceedings against him.
The inquiry on the deportation order was held on February 4. Mr. Yiannopolous appealed, and his appeal was heard and dismissed by the immigration appeal board on February 20. Representations on his behalf were then made to me. I reviewed these carefully but decided on March 24 to proceed with the deportation order. Until this time all the delays arose in order to give Mr. Yiannopolous time to get counsel and to appeal the decision.
After the appeal was dismissed the department decided to prosecute him under the Immigration Act in accordance with departmental policy aimed at curbing the serious incidence of ship desertion in Canada. The charge was laid on April 14 and was dismissed on the ground, I believe, that the man's name was improperly spelled, notwithstanding the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charge. He was deported from Canada on April 28. The procedures in this case were entirely legal, but I agree that the period of detention after the appeal was dismissed was too lengthy. Arrangements have been made to avoid such delays in future.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated in his reply that I had made certain representations to his executive assistant. I cannot let that pass unnoticed, Mr. Speaker. When I was in touch with the minister's office concerning this matter the minister's assistant indicated to me that there would be some little time taken in getting all the facts of the case together. He asked whether I was in a hurry about it and I said that there was no immediate hurry, and that I would be glad to receive an answer when it was convenient for the minister and the department if they were busy. I want to make that correction. At no time did I ever say that I wanted a quick answer.


René Tremblay: I will take the hon. member's word.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer from the minister with regard to one question which I think is very important. The right of trial and not having justice denied is one of the most sacred rights of the individual. Under the circumstances and in view of a series of actions which can only be described as tyrannical, does the minister not feel that Hooper, whatever his reputation or position, deserves an apology in the interests of justice in this country?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.


John George Diefenbaker: That shows how arbitrary the department has become.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I appeal to hon. members. It seems to me that this discussion, while important, has lasted for a long time. We have spent almost an hour on the question period.


An hon. Member:: What difference does it make if we spend two hours?


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think we should have some satisfactory answer from the minister, if not now then at a later time. In view of the minister's statement the other day that Hooper enjoyed the privileges of Canadian citizenship although he was not a Canadian citizen, and his statement today with reference to the Greek seaman, that some steps would be taken to deal with situations of this kind; and in view of the statement by the Minister of Justice last Thursday that steps are to be taken to prevent the repetition of occurrences like these in the future, I should like to ask the minister if he will make a statement to the house fairly soon as to what steps are being taken by his department to prevent the recurrence of incidents like those in the Hooper case and that of the Greek seaman, or any other cases in which there may be undue detention where persons are being held for deportation.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the last part of the hon. member's sentence, in which he uses the words "Undue delay".
Inquiries of the Ministry
I think that, under the act, the department and the officials had every right to hold Mr. Hooper and Mr. Yiannopolous.
What I meant by the word acceleration was a method to expedite the administration of the Immigration Act, as well as the decisions to be made in deportation cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This answer is far from satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. I want to know if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is perfectly satisfied to operate under the present procedure. I want to know what the Minister of Justice meant when he told the house that steps were being taken by him and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration "to prevent the repetition of such occurrences in the future". Now, if these two ministers are going to take steps to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, let them tell the house what steps they are proposing to take.


René Tremblay: I will make a statement in the house on my estimates, which I hope will be soon.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter affecting the liberty of people, and the attitude of the minister in this regard is contemptuous of parliament. We deserve an answer to these questions, and the assurance that there is not going to be a repetition of this bureaucratic tyranny that he apparently upholds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not prepared to wait until the minister's estimates come before us. If the minister will not make a statement on the orders of the day, then I think we will have to have a motion to adjourn the house to debate the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I heard the minister say he would make a statement shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He said "on his estimates", and his estimates may not be up until next October or November. The other day he said that 16 were in jail, six of them for over 30 days. We should have a statement sooner than October.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not like to bring this to the attention of the hon. member, but on Thursday, October 31, 1963, I set out certain suggestions as guide lines in asking questions. One of them was that questions should not be speeches, however short, nor be of unreasonable length.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he will make a statement to the house?

Inquiries of the Ministry


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if the estimates of my department are not presented very soon to the house, I will be very glad to oblige hon. members and make a statement concerning deportation procedure in order to expedite the administration of the Immigration Act even under existing provisions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But when?


René Tremblay: As soon as possible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I believe I have the floor, but before I ask the question I should like to know if there is any new rule that would give recognition to a backbencher the odd time.
In the absence of the Minister of Transport 1 should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the agreement between the railway companies and the federal government that there will be no further abandonment of branch lines until a complete survey of the situation in the prairie provinces has been completed, will the government assure the people of the prairies that no action will be taken to remove station agents or close railway stations on any of these lines until the survey has been completed; because in effect such action by the railway companies is almost as serious as if the lines were abandoned.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put this question on the order paper?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I give notice I will debate it at ten o'clock.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
"liberty" magazine
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the decision of Fengate publishers to stop publishing Liberty, a consumer's magazine. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Cook, the publisher of Liberty, had approached him recently to suggest that this action would follow, that is the stopping of the publishing of Liberty, unless the Prime Minister took some action to include Readers' Digest and Time in the legislation that would give a fair share of advertising to Canadian consumer publications.
[Mr. Martineau.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no recollection of receiving any letter from him. He certainly did not approach me personally. I will check into my files, but I do not believe I got a letter.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the Prime Minister received a representation from the Maclean-Hunter magazines within the last few days to indicate that unless some action is taken to ameliorate the effects of Time and Reader's Digest competition in the advertising market for consumer magazines, Maclean-Hunter are going to be put out of business?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that. ROYAL VISIT



POSSIBLE CANCELLATION DUE TO BRITISH ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether there is a rule in England to the effect that, in the event of a general election in that country the Queen cannot leave the territorial land of England and whether, in the event of a general election in England this fall, it would prevent the Queen from coming to our country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer, Mr. Speaker, but if it is in order I will be glad to make inquiries.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. My question relates to Bill No. C-100 and Bill No. C-101, the resolutions preceding which were both passed on Friday and first reading was given. However, the bills were not distributed to the members, and Bill No. C-100 has been called for debate today. I ask him, what is the reason for this delay in distributing to the members of this house these bills after they have received first reading?


Guy Favreau: undertake to inquire immediately and report to the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre concerning Bill No. C-100, I am afraid I must plead guilty and



I, 1964

[Stage Direction]
admit that I have been as delinquent as the hon. member, because I failed to notice that the bill is printed and already on the table of the house.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have not been delinquent about it at all. I have a copy in front of me obtained from the table. These two bills were given first reading on Friday. They should have been put in the letter boxes of all members on Friday night so as to be available over the week end, or at the very least they should have been available this morning. They were brought into the house at 2.30 and some members have not got them yet.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two flags; two policies.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. My question is based on information that came to light over the week end. Is it true that the government is now treating payments made by employers to government hospitalization plans as taxable income in the hands of the employee, even though this is not being done with respect to payments made by employers to private hospitalization or medical plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will put this question on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I will put it down for the overtime period, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 28, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954,
(a)	to provide further assistance to provinces and municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") to make contributions and loans to provinces or municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for this purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars:
(b)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;
National Housing Act
(c)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for constructing or acquiring public housing projects and operating such projects, and to authorize the corporation to contribute a portion of the operating losses on any such projects that provide subsidized housing accommodation to individuals or families of low income;
(d)	to permit federal-provincial public housing projects to include existing housing and hostel or dormitory type housing accommodation;
(e)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to non-profit organizations to assist in the acquisition or construction of housing accommodation for individuals or families of low income;
(f)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to co-operative associations and charitable corporations to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families and to increase from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the maximum amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose;
(g)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of twenty five per cent of the principal and interest on any loans made to provinces or municipalities for this purpose in respect of work completed by March 31, 1967;
(h)	to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
(i)	to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars may be advanced to the corporation for the making of loans to the holders of mortgages issued in respect of loans insured under the act and for the purchase by the corporation of mortgages issued to secure such loans;
(j)	to increase the loan ratio for insured loans made to home owners and builders; and
(k)	to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, just before the committee rose last Thursday evening to report progress on this resolution, I was dealing with the high average cost of acquiring and clearing blighted property in our large cities. I mentioned that the average cost in the two major cities of Montreal and Toronto was approximately $300,000 per acre. I should have pointed out perhaps that these costs are partly offset by recoveries from re-use, but Canadian experience has shown that the loss of about one third of the gross expenditures on the most comprehensive redevelopment projects must be borne and is being borne by the governments concerned.
As indicated by this resolution, the federal government in the national interest is prepared to absorb in future a substantial portion of these losses. Redevelopment, however, will remain essential for those cities in Canada which have depreciated beyond the point of no return, and this need is likely to continue for some time if corrective action is not taken.
It must be borne in mind, however, that redevelopment involves not only high costs

National Housing Act
but considerable disruption as well. As a result of redevelopment moves, families are uprooted and often move away from their neighbours and from the areas with which they are familiar. In this connection it must be borne in mind also that although housing conditions may be improved as a result of redevelopment some families will move away and will move into areas that are similarly overcrowded and inadequate. All levels of government, therefore, must be continually conscious of the fact that something must be done in this direction. The economic and social characteristics of redevelopment should spur us all in the search for devices and techniques which will prevent the deterioration of areas to the point where clearance and the bulldozer offer the only remedy.
Our cities need the means to face up to blight with a proper and more comprehensive set of techniques than merely clearance. The problem is too complex to be dealt with simply by a bulldozer. What is needed is a municipal program which in the early stages would stop the spread of structural and environmental decay and could generate the physical, economic and, more important, the social renewal of declining areas or areas about to decline. Such an urban renewal program would encompass, therefore, three activities, not only the clearance type of redevelopment with which I have dealt but also rehabilitation and conservation. Urban blight usually casts its shadow before it and I firmly believe that it can be turned back, if the warning signs are heeded, but the situation must be attended to when these warning signs first become noticeable. Surely some rehabilitative action can be taken before the point of no return, that is, before bulldozing becomes the only solution.
There are large areas in some of our cities which are beginning to show signs of blight. Frequently they are the older sections, sections where there is increased traffic flow from trucks and other slow moving, heavy vehicles, and sections which have been infiltrated with non-residential use. I believe that the spread of blight in many of these residential neighbourhoods can be corrected if vigorous action is taken soon enough. Indeed, we have only to go into some of the older cities in Canada-I am thinking of Halifax, Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton, though more particularly of the first three mentioned-to see, if they cannot be restored and if we cannot preserve the good qualities of some of these old residential sections. I am sure that the splendid residential qualities of some of these older neighbourhoods can be restored by a combination of public and private action.

Some of the more badly decayed buildings may well have to be demolished, and uses of land, which depreciated the environment may have to be terminated. Undoubtedly new facilities, new utilities and new services will have to be installed and, above all, the owners of private property can and should be encouraged and helped to maintain and improve their properties to reasonable standards. This can only be done, however, by a combination of public and private action.
The government is convinced that rehabil-tation of older neighbourhoods must form an important component of any comprehensive urban renewal program, and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), of the resolution indicate that the government has this in mind.
The third activity which I have mentioned is conservation, which means action to prevent the decay of healthy residential sections that now exist. This in effect is the first and most important-perhaps I should say the most effective-weapon in the prevention of urban decay and, while it is a necessary component of a total program of urban renewal, it is one which by its very nature requires the adoption and enforcement of zoning and maintenance bylaws by the cities, and it falls largely within the purview of provincial and local governments.
This then is the comprehensive program of renewal which I see as the means of helping municipalities to overcome the spread of urban blight. As I have already mentioned, the program involves the redevelopment areas which have depreciated beyond repair, the rehabilitation of areas which can be given extended useful life by positive action, if taken soon enough, and the conservation of all that which is good in the existing urban fabric.
The bill to be presented when the resolution is adopted offers three things to give broader scope and to encourage new kinds of programs of urban renewal in Canada's cities. First, there are additional incentives for redevelopment projects; second-and this is in paragraph (a)-federal aid in the form of contributions or loans for municipal rehabilitation in urban renewal areas and, third N.H.A. loans on existing houses in urban renewal areas will be possible under the new legislation.
In the existing redevelopment provisions, that is, in the act as it now stands, there is the requirement that there must be a substantial residential content in the area, either before or after redevelopment. It is, I think, apparent that comprehensive urban renewal cannot be limited to residential property. The development of fine cities in Canada requires that municipalities be able to clear areas of

blight and slums, whatever their present use may be, whether it is commercial, industrial or residential.
The cost of acquiring and clearing blighted areas is presently shared fifty-fifty by the federal and municipal governments, although in some provinces the provincial government bears part of the municipal share. The municipal share of capital cost is relatively high and undoubtedly this has restricted action, that is, corrective action, in the past. It is the government's intention to widen the act to help municipalities finance their share of capital costs through loans. Again I would refer to paragraph (a) of the resolution.
In addition, the application of federal urban redevelopment grants is to be extended from acquisition and clearance to cover the cost of preparing cleared land for disposal for the re-use proposed. In other words, funds might be provided for worn out municipal services, street and traffic improvements in the selected areas, and for sidewalks and off-street parking in the approved urban renewal areas.
So much for the changes in respect to redevelopment. What of rehabilitation? In this area the federal government now offers aid to the provinces, or to the municipalities that the provinces may designate, to assist in the process of urban rehabilitation. It is now proposed that the federal government offer grants and loans for municipal works in designated areas, where these works are necessary to arrest the spread of blight and contribute to renewal, provided of course the specific area is part of a comprehensive renewal scheme.
Successful rehabilitation depends, however, not just on public works but on private improvements as well, and I believe that the provisions contemplated by this measure will supplement what the private sector of the economy is expected to do. To facilitate private improvements and the fluidity of property markets in renewal areas, the N.H.A. insured loan provisions will be extended to existing housing in designated areas. Furthermore, as the resolution indicates, if private lenders are reluctant to lend in these areas, C.M.H.C. loans will be made available.
As indicated by the resolution, the proposed legislation contains a number of other items, in addition to the urban renewal and public housing provisions to which I alluded briefly last Thursday and again today. In this connection I would draw hon. members' attention to the provisions of paragraph (f) which authorize loans to co-operative and charitable institutions to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families, and which authorize an increase of $100 million for this purpose.
National Housing Act
Paragraph (g) provides that loans to provinces will continue in connection with the construction and expansion of sewage facilities, with forgiveness of 25 per cent of those loans, and paragraph (h) provides an additional $500 million for all purposes, which is to be a charge on the consolidated revenue fund.
Paragraph (h) provides for an increase in the fund to take care of the objectives I have been dealing with during the last few minutes and on Thursday evening, an increase from $2 billion to $2J billion.
Paragraph (i) provides for a special fund of an additional $100 million for secondary mortgages.
Paragraph (j) is intended to increase the loan ratio for insured loans. Hon. members who have read the legislation or who were present will recall that in the last session this was taken care of for a limited period by another method. The loan ratio will be increased under the proposed legislation and there are administrative changes which are contemplated.
At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned there would be an opportunity following the resolution stage to consider the proposed bill in all its detail. I wanted to use this occasion, however, to speak generally about the broad purposes of the measure and the objectives which prompted the government to put forward the important changes about which I have been speaking.
In bringing these remarks to a conclusion I should like to repeat the two most important aims to which I referred some days ago. First there is the wish, the hope, more than that, the intent of the government to do its part in improving standards of housing and housing conditions for those most in need and, in fact, for all Canadians in the elimination of the degrading housing conditions which exist in certain parts of this country, a challenging but realistic objective and one which the government believes should be accorded a high priority in federal housing policy. Second, we can no longer rest content with a federal urban renewal policy, which is confined to clearance and redevelopment alone. Such a policy by implication accepts the process of decay and rot as if it were something inevitable and natural. We know there is no automatic private market process which regenerates urban areas as they decline. Therefore, the government believes that if there is to be such a regenerative process it must be developed as a matter of public policy. We propose to encourage and help the provinces and their municipalities to develop it together with the federal government and its agencies.

National Housing Act


Mr. Hales:: May I ask the minister a question? He referred to making loans in respect to existing houses in designated areas. Did he mean houses in the 35 designated areas in Canada, or was he referring to designated areas within cities?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Designated areas within a city. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will negotiate with the various municipalities interested, and when an area has been designated loans will be made available in that area.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution but in our opinion, or at least in my opinion, it is of such importance to the people of Canada that some attention should be paid to it. We welcome the resolution and look forward with a great deal of interest to scrutinizing carefully the legislation to implement it.
I should like to say to the minister that we particularly welcome his statement that this resolution represents a basic change in the concept and a completely fresh approach to the question of housing. We believe that a basic change and a fresh approach are urgently needed. In our opinion, housing is one of the most important parts of the responsibility of any modem government. Indeed, it ranks with matters such as medical care and old age pensions as among the most important questions facing Canadians at all levels of government. I am reminded of an excellent statement on housing and the part it plays in our lives-a statement which was made in an address to the Canadian housing design council by James A. Murray a well known architect, who had this to say of the purpose of housing:
It shelters the physiological functions of living, sleeping, eating, bathing. It shelters the care and education of children and the private and public domestic life of its occupants. It serves as haven to individuals hard pressed by the group obligations and pressures of modem life. It is a symbol and expression of its occupant in particular and its times in general.
We also welcome the emphasis which the minister has placed upon the need for public housing and the need for the redevelopment of decayed areas. Even more-and I speak particularly for my own constituents-we welcome the attention which has been paid for the first time to the need for the rehabilitation and renovation of the existing stock of housing in areas which are by no means slums, but which can easily become slums if no governmental responsibility is accepted. I agree with the remark the minister made when he said that by international standards most people in Canada are well housed. The emphasis, there, must be placed on the word "most".

In another address delivered to the Canadian housing design council by Mr. Ian Mac-lennan, executive director of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Mac-lennan makes the same statement as was made by the minister in the house. But Mr. Maclennan goes on at once to say:
Nevertheless, there are large numbers of low income families living in desperately inadequate dangerous, and sometimes tragic housing conditions. Thousands of Canadian families can't afford decent housing without some form of subsidy.
It is possible, in theory, to build so many new houses through the private market that adequate housing eventually becomes available even for the very poor. This is called the ''filtering down" process and it's never worked very well. It is an expensive and uncertain way of providing housing for low income families. Expensive because it requires sufficient new housing not only to meet their particular needs, but enough to improve the housing circumstances of everyone else as well. It's uncertain because it requires a public policy to sustain the demand for new housing far beyond the normal market requirements.
Then he goes on to say:
The most direct, economic and certain way of meeting the problem is to build, buy or lease a stock of housing and allocate it to the families who need it most, at prices they can afford to pay. By whatever method this housing is acquired, subsidies of one sort or another are needed, and this is usually called public housing.
Then the author goes on to refer to one of the greatest failures in our whole domestic housing policy in Canada, that is, the failure to meet the need for public housing. Admittedly, this country has done very well through the National Housing Act in financing the housing of the top 50 per cent of the people of Canada. A tremendous stock of houses has been built. But the endeavours at the different levels of government to meet the needs of those who have the greatest housing difficulties, the other 50 per cent, have been a failure. I welcome the frank words of the minister on this subject and the provision contained in the resolution. I hope the legislation will change the picture, because the picture certainly needs to be changed.
Mr. Maclennan goes on to say:
The National Housing Act provides for the construction and operation of public housing in Canada-on the initiation of municipalities, with the approval of the provinces. In 14 years the program has produced only 8,000 subsidized dwelling units-
That is somewhat different from the figure the minister gave us. I think he said that
9,000	were subsidized out of 12,000 units built. Mr. Maclennan's figure may be earlier; he says that in 14 years the program has produced only 8,000 subsidized dwelling units. He goes on to say:
-and there is no doubt that thousands more are needed. An approximate comparison indicates that in 1961 the British paid about $3.15 per capita

in annual subsidies for public housing, the Americans about $0.80 and the Canadians just under $0.10.
I referred earlier to a speech made by Mr. Murray on housing and architecture. I wish to read something he has to say on this subject.
In the 1950-60 period some 3,600 units of subsidized housing were laboriously achieved alongside some 1,263,000 private housing starts or 2/5 of 1 per cent of the private market. This should indicate that as a nation we are so rich we don't need it, so poor we can't afford it, or so ineffective we can't do it. It is not the purpose of this paper to assess which is nearer the truth.
Although Mr. Murray was too tactful to assess which is nearer the truth, we will assert that it is not because we are so rich that we do not need this public housing in Canada, and it is not because we are so poor that we cannot afford it. The real reason is that we have been so ineffective that we have not been able to do it; and I hope this resolution and the legislation which will follow will bring a change in that field. Mr. Murray goes on to say that we have made excellent progress in home building for the upper income brackets. He says:
This home builder segment of the total housing machine is extraordinarily effective and the private builder plus private client, plus government insured mortgage system is tremendously effective in the top income third and through the upper half of the middle third-all this is done under the agreeable twin euphemisms of private housing and home ownership.
If we are to take seriously the need for housing, which is so tremendously important to the families of Canadians, including not only those in the big cities but those in other communities as well, we have to accept the lead of other countries, acknowledge the need for public subsidized housing, and change the picture; and I welcome the indication the resolution gives, that the government intends to bring in legislation for this purpose. Because of the fact that in Canada the responsibility is divided, it seems to me the danger is that we do not have an adequate amount of planning and co-operation between the different levels of government. I fully appreciate that there is a constitutional problem involved in direct communication between the federal government, which is responsible for a substantial amount of the financing of housing, and the municipal governments which are, as has been said, the creatures of provincial legislatures. But the time has come when, if we mean what we say about co-operative federalism in a vital and urgent subject like housing, we need constant conference among those who represent great urban areas like Toronto-I mention that first because I happen to live there-or Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg,
National Housing Act
the representatives of municipalities, which have the local initiative to carry out these plans, the provinces which have their share of responsibility, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It is not good enough to pass legislation which enables the federal government to do certain things. There is a great and urgent necessity for strong leadership; and I welcome the statement of determination that I read in the minister's speech. It is to be found at page 3717 of Hansard, where he said, if my recollection is correct, that the goal of this legislation is frankly ambitious and it encompasses nothing less than a decent standard of living for all Canadians. That is a laudable objective, I say to the minister; but it cannot be accomplished without the most vigorous initiatives and the highest degree of co-operation among the different levels of government.
I want to refer for a moment to a part of the city of Toronto-I do so because I represent a riding in that city-where people have lived for 50 or 60 years in a very pleasant but not wealthy locality with good schools, excellent recreation centres and other things of this sort. But unless steps are taken, and taken soon, to put the impetus of government financing behind the rehabilitation, the renewal of that sort of area which is by no means a slum area or one suffering slum conditions, and unless the same energy is employed that is going into financing the building of suburban areas for the upper income groups, in the course of time we are going to find that we have failed in the laudable objective the minister has put forward.
What is needed in respect of the rehabilitation of some of these central areas of the city? What is a comprehensive scheme of urban renewal? Again, Mr. Chairman, I have reference to the speech made by Mr. Maclen-nan, because he puts it much better than I could, to the Canadian housing design council on April 22 of this year. This speech was given at the Royal Ontario museum, Toronto. Mr. Maclennan said this:
A comprehensive scheme of urban renewal would encompass a whole range of aids to reestablish confidence and vitality in deteriorating neighbourhoods. These would include, besides redevelopment and public housing at least four other measures.
(1)	Refurbishing of community services such as streets, lighting, parks and schools. This would depend on financial aid to the municipality for help in replacing utilities and facilities in parts of the area being developed. This is important because lending institutions are unlikely to invest in renewal areas which are in unsatisfactory condition.
(2)	Partial rehabilitation for houses which do not require total clearance. This must be done quickly if the deterioration of the buildings and their surroundings are not to reach a point where

National Housing Act
it will not be financially wise to invest in repairs. The basic demands of rehabilitation are to use what we have that is worth using, and to keep costly redevelopment to a minimum.
I commend that statement to the minister. Redevelopment schemes at the centre of big cities are apt to be very expensive; they do not meet the neighbourhood needs; the people are sometimes put out and expensive apartments are built in their place; commercial areas grow up-and this may be perfectly all right-or office buildings. This is perfectly good planning; but if it is rehabilitation of what we have already that is needed, this type of costly revelopment is a great disservice to the people of Canada. Third, he says:
Financial assistance in the form of loans to owners of existing houses (in areas included in the urban renewal program) to increase their marketability, or to assist those wishing to rehabilitate their own dwellings. Through this plan residential buildings could be given additional life of many years.
I understand the legislation that is proposed will enable this to be done, and I welcome that very warmly because I think it is an important change of direction. I only hope it is followed up with energy by whoever is responsible. I do not know whether this minister is to continue with the responsibility indefinitely, but if he is I say to him that this part of the program should be followed up with the greatest energy, because I think it is very important. Mr. Maclennan goes on to say:
Neighbourhood conservation through the enforcement of building maintenance codes and occupancy bylaws.
That is not a matter, of course, for the federal government. Then he says:
A combined attack of public and private enterprise on urban blight through such a comprehensive plan could alter the face of our cities in a substantial and dramatic manner,
I believe that is what we can get if this legislation is effectively put into operation, and to be put into operation it needs, as I say, co-operation between the various levels of government. I want to give an illustration of a lack of adequate co-operation, as it seems to me, in this field of housing in relation to a well meant effort that went astray. I happen to know something about it, and I asked a question about it in the house, by putting my question on the order paper. It was answered in Hansard of May 6, 1964. My question related to the cost of a partnership development project entered into between the province of Ontario and central mortgage and housing for the acquisition of farm lands in the township of Scarborough. This appears at page 2971 of Hansard and it concerned land in the neighbourhood of Malvern
[Mr. Brewin.l
which was intended to be acquired land for low cost housing. My question asked:
What was the total sum of money paid out to farmers who owned the lands expropriated for the purpose?
It turned out that it was something over $2,300,000. The farms were expropriated in 1953 and I asked what housing developments, if any, had taken place under the project. The answer was that the lands have not yet been developed. After the farms were expropriated some of the land acquired for this joint housing project was rented back to the farmers, but no action was taken in respect to this land assembly at all. The reason will become apparent later.
Then I asked what was the cost in interest of this acquisition, apart from paying off the farmers, the reply was that the cost in interest which had accrued to March 31, 1964 was $765,070, with legal survey and sundry charges of $77,411. The net recovery from the rental of land and buildings was $93,401.
Then I asked whether any of this land had been sold, but only small parcels had been sold to the board of education and to other bodies of that sort. Certain small parcels had been leased.
Finally I asked:
If no serious development has taken place or is contemplated in the near future, what do the government of Canada and the government of Ontario propose to do with the lands in question?
The answer was as follows:
It is intended to make this land available for urban development as soon as the necessary municipal trunk services reach the area. Plans for a comprehensive neighbourhood will be prepared at the appropriate time. Land will be set aside for community facilities and for public housing projects to accommodate families of low income.
This answer to my question indicates a serious lack of intelligent, over-all and cooperative planning. We are told why this land was acquired and what the cost in interest amounted to, and nothing has been done with it. The reason is that there had not been the necessary municipal trunk services to reach the area. The land is not serviced and there are no plans to service it.
I was very happy to see in this resolution the statement that, included in the new legislation would be a provision whereby it would be possible to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects, and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of 25 per cent of the principal and interest on any loans made to provinces or to municipalities for this purpose in respect of work completed by March 31, 1967. If we are going to develop new low cost housing projects through government

partnerships-which is an admirable concept -the municipality concerned should be consulted at the beginning, and the necessary arrangements made to ensure that at some appropriate period services will be made available. Otherwise the government is putting farmers off their land and speculating whether or not at a later date they will take a substantial loss. This acquisition to which I referred was in 1953, 11 years ago, and the land has just been left as it is. True, it has been rented back to the farmers, but the housing project was never started and I think the reason was that which I mentioned, lack of adequate planning at the time.
Before I sit down I should like to call to the attention of the minister another matter which, while it is local in one sense, is I think duplicated in many other parts of Canada, certainly in urban areas and cities. The minister will recall that a deputation from the city of Toronto, including Alderman Mrs. Birchard, and the commissioner of planning, presented a brief on the problem of homeless men in the city of Toronto. This brief pointed out that in the city of Toronto there is a serious problem in accommodating homeless single men who are aging and without employment.
I am not going to go over the whole story. Many of these men are over 50, have had little schooling and have few skills. The brief points out the lack of facilities to fill in the spare time of these persons. As the minister will recall, the brief speaks of a good neighbours club which was started in 1957 in a converted house provided by the city. The initial membership of 300 has now grown to over 1,900. Four or five hundred men crowd into the building in order to try to get some place of shelter and recreation during the day.
I would urge, as the brief also urged, that the amendments to the National Housing Act should deal with the plight of these men who are so placed because of social and economic changes beyond their control. I submit it would be appropriate and desirable to include amendments to the National Housing Act so that it would be possible not only to provide such men with adequate living accommodation but also to make available centres where, whether living in housing projects or not, they could find daytime shelter and occupation, recreation and job training. This is the request of the municipalities. I hope the minister will be able to give a favourable response to it, because these are people who are in urgent need, not only in the city from which I happen to come but in many other cities throughout Canada. They are people over 50 years of age with no jobs or opportunities, living in rooming houses of
20220-241J
National Housing Act
the least desirable sort and having nowhere to go during the daytime.
As I said initially, we do not desire to delay this resolution, because we think these amendments to the National Housing Act are good in intent. We hope they will enable the government to do important work in this field. As I said originally-I think the minister agrees with me because he stated this himself in other words-this is a basic need, if all levels of government are to discharge their responsibilities to the people of Canada. This is one of the most important subjects which has come before the house. Other matters placed before us, which are debated at great length and involve a great deal of motion, are in my humble opinion, far less urgent, as far as the lives of some families are concerned. I most earnestly commend the government for introducing this resolution and I hope the legislation will live up to the standard set out therein. I hope even more that the performance of this and of successive governments, and the basic change which the minister has announced, will deal with the urgent need of housing among the low income group in Canada, the people who need it. I would not worry so much if we stopped providing loans to persons like myself who could afford to look elsewhere. I would worry a little more about those who cannot afford decent housing. Slum clearance is fine, but prevention is far better than cure. This resolution is moving in the right direction. Let it not lie on the statute books like idle letters, as in the case of so much housing legislation in the past; let it be implemented with vigour. If it is, a great contribution will be made to the families of Canada.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to pay a tribute to the late minister, Mr. Garland, and to point out that he was the member of the house who took the most active and heartfelt interest in the problems of his fellow Canadians in the field of housing.
Even if we recognize that the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) has great merits in moving this resolution, at the present time, we undoubtedly all know that the suggestions placed on the order paper are the result of the work done by the hon. member for Nipissing who died some time ago.
In addition, I wish to refer to the fact that, last week, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was also saddened by another sudden death, that of Mr. Bates, who was its president for many years.
At the same time, I want to tie those events to another one to mention that-perhaps, as I strongly hope so, this is a mere coincidence

National Housing Act
-the person in charge of the corporation's Montreal office also died a few days ago of a heart attack.
Whether those are mere coincidences, I cannot tell. I hope so but, following those three events, we might conclude that the department, for some time, has been subjected to such strong pressures and that the projects now to be dealt with were of such importance that, to a certain extent, they might have caused their death.
However, I do not want the program now before us to be pigeonholed. If, by means of this resolution and the bill that will follow, we can make a truly valuable contribution to improve housing conditions in this country, we shall be building at the same tune a monument in honour of those who were behind the drafting and promotion of this resolution.
In my opinion, the former minister, the late Mr. Garland, as well as Mr. Bates and the other person from Montreal, whose name, unfortunately, slips my mind at this time, have certainly contributed, with their associates, in offering us the amendments to the act.
The amendments proposed have been hoped for a good many years. In my opinion, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said, we must consider first the situation of municipalities with regard to what we offer them at the present time.
Will the municipalities be in a position to undertake municipal works programs?
Do we have at the present time that committee which, I believe, is required to communicate with the municipal and provincial authorities and the federal government, and allow us to adopt policies agreeable to each of the concerned groups, so that we could rest assured that as soon as the act is passed, it can be immediately enforced. Unfortunately we in Quebec have had, in the past, some rather difficult experience with federal legislation. I do not bear any grudge against anyone, but I know that on account of our very special context in Quebec, certain federal measures have always been difficult to administer.
I would like to refer more particularly to the fact that we have in Quebec a legislation providing for a 3 per cent rebate on the interest paid on a loan directly granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or by another organization vouched for by the corporation. The 3 per cent interest is connected with the assessment of the house itself. This assessment comes under the jurisdiction of the investigators of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It happens sometimes-I know personal and typical

examples-that assessors under federal responsibility are inclined sometimes to increase this value to justify a higher loan.
Now when this amount exceeds the limits set by the provincial government for the 3 per cent interest rebate, then the prospective owner of the house cannot benefit from the 3 per cent rebate which at the end of 20 or 25 years represents a very substantial amount.
I know that it may be difficult to adjust the federal and provincial legislation so that they may be complementary, but I feel that it is my duty to draw the attention of the minister to that point, especially to this advantage granted to the Quebec low wage earners to enable them to buy their own house.
That opportunity, which is offered to them by the provincial government, a reduction of interest is one that I should like the whole Canadian population to share. That is why I wonder, since there seems to be a definitive indication to move along their line, if the provincial opportunity offered at present by Quebec could not be extended to all Canadian citizens.
Could a federal measure not supplement that provincial legislation? Is such a move the responsibility of the provinces as far as the constitution is concerned? This is a point which can be argued upon, but if the federal government, which has more extensive credit powers than the provincial governments, if the government can, as it did today, in the proposals before us, vote, for instance, under item A, $100 million, under item F, $50 million and under item H, half a billion, for a total of $650 million, it certainly can extend that advantage to all the provinces. Then, I wonder about the ceiling on those amounts. Why $100 million, $50 million, $500 million. What are the true limits, since those credits apparently will be issued so that some people may build themselves houses, so that the corporation may back up loans and allow the municipalities to undertake planning and clearing projects in blighted areas. If the federal government is able to issue such credits, it certainly can, in my opinion, do without a portion of the 6 and 7 per cent interest it collects on those loans at the present time.
I am sure that they could be reduced in order to help the Canadian citizens, in order to allow small wage earners, in whom we are particularly interested-those earning $5,000 or less yearly-to become home owners.
However, the burden placed upon school boards and municipalities, which are compelled to raise their tax rates which have to be paid by the small home owner, defeats the very objective we have in mind.

In the province of Quebec especially, municipal taxes have doubled in the last three years. I know many persons who bought a home five or six years ago and who today are wondering whether to dispose of it or to deny themselves the bare necessities.
Mr. Chairman, that shows to what extent our provincial and municipal governments need sources of revenue precisely in order to assume their responsibilities. And when I see that the federal government offers to loan more than $650 million, when I think that it has so much money at its disposal, I wonder immediately why it does not withdraw from some taxation fields to enable the provinces and, subsequently, the municipalities to take them over in order lighten the burden which now falls on the shoulders of the small property owner and which seems to keep on increasing.
When I deal with that problem, I know that I touch upon a most sensitive matter as far as several hon. members are concerned-


The Deputy Chairman:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


H.-Pit Lessard: Do we have only ten minutes on this measure?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has only had ten minutes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I presume there has been some mistake. Would the hon. member proceed, please.


H.-Pit Lessard: The resolution under study considers the possibility of granting loans and subsidies. There again, I wonder how we will be able to reconcile loans made by the federal government directly to the municipalities? I know that in Quebec that raises a problem. Will those loans be granted to the municipalities under the Municipal Development and Loan Act we passed last year, since at the time we offered the provinces the possibility of making direct loans to the municipalities or to make them through the government of a province which does not want to allow the federal government to interfere directly in a field which does not come under its jurisdiction in short, which does not want to allow the municipalities, which are its creatures, to go over its head.
I feel this piece of legislation will open new grounds for constitutional quarrels with Quebec province which as we know, is very ticklish about its rights, and rightly so-
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would save time later on if I assured the hon. gentleman and other hon. members that this resolution and the principles of the legislation have been discussed with all ten provincial governments and they are in agreement with it.


H.-Pit Lessard: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

If the Quebec government has accepted the resolution as drafted, it would therefore appear that there are, in the act, provisions allowing it to protect its interests or sensitivities concerning autonomy, and I am very happy about that. At any rate, when we have before us the details of the bill, we will surely be in a position to appreciate it better.
Mention is also made of the possibility of getting rid of slums. Now, in the oldest Canadian city, Quebec city, a recent survey disclosed that in some of the original sections, more than 40 per cent of the houses were unsanitary and no longer up to the requirements of public health. I am sure there is in the bill to be passed a possibility for Quebec city to avail itself of some provisions to improve its old sections.
I hope that the act provides the possibility to grant loans for the improvement of these old sections, because I would be the last one to ask for the removal of these old historical sections of the old capital, the first city of Canada. I would like the owners of such historical buildings to be offered the possibility to renovate them and the necessary funds to restore these buildings in their original style, so that old Quebec can maintain, on American soil, the characteristics of old France which cannot be found anywhere else here on the North American continent.
Mr. Chairman, this is a program which could very well be described as a joint plan. It will be joint plan because the federal, provincial and municipal governments will be called upon to partake therein. Unfortunately, those joint programs inevitably bring about some tension, favour certain groups, enforce elsewhere undesirable controls, and I hope that when we examine in details the items of the bill, we will be able to see to what extent each of the interested parties is allowed to manage its own field of jurisdiction.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude, to allow other members of the house to speak before five o'clock and to end the debate as soon as we possibly can, so that the resolution may be accepted and that the bill itself may be proceeded with.

National Housing Act


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
to delay the house, but there is just one question I should like to ask the minister as to subsection (b) where it says:
To authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;
I should like the minister to tell me whether this would apply to a house built about ten years ago, that the owner bought through a financing company on exorbitant terms: for instance, he bought a moderately priced house but he has to pay monthly instalments amounting to $120, $125 or $150 merely due to the fact that the financing company would not grant him a loan for more than three or four years.
I would like to know whether in such circumstances, the amendments to the National Housing Act would allow these people to avail themselves of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's help and obtain a loan on houses of that kind so as to be able to pay a normal amount of $40 to $45 per month. Nowadays their houses are being taken away from them because they cannot pay the amounts they thought they would be able to meet some two or three years ago; they cannot pay them any more on account of the depression prevailing in our areas which are rightfully called depressed areas.
I should like the minister to tell us whether it will be possible for those people to avail themselves of the benefits made available by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on what I consider to be a most important resolution, but as the time is approaching five o'clock may I simply open my remarks by expressing on behalf of our group our sincere feeling of loss in the passing of Mr. Garland and Mr. Bates, two men who had a remarkably keen interest in the very matters we are now discussing. In honour of their memory I feel we should give intensive consideration to this most important matter of housing.
May I call it five o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being five o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to introducing legislation that would acknowledge the Canadian red ensign as Canada's distinctive national flag as endorsed by the Royal Canadian Legion and the I.O.D.E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in bringing this motion before parliament I do so on behalf of those people who cannot speak for themselves in parliament except through the voices of their elected member or members.
When I placed this motion on the order paper last February I did not realize at that time that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), come hell or high water, would rush the personal selection of his pennant to the stage where he was going to have his flag announced before my motion came up for debate. The views I wish to place on record this afternoon are my own personal views, as well as the opinions of approximately 90 per cent of the letters I have so far received from the people I represent-and naturally I am speaking of my own constituency, the riding of Elgin.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not speak for the Conservative party as a whole, for we on this side of the house are free thinkers and free speakers.


Mr. Winkler:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander McBain: We are not like the Liberals who, on a Tuesday, were told by the Prime Minister, "When the flag question comes up for a vote it will be a free vote and you can vote as your conscience dictates," and then a few days later he changed that and made the statement that the government would stand or fall on the flag question. Oh yes, the Prime Minister says to his supporters, "It will be a free vote, but you vote for me and my flag-or else."
I do not know if the Prime Minister has as yet got himself on to that high water mark, but he sure has been getting heck from a lot of people who have expressed their opinions to me by telegram, mail and telephone. Universally public opinion, as I have received it, is, "Don't let Pearson throw our Canadian ensign into the garbage can." We wonder if the Prime Minister has forgotten that the red ensign really is the Canadian flag, as it was made so by order in council of September 5, 1945, P.C. 5888, signed by the Governor General, where it is ordered that-
-the red ensign with the shield of the coat-of-arms of Canada in the fly, (hereinafter referred to as the Canadian red ensign), may be flown from

buildings owned or occupied by the federal government within or without Canada-and that it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign, within or without Canada, wherever place or occasion may make desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
Some weeks ago a question was placed on the order paper and eventually answered. It asked how many signatures the Prime Minister had so far received from persons who wished to have the Canadian ensign maintained as Canada's national flag. At the time of the reply, which was early in April, some
98,000	signatures had been received supporting the Canadian red ensign, and these were all of a voluntary nature. I am sure if a petition were widely circulated throughout Canada it would contain more names than were ever received by any government on any other matter, in support of our Canadian red ensign flag.
I have taken the opportunity to read the many letters appearing in the press from time to time, written by individuals concerning a Canadian flag. The great majority of these letters support the Canadian red ensign, and I am sure the writers have given this matter their serious consideration before writing to the editors of their respective papers.
The only distinctive flag for Canada is the present ensign and no other. It contains the union jack, which represents our union with the great commonwealth of nations. The coat of arms represents the four great peoples who discovered and built up Canada into one of the great nations of the world, the English, French, Irish and Scots. What more do we need for a distinctive flag?
In the last three wars over 100,000 of our finest citizens gave their lives for the defence of our ensign and what it represents. Does that not make it a distinctive flag? There are millions of fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters and children mourning today for their loved ones who gave their lives that we should be free and not under a dictatorship. These people are proud of those who made the supreme sacrifice in upholding ensign and country. This also makes our ensign distinctive.
I agree that flag as it stands today may not be entirely acceptable to everyone in Canada, but I am equally certain it is acceptable to the majority of us who are proud to call it our flag. The flag is not only for display to Canadians in Canada, or simply to visitors to Canada; it is our symbol overseas in all countries and also in the United States and must, therefore, be a flag in accordance with the long accepted principles of heraldry and tradition.
Canadian Flag
Speaking on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion and the ladies of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, who have taken a definite stand on our flag question and universally adopted the Canadian red ensign, they have put forward, time and again, their stand to the Prime Minister and to members of parliament. Recently the annual Canadian Legion's convention in Winnipeg and the annual meeting of the I.O.D.E. again unanimously adopted the Canadian ensign as Canada's flag.
Of course, as we all know, the Prime Minister thought he would brave the lions in their own den and make an appearance at the annual meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg to unveil to them his proposal for his new flag. I believe it is true that he was booed and cheered to some extent when he announced the proposal for a flag, but how otherwise could these 1,900 delegates raise an objection to a flag, other than the Canadian red ensign, before the Prime Minister of Canada when he was attending their meeting? Would each one of them have had the opportunity to express his individual views to the Prime Minister? No, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to note the words of Mr. C. B. Sinclair, second vice president of the Canadian corps association spoken last fall. He had this to say:
The time for a different flag might have been in 1867, at the time of confederation, but certainly not 1967, the one hundredth anniversary of confederation. The day is long gone when any federal government should consider tampering with our Canadian red ensign, with its long history and tradition. To do so now, would I think, be an attempt at political expediency of the lowest order. If the various "ethnic groups" which have migrated to Canada from other lands, and have become an integral part of our growing country are told with absolute and complete finality, that the Canadian red ensign is the flag of Canada, they will accept this as part of their new life, as happily and as completely as they accept all other aspects of their newly adopted country. Our present government and its immediate predecessor have been forced to function as minority governments, which is sometimes difficult, but we firmly believe in the maturity of the Canadian people, and, if our federal government can find the courage to govern wisely, with political considerations giving way to national necessities and wellbeing, the citizens of Canada, both new and old, would applaud such courage, and we could all look forward to 1967, when our nation will celebrate its one hundredth birthday, and with this centennial celebrated under the same flag as its birth-who could ask for greater consistency?
I feel the Prime Minister has left the impression with the people of Canada that the majority of his present mail favours a new flag. But I wish to place on the record a portion of a letter that he received and which I am sure neither he nor any of his supporters will be placing on the record for public scrutiny. It is from a resident in

Canadian Flag
my constituency who was kind enough to mail carbon copies of it both to myself and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker).
I was speaking to this gentleman yesterday and he said it was the first time he had ever written to any leader of any government, but he was so incensed when the announcement of a new flag for Canada was made that he had to sit down and put his feelings in a letter and direct it to the Prime Minister of Canada. This is a six page letter, but I am only going to deal with the first two pages which cover the flag question. It reads as follows:
St. Thomas, Ont.
May 16, 1964
Hon. Mr. Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Dear Sir:
Regards your tenure of office as Prime Minister and your vaunted 60 days of decision which has turned out to be 300 days of indecision, I have listened to your interviews on television with Mr. DePoe and Mr. Pelletier and others and your own admission in the press that you have made many mistakes this term. I have always admired your abilities. But these interviews have been very disappointing. You give the Impression of a schoolboy trying to convince the teacher he has his homework done when he has not. Why all the sidestepping? If you don't change you may go down in history as the most destructive and incompetent prime minister Canada has ever had. Your inability to control the country. Why do you allow threats against the Queen? A good leader would make short work of the F.L.Q. and others. Regards your promise of a new flag for Canada. By what right as an individual have you to make a decision to change the flag of our country? Then push over on us one of no meaning. The maple leaves bud in the spring and die in the fall. What shall we cling to the rest of the year? Your explanation at Espanola, Ontario, to the Canadian Legion was very weak.
Your remarks of how proud we were in the first world war to wear the maple leaf on our uniforms. Yes, only denoted to other army personnel of other countries where we were from. They also had a mark of distinction on their uniforms. It was the red ensign that held us together. It was for that the boys bled and died for. Have you forgot 1892 when it was first used. The order in council by the cabinet in 1924. The federal order in council 1945. That the red ensign was the national flag for Canada. This is the flag of unity for all Canada. Mr. Prime Minister are you listening to the voices of the extremists for your own personal gain and trying to push over on the majority of this meaningless rag. In Ontario there is a town of Delhi on No. 3 highway. This community is largely made up of peoples of nationalities of every race of Europe as well as Canadians. They all live peaceably together. The different races speak their own tongues within themselves. Yet at the roadside of No. 3 highway they have a large red ensign encased in glass and Illuminated 24 hours a day. The inscription reads "This is our flag, let's keep it flying". This should be the motto for all Canada.
That is why these people came to Canada to be under that flag.

Since the end of the second world war in 1945, many persons from European countries have emigrated to Canada.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Would it be possible for the hon. member to identify the author of the letter he was reading?


James Alexander McBain: The author is Mr. Louis Coughlin of 144 Wilson avenue, St. Thomas, Ontario.
As I was saying, since the end of the second world war in 1945, many persons have emigrated to Canada from European countries. They felt they could no longer remain under a dictatorship in their own country and Canada, therefore, was their choice. They knew that here in Canada they could be given freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of the press. Never in Canadian history has a prime minister and his government tampered with the rights and privileges of so many people in such a brief period of time. It has been accepted since confederation that we should maintain and respect the two languages of our country. What we have before us on the order paper is a resolution dealing with two flags-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I would point out to him the terms of his own motion which he is now debating. Any reference which he might make to the resolution on the order paper would be out of order, as the hon. member will find if he reads citation 131 on page 116 of Beauchesne or if he reads citation 403 of May's sixteenth edition. But I believe I can make it very clear to all members of the house by drawing attention to part of citation 149 on page 127 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne paragraph (d) which states that a member while speaking must not-
- (d) anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration.
Although it will be quite in order for the hon. member to continue his argument in support of the red ensign, any reference to the motion which is now on the order paper would, I think, be patently out of order and I think the authorities also take that view.


James Alexander McBain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was just a passing reference I was making to the motion which is on the order paper. I thank you for drawing this to my attention and to the attention of other speakers who may follow.
I think that we as members of parliament are all desirous of having unity within Canada. My question is this: Why the sudden rush for a new flag? What is wrong with our Canadian red ensign? It would appear that the Prime Minister and his government are

using the flag to camouflage their inability to govern. Some weeks ago we heard the Prime Minister outline some 30 pieces of legislation he wished to have approved before the summer recess. Let us get on with the business of parliament to provide jobs for people and put food into persons mouths; let us bring in legislation which will unite Canada's population, not divide it. Let us have one Canada and one flag-the Canadian red ensign.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Sala-berry):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion that we have now before us deals with a subject in which a great many Canadians are interested at this time. I do not intend to engage in a broad discussion of this matter of a distinctive national flag; I will confine my remarks, pursuant to standing orders, to the content of this resolution which would have this government acknowledge the Canadian red ensign as the distinctive flag of Canada, as it is endorsed by the Royal Canadian Legion and the I.O.D.E. Although I completely agree with the principle of giving our country a distinctive national flag, and that as soon as possible, I cannot agree to this motion introduced by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) whereby this distinctive flag would be the red ensign on which we find the union jack and the coat of arms of Canada.
I am taking the liberty to add that, not only do I speak in my own name as a responsible member, but also for the people I represent, the people of Beauharnois-Salaberry county. I have met with my constituents during the last few days, and I feel quite free to express my views in the house.
I cannot see how we could consider that flag as really distinctive of our country while it shows the emblem of another country. Like many other Canadians, I have also learned to respect the Canadian red ensign and to accept its use during the last few years; but it has remained for me a pennant, an ensign, and not a flag meeting with the aspirations of a young and dynamic country.
It is a good thing that a flag should reflect our past but, on the other hand, it does not have to be a Canadian history book. We have the duty to select a flag which will really identify Canada and which, at the same time, will be an emblem that will make us look to the future, and a symbol of hope for our youth and future generations.
The union jack, in the upper left hand corner of the red ensign is, of course, a beautiful flag from an aesthetic point of view and it shows the origin of the British people by the superposition of the Cross of St. George, England's flag, the Cross of St.
Canadian Flag
Andrew, Scotland's flag, and the Cross of St. Patrick, Ireland's flag. However, the union jack has nothing Canadian, even though one third of the Canadian people are of British descent.
Our ancestors came to Canada to build a new country, a young country, a self-governing and independent country which, today, can assume its responsibilities in international affairs where its influence is well known. Therefore, Canada can and even must have a flag distinctive from that of any other country, showing that it is not under the dependence of any foreign or friendly nation.
I wish to offend nobody, but the red ensign still remains basically the flag of the British merchant marine, on which the coat of arms of Canada has been added. Only one fiftieth of the surface of the red ensign shows a really and purely Canadian identification, that is the three red maple leaves on white background which appear on the bottom part of the coat of arms of Canada.
From colonial states, our country achieved the status of a self-governing state. Then, it obtained its sovereignty and finally became one of the recognized nations of the world. This progressive and peaceful evolution took place without disrupting our relations with the motherlands of our founders. As this political evolution is now over, it is our duty to show it to the face of the world.
Why should the union jack instead of coat of arms of our country be in the foreground of a Canadian flag? Why should we not follow in respect of a national flag the same policy we started to implement, that is to strengthen Canadian thought, create a real Canadian image and, in a common effort towards understanding, unite Canadians from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, it is mentioned in the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Elgin that the Royal Canadian Legion and the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire are in favour of the adoption of the red ensign as a national flag.
So, before concluding my remarks, I will discuss this point, for I am a veteran who served under this flag, as a member of the Canadian air force during the last world war. I am also a regular member of the Canadian Legion, section 62, in Salaberry de Valleyfield.
I admit that the national directors of the Legion want us to maintain the red ensign as the Canadian flag. I did indeed go to Winnipeg for the opening of the convention, not only as a member of parliament, but as the delegate of my section, with a proxy when it came to the vote. I am far from being convinced that all the members of the legion in this country are in unanimous

Canadian Flag
agreement in this matter, and indeed, we have lately heard certain branches approving the Prime Minister when he submitted a distinctive national flag, on which there was no sign of allegiance to any other country. May I read to you the following letter addressed to me on May 12 by Mr. Larry Soly, chairman of local 62, in Valley-field,
Dear Gerald:
We ask our members' views with regard to the flag, and these were the results:
Red ensign: 30 per cent in favor.
Distinctive flag: 70 per cent in favor.
I hope that your stay in Winnipeg will be pleasant, and that you will find some time for rest.
You may use the two proxy votes of local 62, as you see fit. Dave Watson, our district representative, will also be at the convention, and he will certainly be pleased to meet you there.
Cordially,
Royal Canadian Legion 62
Larry Soly, Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, it is a significant fact that my section should have taken it upon itself to write this letter to me, without my having made any request in this respect, and should have given me its unlimited trust, whereas last November its members had had every opportunity of knowing my views on the flag question, when I had been invited as a speaker at their meeting. In Winnipeg, I also had an opportunity of discussing with several members of the Legion, from various parts of the country, and even there some were ready to accept a national flag which would be really distinctive, other than the red ensign, and also a certain number of others who were not fighting with such grim determination for the red ensign as might be gathered from the statements coming from that convention and the resolutions which were voted at the meetings. I also had an opportunity of meeting a few young students from Winnipeg with whom I discussed the matter of the flag, and the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-La-salle (Mr. Rock) was able to see, like myself, that a great majority among them favoured a truly Canadian flag to replace the red ensign.
If I may, I will now quote a paragraph of the order in council of September 5, 1945 which authorized the flying of this red ensign as our national flag.

That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag, it is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.

As you can notice, the terms used:


That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag-

That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag.
Those words indicate that even at that time consideration was being given to the adoption of a truly distinctive flag and that the red ensign was to be used during the period of transition which would eventually lead us to choose a purely Canadian standard free from any foreign symbol. We have reached that historic moment which is an indication of our political maturity and of our national pride and the attachment we have for our country.
Consequently, I would ask the house to reject this motion which is contrary to the wishes of the majority in Canada and to give our people and our children as soon as possible a truly national identity through the adoption, by parliament, of a flag bearing the colours of Canada, that is three red maple leaves on a white background with a blue stripe at both ends.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to the resolution before us I should like to say, first of all, that the opinions I express are my own. I do not know how it is in other parties in this house on this resolution or on the flag question generally, but in the New Democratic party we have decided to have a free vote-a free vote on this resolution and on the flag issue. Personally I believe this is a fair and very wise decision. A flag-the red ensign, as the resolution before us champions, or any other flag-is something which to me cuts across all party lines and all classes of opinion in the country. For example, there are some in my own party who favour the red ensign, as this resolution asks. There are those who oppose it and favour a distinctive, or a more distinctive, Canadian flag. Then there is a third group in my party, and I believe in some of the other parties in the house as well, which has a different opinion still. That opinion, and I voice it in relation to the resolution before us, as I would on any other flag resolution, is that the present government and the present house have no mandate from the Canadian people to decide the flag issue, either the red ensign or the proposed maple leaf flag.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that in the last election one of the parties, the Liberal party, proposed the establishment of a distinctive Canadian flag. However I think that most

hon. members would agree with me that this was never an issue in the campaign. It was seen in the Liberal party literature that they proposed a distinctive Canadian flag, but I am sure that many members here will agree with me that in the Liberal campaign literature in the past we have seen such proposals put forward as a medicare plan, which was suggested as early as 1919. I do not think that the majority of Canadians thought that the red ensign as proposed in the resolution before us, or the proposed new flag, would really be an issue in this House of Commons.
Personally, I think that if the present government or the present house, which is still made up of minorities, has any mandate from the people of Canada on the flag issue, that mandate would extend in my mind only to placing before the people of Canada what this resolution calls for, the red ensign, or a more distinctive Canadian flag, and of doing that in the form of a plebiscite, and urging the people of Canada to make their choice as to the emblem they wish.
I think that the introduction of the flag issue at this particular stage of the session, so far from unifying the country may have an adverse or even the opposite effect. In the meantime, while we are debating such resolutions as the one before us on the red ensign or the one on the general flag issue, we are surely taking up time which should be devoted to more pressing economic issues in the country. I also think that if we vote on this resolution tonight or on the more general flag resolution later, whatever settlement we make or whatever vote we come to will be decided on a majority basis. But that decision will not in any way remove the deep emotional feelings which the people of this country have in respect to the red ensign or to the general flag issue. Whether we vote it down or whether we vote in support of the red ensign or the proposed new flag, I do not think that that will be an end to the issue in the country. Here we are, 265 members of parliament out of a population of between 19 and 20 million people, a population which has never been really asked to give its opinion either for the red ensign or for this new flag. We are supposed to make a decision on this matter without damaging the unity of the country. I do not think that that is a practical proposition. I feel that, rather than voting on the resolution before us or on the government's coming resolution, we should consider very carefully whether it would not be better in the long run and in the interest of the country to take this matter out of party politics and to put before the people a plain plebiscite asking them to decide between the red ensign or the maple leaf flag. This is my own view, and it 20220-242J
Canadian Flag
is shared by some members of my party as well perhaps as by some members of other parties. I put it forward sincerely because I feel that the flag issue is one which will be much better handled in the way I suggest.
It is not too late for the present administration to take a second look at putting before us the flag proposal which they have in mind. They have earlier taken second looks at matters such as the sales tax, the budget and the pension plan. There is still time for a full reconsideration of this issue.
In conclusion, I would say that if we made up our mind to remove the issue from the house and from politics and to put it before the people in a plebiscite, we would then get the most democratic expression in the country of the people's will on the flag issue, and it would also enable us to get on with more pressing economic matters. So to that degree I oppose the resolution which is now before us.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, it is strange to hear an N.D.P. member who must have new principles for a new democracy. When the majority has declared itself in favour of something they do not like, such as nuclear weapons and, in this case, the national flag, they claim that we must set little store by the vote of the people. But if, for various reasons, they feel we must respect the will of the people, they invoke the principles of true democracy and they speak of the operation of our democratic institutions. And they say it is irregular for members of parliament to pass legislation concerning the flag.
As the new distinctive flag project for Canada was contained in the platform of the party now in office, of the government party, I believe the members are entitled to represent the people who elected them and there is no question of holding a referendum or a plebiscite thereafter. The government takes a position, it makes a decision, and if democracy does not like this government's decision, the government may be overthrown in the next election.
But as this article was included in the platform of the Liberal party, I see absolutely no reason for holding a referendum or a plebiscite. Besides, it would take about 97 years thereafter for us to get a really distinctive flag.
And I come back to the motion before us. When it is said that the red ensign is a distinctive flag for Canada, I admit this is right, but I also believe it must be admitted the Canadian people today want an entirely and decidedly distinctive flag, and it is why the red ensign should not be recognized as a completely and absolutely distinctive flag.

Canadian Flag
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) said that we celebrated the advent of confederation in 1867 with the red ensign and that we should also celebrate the centennial under the red ensign. I regret I have to differ with him, but surely the Canadian flag, which was accepted and adopted by order in council in 1945, did not exist in 1867 as the distinctive flag of Canada. Consequently, I am not ready to accept his argument on this point.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me Mr. Ollivier's book entitled British North America Acts and Selected Statutes, in which I find the Statute of Westminster, which was assented to on December 11, 1931. In the preamble, among other things, we read:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would beta accord...
Therefore, the Statute of Westminster, without referring to any flag whatever, neither the union jack nor any other, states in its preamble that we form part of the commonwealth of nations.
This is pointed out in the Statute of Westminster, in the preamble that was accepted by all the commonwealth countries at that time. Now I should like to quote section 11 of the Statute of Westminster. Here it is:
Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any Province or State forming part of a Dominion.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the Statute of Westminster, which was accepted not only by the provinces of the dominion but by the parliament of the United Kingdom as well, clearly provided that thereafter Canada and the other commonwealth countries were no longer colonies.
I believe it is reasonable that the people of a colony be keen on showing, some way or other, their dependence on the mother country. But when the colony no longer exists, when it has clearly and definitely achieved independence, I do not think it is an indication of pride to be bent on showing in a flag any sign of dependence. I think that what proved to be an obstacle for some time to the adoption of a really distinctive flag, is the fact that my fellow countrymen speaking another language would have liked it very much if French Canadians had insisted on some little sign showing their feelings towards France. Well, we do not want any. Not because we are prejudiced against France or our feelings for France have diminished in any way, but because we believe that Canada is a full-grown country and that there is no
[Mr. Marcoux.l
reason why we should insist on some symbol of France on our flag.
And when we think we are practising Canadian nationalism, we think that we might resemble the Canadians who wanted our country to identify itself as a separate entity of North America, and not as an appendage or an appendix to a European country.
I happen to have here the House of Commons Debates for 1935, which I took for another reason, and where I read a speech by Henri Bourassa, who was one of the promoters of Canadian nationalism, not French Canadian, narrow or provincial, but a sound nationalism, a nationalism which makes us, French Canadians, think that it is a tragedy, like a new Dunkirk, to see a company like the Canadian Oil, for instance, sold to American interests, or John Labatt, sold to another American company; it grieves us, French Canadians, not because it is English capital that goes to the United States, but because it is Canadian capital which leaves us and goes to a foreign country.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the matter of a really distinctive flag, I do not think that we would be justified in accepting the red ensign. I agree that it was accepted in 1945, as I said a while ago, but we must not forget that in 1947 the Canadian parliament decided that Canadians could now avail themselves of the Canadian citizenship. We are now Canadian citizens, we are no longer British subjects, and I think that we should be proud to be Canadian citizens. If one must be proud to be a Canadian citizen, I feel one must also be proud to have a flag which clearly indicates that we are Canadian citizens and not British subjects or even French subjects.
The red ensign was used by our merchant navy; before, it had been used by the British merchant navy, and we added to it the Canadian coat of arms. Without discrediting the merchant navy which is practically non-existent today, the Canadian merchant navy has practically disappeared-even if it were still in existence, I feel that it would not be normal to accept an emblem belonging to it, that is belonging to a small group to give it to a much more important group such as the whole of Canada. It would not be normal, for instance, to take the flag of a province and have it adopted by the whole of Canada; it would neither be logical nor normal.
For the same reasons, I do not think that we should accept the flag of the merchant navy, even with the coat of arms of Canada added to it.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not go further. I speak for myself but I think I represent at least part of the members of my party. We also decided to have a free vote, not a vote

according to our conscience, because we always vote according to our conscience, but a free vote enabling the House of Commons to take an appropriate decision. That is not a decision to be taken through a plebiscite or some way other than the one brought forward.
Since the Prime Minister's motion is not being discussed, I shall not discuss it either. It may be that some hon. members will wish to discuss it to make some political capital, but personally, I am discussing the motion before the house and I say that I am against it, because I am too proud of being a Canadian, and a Canadian in North America.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it can be realized that Canada is becoming a flag country. Today, we are asked to accept the red ensign. In some other instance, we are asked to accept-and we are prepared to do it-a flag with three maple leaves. Some people would also like us to accept the union jack.
The premier of Newfoundland stated that, as far as he was concerned, he favoured the union jack. I think that the premier of Manitoba also stated that the union jack would fly over the buildings in the province. The premier of Ontario suggested that his province should choose a flag.
We, in the province of Quebec, have the fleur-de-lis, which was adopted several years ago, and I even believe it was the first flag formally adopted in Canada. Our country is somewhat becoming a flag country. We are going to have a whole series of them. We wanted to have one for a long time, and a decision on the flag took very long. Now that we are about to get one, we may have several of them, a whole series. Some would like to prove in this way that we belong to the commonwealth and that we owe allegiance to the Queen.
Mr. Speaker, if the red ensign's purpose is to show that we form part of the British commonwealth, I think that the facts are being misrepresented, because we do not belong to the British commonwealth. We belong a lot more to the United States and to American interests than we could ever belong to the commonwealth or to the Queen of England.
We are dominated by American rather than English capital.
Therefore, under those circumstances, we might as well borrow part of the American flag-


Douglas Mason Fisher: You
mean stars and stripes?


Gilles Grégoire: No. I do not think my words mean that I want the stars and stripes of the American flag on our distinctive national
Canadian Flag
flag, but rather that I want it to have a really distinctive meaning. If we want to choose the union jack or the red ensign to show that we belong to the British commonwealth, I say then that we belong much more to the American capitalists than to the English commonwealth.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Put it in the other corner.


Gilles Grégoire: We might have four or five on the same flag, if it is agreeable to the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Speaker, when anybody talks about giving us a flag, it is always in order to promote Canadian unity, to give us a symbol to promote the development of Canadian unity.
On this matter, I remember quite well having read one day in the English edition of Maclean's magazine-I think it was in January or February of this year, when this question of a national flag was raised-something like this:
When racial or regional causes for differences of opinion spring up between its citizens, Canada does not have a strong enough Canadian nationalism to maintain unity among all those groups.
That is true. We had absolutely nothing typically Canadian, no symbol, nothing in our economy of sociology that was truly Canadian. Everything was borrowed from outside. When rather serious conflicts of opinion arise, there is nothing to maintain unity among Canadians.


Mr. Bigg:: Don't push me too far.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone who wishes this country to be truly independent, who wishes it to have full control over its affairs, is a traitor but, I rather believe that those who take symbols from foreign countries are betraying their country, because they are in favour of foreign symbols and they try to impose them on us. We recognize that the real traitors are not among those who want first of all to be Canadians, but among those who want first of all to be English, because to be Canadians first of all means to develop for our own good and not for the benefit of foreign interests.
It is true that Canadian unity, when threatened, has no symbol, no common activities which could preserve it. The flag could have been one of those means, not the most important, but one of those means-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Don't push me too far.

Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: I do not understand what you are saying. You are too far from here. If you have a question to ask, just ask it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I use that term lightly. Does he know the meaning of the word "treason"?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, I know the meaning of the word "treason".


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Gilles Grégoire: If it is a stupid one, no.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have the privilege to speak in the fine French language, and I wish that you show me the same consideration as I show you.
Here, and here only, can we enjoy the mutual freedom for which we have been praying for more than 200 years.

Pardon my French.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg). He did not have to apologize for his French which, in my opinion, was very good indeed. I shall now continue my remarks.
It is possible to realize national unity but only if we think Canadian first of all, and not otherwise.
It seems to me as if I will have the opportunity to kill this motion tonight. This is a pleasure and a privilege for me. I will do so with pride in view of the fact that this is the first time in the last two years that such an opportunity is given me.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There are only two minutes left.


Gilles Grégoire: Perhaps the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would like to do it himself, since he spoke very often of the national flag, but I shall keep for myself the pleasure and honour of talking out the motion under consideration. I prefer keeping for myself such an honour and privilege.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of having a flag is to encourage national pride. I am proud of the country in which I live, but our pride must not limit itself to a flag; it must be accompanied by practical and concrete realizations.
If the Canadian people are to be proud of their flag, they must be able to lead a decent life in their own country.
[Mr. Bigg.)
If it is intended to make our fellow Canadians proud of the flag they will choose, we must also enable them to make a living in this country, to have access to the resources of their country, to take part in the development of their country and not leave them in poverty in a land of plenty such as Canada.
The flag of a country has a significance. It may show that it feels good to live in a country. But we may wonder whether, for hundreds of thousands of unemployed, for hundreds of thousands of people living on social assistance in our country, it feels so good to live under the flag of our country, that is the one they are given, if they are not allowed to live as human beings in a country as rich as ours.
In all this, when we discuss a flag project, let us ask ourselves if it will make our Canadian citizens proud of their country. They will not be proud of their country, only because of a flag flying over the Canadian parliament and over public buildings in the country, but they will be when the parliament of Canada gives this country concrete proof that it is good to live in a country such as ours and under a flag like the one we are prepared to adopt.
Besides, on the matter of a flag, we are unmindful of the fact that the government has introduced a resolution dealing with two flags, that we are asked to vote on two flags at the same time. I think it is neither normal nor proper. It is a trick to compel the members of the House of Commons to vote on two flags at the same time since they might reject one while supporting the other.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is stupid.


Gilles Grégoire: Instead of that, one could ask that the red ensign be rejected-not that we have anything against it-because we do not want it as a Canadian flag. But we should be asked to vote on a single distinctive national flag in one resolution only.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why don't you let us have a vote on it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), one distinctive national flag; the hon. member for Port

Arthur (Mr. Fisher), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, withdrawal of film respecting Prime Minister; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), Alaska highway, inquiry as to negotiations with the United States.


Miss Jewett:: A tremendous program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: As the
house will be in committee at eight o'clock, will the house agree to resume now the business interrupted at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954,
(a)	to provide further assistance to provinces and municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") to make contributions and loans to provinces or municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for this purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars;
(b)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;
(c)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for constructing or acquiring public housing projects and operating such projects, and to authorize the corporation to contribute a portion of the operating losses on any such projects that provide subsidized housing accommodation to individuals or families of low income:
(d)	to permit federal-provincial public housing projects to include existing housing and hostel or dormitory type housing accommodation;
(e)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to non-profit organizations to assist in the acquisition or construction of housing accommodation for individuals or families of low income:
(f)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to co-operative associations and charitable corporations to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families and to increase from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the maximum amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose;
(g)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of twenty five per cent of the principal and interest on any loans made to provinces or municipalities for this purpose in respect of work completed by March 31, 1967;
National Housing Act
(h)	to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
(i)	to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars may be advanced to the corporation for the making of loans to the holders of mortgages issued in respect of loans insured under the act and for the purchase by the corporation of mortgages issued to secure such loans;
(j)	to increase the loan ratio for insured loans made to home owners and builders; and
(k)	to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the five o'clock adjournment I had been paying my respects to the late Jack Garland and the late Stewart Bates. I can say, without any hesitation at all, that having listened for many years to the late Jack Garland, when he sat on this side of the house discussing his particular study and project relating to housing, we all felt assured that from his position on the ministerial benches there would be great advances made in the National Housing Act, there would be progressive measures introduced, and that there would be a new impetus and drive given to the organization which we know as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is to be regretted that he is not here to give us of his vision of a new and expanded act, and to give of his drive to central mortgage and housing.
I firmly believe that there are needs for vital changes in the National Housing Act, that there is a great need for a new drive in central mortgage and housing. In speaking on this resolution I want first to make it clear that the major views of our party in this house have already been expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood. However there are one or two matters upon which I would like to speak briefly this evening.
I have always been a supporter of the underlying principles that motivated the organization of central mortgage and housing. I have always been a strong supporter of the National Housing Act, and I will continue to be a supporter of both the act and the organization, but I do feel the time has come for us to take a new look at the organization itself.
I believe that it is becoming somewhat moribund; that it is being engulfed in too much red tape; that it is wallowing in a pit of detail; that its vision does not extend

National Housing Act
very much beyond its organizational nose; that architecturally it looks along straight lines and some of its construction, especially in apartments, reminds me of upturned wooden crates with too much emphasis on straight line architectural theories, instead of the modern curve and crescent.
I feel, sir, that it is wallowing so much in detail, red tape, and lack of vision, that progress that could have been made during the past year or 18 months has not been made, and no commencement is even envisaged in the near future on projects which should now be nearing completion.
I was most interested in the remarks of the minister this afternoon when he was speaking of the responsibility of municipalities, of the need for clearing slums and for new development. When he said that it gave me the perfect example of what I have in mind, when I was reminded of his own constituency of Vancouver Centre. With all due honour to the wonderful people who reside in the four to six blocks east of Main street -the minister I know will agree-though a certain start was made in that area, there is a great deal to be done and if there ever was an area where the bulldozer should go in- and should have gone in years ago-it is right in that area at the eastern end of the minister's constituency.
I am convinced from my own knowledge, and I feel certain the minister must feel the same way, that a start could have been made there a year or 18 months ago. He knows, as I know, that the residents in that area were prepared to do something. They wanted to co-operate with the municipality, the province and central mortgage and housing. At their own expense they hired an architect and drafted plans. They submitted their plans to the city, to the province and to central mortgage and housing, yet month after month went by and no start was made, although the money was there as well as the plans.
I personally made a visit down here to Ottawa to see central mortgage and housing about this development, and I can only say that it was the red tape, the detail, the lack of co-operation here in Ottawa that have caused the stalemate on that project-and unnecessarily from my point of view, and I think from the point of view of the residents themselves. Now we have a proposition that in future, perhaps, they can go ahead with this plan, which would have been of terrific benefit to Vancouver because it would have meant a development primarily of a two-section block area, but eventually of a four-section block area of modern construction. The oriental touch however, would be kept side by side with the business Chinatown of Vancouver,

so as to provide new homes for the thousands of our Chinese Canadians who live in the area and a tourist attraction unparalleled in Canada, with the second largest Chinatown on the North American continent. Yet this plan has been held up, for no reason, as far as I have been able to ascertain from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, though the people are ready not only with the plans but with the money from trust funds.
Now we hear of a redevelopment plan for the Chinatown in this area and I am most pleased to have received a letter from Mr. Graham who is director of planning for the city of Vancouver under date of April 10. He says:
The final scheme produced was a compromise from the original submission by the Vancouver Chinatown development association. It still had the same unique oriental environment but eliminated technical problems which violated many principles laid down by city council for all development.
You may not be aware, but the V.C.D.A. group will be given an apportunity to participate in town house development elsewhere in the redevelopment area and there is no reason why this should not have the same oriental aspect as their original scheme.
In view of the fact that we now have a submission from the director of planning of the Vancouver planning department which is going to meet the desires of the Canadian Chinese in this area of Vancouver, a plan which, I understand, has met with the approval of the Vancouver city council, I certainly hope there is to be no further delay on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I sincerely hope this will tie in with the simultaneous development of the Chinese business district. I feel the minister has the same sense of pride as I have in this wonderful group of Chinese Canadians which is shared between his constituency and mine. I know he will be glad to see that these citizens, who were prepared to move two years ago with regard to housing development, are issuing a challenge to their own people to move ahead with the business development. I was interested to read in the Chinatown News of May 18 an editorial on the front page which is a challenge to its readers and an example to people elsewhere who live under conditions such as those under which these people have, unfortunately, been living for so many years. It says:
Now that the Vancouver city planning department has come up with concrete proposals to rejuvenate Chinatown, will our businessmen and property owners seize this opportunity to embark on a major rebuilding scheme?
Among the community minded citizens we have talked to, many are genuinely alarmed over the steady decline of Pender St. as evidenced by the growing number of restaurants forced to curtail their hours of operation Or go out of business altogether. What is the answer?

We need more tourists. One way to attract them is keep this area growing. In other words, revitalize Chinatown. This can only be achieved by a major renovating or rebuilding job.
The suggestion might sound drastic, but a start will have to be made somewhere. The time is here and now.
The writer points out that they have the architects and are familiar with what is being done in San Francisco and Honolulu, along these lines. So they are prepared to move, and I, for my part, am requesting that we see a little more life and activity-a little more co-operation from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in moving along the lines proposed by the people in this area, so that something may be done not only to rebuild the area and construct new homes there but to bring into being a new business centre as well.
Speaking of construction, I recall the remarks of the minister this afternoon to the effect that municipal control is necessary to stop structural deterioration. I want to express the hope that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will see to it that new construction is of such a nature that there will not be deterioration. I think the specifications which are now followed by that corporation are an absolute disgrace. I worked for the construction industry for many years, and one of my major tasks was the reading of specifications, regulations and blueprints. For the life of me I cannot figure out how contractors who work with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or how inspectors of that corporation can make head or tail of the regulations and specifications in that little book which contractors are supposed to follow and which the inspectors are supposed to enforce. It is bad enough reading the specifications, but when one has to read amendments to the specifications and then read amendments to the amendments to the amendments of the specifications, heaven only knows how one is supposed to build a house. I do not know who draws up these regulations and I cannot for the life of me figure out who approves them, because they are a disgrace to the whole construction industry.
I speak as one who has worked most of his life in that industry. I do not know how some of these homes stand up. It is amazing to me why the first floor does not collapse, having regard to the new regulations as to the spacing and the size of joists. If it were not for the spreaders, I think they would collapse. I have been over many of these homes. I have read through the specifications and regulations time after time and they certainly lay down the poorest building code I have come across in my whole life. My own home, built 54 years ago, was better constructed than homes constructed today under these
National Housing Act
regulations. So let us not tear down slums for the purpose of putting up homes which will be slums themselves in a few years. I ask most sincerely that not only shall we have vision and action with regard to new home and apartment construction but that our regulations shall make sure they are modern and well built. That is the responsibility of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I should like to see more initiative shown by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act in the construction of homes and apartments for the aged in Canada. In the past few years big strides have been taken in this field, but they still do not deal adequately with this problem. One can visit these homes and apartments for the aged and find that for each one there is a waiting list hundreds long. Some have been waiting, not months but years, to get the comfort of a home or apartment in their declining days, at a rate they can afford to pay, so as to live in decency as the pioneers of this country. I feel strongly on this matter as one closely associated with my late father who initiated the first senior citizens housing project in Canada. When we speak of subsidized housing and low rental housing I fear we are not giving enough thought to the needs of the senior citizens of this country and I hope the vision and the dream which I know was in the mind of the late Jack Garland will not be allowed to disappear. I trust that, to revere his memory the government will bring in, if they have not already the authority, a measure to give them the power to provide an impetus to the construction of homes for our senior citizens.
That was all I wanted to add to the very wonderful address given by the hon. member for Greenwood this afternoon. I want to conclude by saying that wishful thinking is not enough; generalities are not enough; good intentions are not enough; legislation which is on the statute books is not enough. We require a vital, vigorous and farsighted central mortgage and housing administration. I hope we will be getting it in the future, and if we do not see signs of real activity in the immediate future perhaps we will have to place a bomb under them; and the best bomb I can think of would be either a special committee or a committee of this house composed of those who have a vital interest in housing, and those who know and understand construction. Then we could let them go at both the act and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because security does not mean very much to the people of this country unless they have comfortable homes and comfortable apartments in which to live, at prices they can afford to pay.

National Housing Act [Translation]


Mr. Caouelte:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution deals with certain amendments the government wants to make to the National Housing Act under which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was set up in 1954.
We feel that those amendments are not only necessary but urgent and that the government could have extended the list of paragraphs which appear in the resolution under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, when C.M.H.C. was established in 1957, it was to benefit the workers and small farmers, in other words it was to help the small man build himself a home.
C.M.H.C. has helped in the construction of housing centres in several parts of Canada, in Montreal, Quebec city, Toronto, Ottawa, Hull, in the larger cities and even in certain small communities, but with quite a bit of trouble.
It does not seem to be interested, for instance, in going too far in the Lake St. John and Abitibi areas, or in northern Ontario. Some work was done a few years ago in the Elliot Lake area, which is represented by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson). We have seen the results of these buildings and housing centres in Elliot Lake, as we will soon see them in Bancroft. We are witnessing the casting aside of small properties which were valued at $12,000, $15,000 or $18,000 at the time they were built. If we go to Elliot Lake today, we see these nice little houses-gems of houses indeed-with the windows boarded up. People are not living in them because they had to leave in order to earn their living elsewhere since Elliot Lake was closing its mines.
In other cities, in Montreal for instance, thousands of houses were built without proper consideration. If you go to St. Vincent de Paul today you will see hundreds of empty houses. Why? Not because the plant workers do not want to live in them but because payments are too high for an ordinary family. When a worker can pay $50 or $60 a month for rent and the houses built under C.M.H.C. come to $125, $135 or $150 a month, it is not surprising then to see a great number of empty houses.
The amendments to the 1954 act do not seem to do much to help the average family, with an average income, who cannot inhabit one of those houses.
Paragraph (a) concerns mainly the provinces and municipalities. The resolution provides:
That it is expedient...
(a) to provide further assistance to provinces and municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and

Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") to make contributions and loans to provinces or municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for the purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars:
What can the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation do with $100 million for all of Canada at this time, when the municipalities are contending with huge debts? Will this help the municipalities to pay their debts or, at least, to pay the interest on their debt which now takes up 40 and even 60 per cent of their annual budget?
Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation want to help the municipalities by making them sink deeper and deeper into a debt which they are unable to repay by demanding exorbitant carrying charges or interests?
Mr. Chairman, this may be a temporary help for the municipality, but in future we shall again be faced with the same situation as now; there will be absolutely no change. This may, for the time being, help give work to the unemployed in our municipalities. That is, no doubt, the minister's aim when he puts his name to such a resolution: to help relieve unemployment in this country and allay distress, by making loans to the municipalities for periods of 20, 25 and 30 years.
Suppose a municipality borrows $550,000 for 25 years at 5i or 6 per cent. In 25 years, that municipality will have to pay back almost $3.5 million for a $550,000 loan made this year, that is, it will have to pay three times the amount in 25 years.
Of course, 25 years from now it is likely that most members of parliament will no longer be sitting in this house because they will have disappeared, but our children, who will then pay the capital and interest, will probably wonder, and rightly so, if their parents were intelligent or if they suffered from a terrible lack of grey matter between their ears? If we are still here 25 years from now, we will probably hear such remarks. Why? Because we continue with the same system.
The government probably thinks that it is helping municipalities. If it sincerely wants to help municipalities, there is nothing at all, no federal legislation which prevents the minister from acting along those lines. By using the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it could supply funds created by the Bank of Canada without interest for

municipalities, so that when we build a sidewalk, we will not have to pay for two sidewalks, one for the finance company and one for the people who use it.
When we build a road, when we pave a city street, or when we improve municipal services, we should not have to pay twice the price of those services, once for the finance company and once for the users of those services.
This resolution will get us nowhere. I understand that the whole financial or monetary system is faced with concern and uncertainty. We must pass and approve such a resolution so that the bill can be introduced as soon as possible.
As I said, the present problem will not be solved for the provinces or the municipalities, regardless of the intention of this resolution presented to us today. In that resolution, it is also proposed, in paragraph (b):
To authorize the corporation to make loans and to ensure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs.
There again, it is the same thing. The act will be extended so that people who own houses which have been occupied can sell them with the financing of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or of insurance companies to be guaranteed by C.M.H.C., which is a crown corporation.
In paragraph (c):
To authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies...
To assist individuals or families of low income.
What does that mean? As I said a while ago, in 1954, that is exactly ten years ago, it was said and repeated that low rent and low cost houses would be built. Today, we realize that the rent of those houses is $80, $85 or $90. When the instalment payable to the corporation or to the insurance company does not go up, municipal taxes double, school taxes triple or quadruple as we have seen in so many places in the province of Quebec. Then, everything is added up to make a monthly assessment which increases the cost of rents every six months, and, after six, eight or 15 years of payments on a house, we now see people who bought a small home in 1954 unable to face their liabilities any longer, just because municipal taxes have doubled and school taxes trebled or gone up five times their former amount.
Those people are today destitute, after having for six, eight and even 15 years, made payments or paid rent with regard to those small houses, believing that they would one day be the owners of a modest home. After
National Housing Act
ten years of work, the man who was 30 when he bought his home, is now 40 years old and, if he happened to lose his job, or were to experience financial stress, after having invested all his life's work and all his savings in his property to settle his wife and children in their own home, he would be without shelter.
Now, in 1964, the government introduces some amendments to the act to help those people remain in their own home, and others in the same circumstances or conditions. But will that fill the purse of the family head who is 40 or 45, at this time, and has trouble finding employment? That is the kind of security all those bills or amendments are bringing to the Canadian workers, to human beings in Canada.
Paragraph (d) is to help housing projects to include hotels or boarding houses or homes for older citizens and others.
In paragraph (e), it is proposed to authorize the corporation to make once more loans to families of low income. It is about what we find in paragraph (c), or about the same aim.
In paragraph (g) the resolution proposes:
to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of 25 per cent of the principal and interest-
Here, I believe the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as the government, could include in paragraph (g) the following: "to assist also in the expansion of hospitals not only in this province but also in the whole of Canada, and especially as concerns the province of Quebec". For instance, to provide the provinces with the necessary funds to expand hospitals; indeed, there is a need for additional hospital beds throughout the province of Quebec. Why is there a shortage of beds? Why is it not possible to expand those hospitals? It is always for the same reason: the provincial government has no money, it is like the United Nations, it cannot even meet its commitments.
The provincial government is grappling with an exceedingly urgent problem in the hospital field. Why not allow the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide the provinces with funds at a nominal interest rate, using funds created by the Bank of Canada? Because here, again, if we have in Canada the physical means, if we have the minds, the brainpower to build something, why do the government and the ministers not order the Bank of Canada to make financially possible what the Canadian nation can do and is able to realize materially in Canada for the general welfare of the population?

National Housing Act
In paragraph (h), the resolution proposes:
to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
From $2 billion to $2.5 billion. Another financial game. Physical possibilities are not taken into account. The needs which actually exist in Canada are not considered. We lose a great deal of time here, in this house, on all sorts of questions, without attempting to find a solution to the main problem, which is that of finance in Canada. This is what ails everybody, including the government.
I am quite convinced that the government would be willing, if it had the financial possibilities, to help the people as a whole, the unemployed, the mothers whose families are in need, as well as those who are hungry and thirsty for justice in Canada. But the government is not taking the means to serve the purpose for which economic policies are set up, that is the human being.
In paragraph (1):
to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars-
One hundred million dollars. Money again. Always money, from start to finish. That is the question. But where will C.M.H.C. obtain those funds? It is being said and suggested most clearly: C.M.H.C. will underwrite finance companies, insurance companies, lenders who may or may not be recognized today but will be tomorrow; it will underwrite them in respect of the loans granted.
Once again it is a poultice on a wooden leg. It will not cure the ill. It will only spread it. It will only entrench it and confirm it for another five years, because in five years the government-it may be that the present government will no longer be there but will have been replaced by another which will have to make new amendments to those amendments submitted to us in June 1964, because those amendments will not solve the problem.
I see that my good friends opposite are shaking their heads. They will have to open their wallets five years from now and they will find that I was right about what I am saying tonight in this connection. They are mistaken and they know it.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We will still be here in five years.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member opposite to repeat what he just said.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We will still be here in five years.
[Mr. Caouette.)


David Réal Caouette: Do not deceive yourself, you will no longer be here in five years, not with that.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not solve the problem. The government merely goes around the difficulty and covers it with chocolate as one does with a pill. One day, the people will come to realize the bitterness of a financial system which is not adapted to the true possibilities of our country.
Let the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have the power, indeed let it be ordered to use without interest the money created by the Bank of Canada, and then not only C.M.H.C., small house owners, industrialists, municipalities or the provinces, but all the people will get a dollar's worth for every dollar borrowed from the corporation. That is what we want. We advocate a happy equilibrium between the monetary system and our physical potential I see that the minister is looking at me. As long as we do not adopt such a monetary policy to make financially possible in Canada what is physically desirable, we will be running around in a circle and we will be losing our time as the minister is bound to find out within a few years.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we heard the minister's opening speech explaining the policy of the government, or at least what seemed to be the policy of the government. I think it is a sad commentary on the attitude in our country today that when we are discussing what I believe could be one of the most important programs yet put forward by this government or by any government, if this government means business as the minister seemed to indicate, we have had in the press gallery one, and at the moment, two reporters furnishing the news to the public. This afternoon at five o'clock when we were discussing a resolution having to do with the flag-and I am not suggesting for a moment that the flag is not an important issue-there were a dozen or more reporters in the press gallery.
I am not being too critical of the press, Mr. Chairman, because the press is a rather good mirror of public opinion. Unfortunately the public are not very interested in this subject. After all, we have bought the image which has been sold to us by the image makers, the public relations people, and we like to think we live in an affluent society in this country. We do, in so far as housing is concerned, if we happen to be fortunate enough to be earning $6,000 a year or up. If you can afford to pay $15,000 for a house, if you can afford to pay $100 or $150 a month rent for an apartment, you have no difficulty.

There are hundreds of apartments in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver which can be rented tonight if you can pay that amount of money.
However, Mr. Chairman, if you are unfortunate enough to be earning $50 per week or if you are unfortunate enough to have four or five children and you have to live in one of the many slums or semi-slums which are a blight on the face of every city in this country, then of course you are out of luck. The majority of people and, I am afraid the majority of the members of this parliament, are not very interested. We have done an excellent job of building hundreds of thousands of homes in Canada since the end of world war II. But what have we built for the people who really need assistance? What have we built in the way of subsidized, low rental housing units? We have built less than 10,000.
I should like to think the minister's speech indicated a new policy and that the resolution outlined a real program that would be pushed ahead. We have lived with this kind of policy ever since world war II. The act, as it has been up until now, has not been a bad one. If you compare it with the legislation in European countries or in the United States, it is not much worse. Yet, these other countries have been able to build houses for the people who really need them, while we have done virtually nothing. One of the reasons we have done virtually nothing, Mr. Chairman, is that the federal government has merely prepared an act and said to the provinces or municipalities, "Yes, we are prepared to help; yes, the money is there". The federal government has been prepared to pay a substantial part of the subsidies required for financing housing units for people who cannot afford to pay an economic rent themselves. Having done that, the federal government has forgotten all about it.
What we will not face up to is the fact that in most provinces the provincial governments have shown very little interest. In most cities, I think I could say in all cities, the city councils are to a large extent made up of men who come from the professions of law, insurance, or real estate. I speak with some knowledge on this matter, having served on the Winnipeg city council and having attended a number of conferences of mayors and municipalities. These members represent on the city council those people who have already purchased their own houses and who are already living quite comfortably. So we tend to ignore the people who just cannot afford to pay for decent accommodation. It is easy to drive away from this building, to drive down Carling avenue and quickly get to the west end where the new housing
National Housing Act
developments are located. We ignore the fact that two blocks off Wellington one can see houses-I should not call them houses-one can find accommodations which are a disgrace in a country that has the wealth of Canada.
The minister gave some statistical information in his speech the other day. I should like to enlarge on some of the figures which he used. I have taken these illustrations from the 1961 census figures. Of the 4.5 million homes that we have in Canada, over 400,000 have only cold water facilities; over 200,000 of these are in the city. Almost 400,000 homes have no installed bath or shower, and 168,000 of these are in urban areas. This is in the year 1964, in a country that has the wealth of Canada, a country which has all the resources needed to provide homes for the people. Of the 4.5 million homes, over 200,000 in urban areas have shared toilet facilities which are shared by two or more households. Of the 4.5 million houses over a million and a half were built before 1920 and therefore, in most cases, need major repairs. Of the 3i million urban homes, over 900,000 were built before 1920.
In my own province, almost one third of the urban homes were built before 1920. We do not have the brick houses that you have in eastern Canada, so many of these homes need major repairs. Of the 4.5 million homes in Canada, only three million are heated by a furnace while a million and a half are heated by stoves, space heaters or less. Of the 3i million homes in urban areas, over
750,000	were heated by a stove, a space heater or worse. If you look at the refrigeration facilities, you see the same situation. Almost 400,000 homes have no refrigeration facilities at all. Of the 3| million urban homes, over 100,000 have no refrigeration facilities.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is easy to get lost in statistics. When one talks about a million homes, he tends to forget the individual case. We have heard from the member for Greenwood, from the member for Vancouver East and from the minister about some of the conditions in which some of the people in this country live.
My own city of Winnipeg is far from being the worst, but I wish that all members of parliament could have a look at some of the conditions which we permit to exist at this time. I know the minister has had the chance to do so.
A couple of years ago a Winnipeg newspaper carried an article dealing with the conditions. They listed the fact that in one home, of many which they visited, the only way in which the rats could be kept out was by boarding up the holes through which they

National Housing Act
came. They pointed out that children had been seen playing in houses condemned a year or more ago by the city but which had not been pulled down and had been seen coming out of these condemned houses swinging rats by the tail.
A family of seven lived in a house 12 feet wide which had only two tiny bedrooms. The father, mother and one baby slept in one bedroom and the other four children slept in the other bedroom, three of them sleeping in one bed. They had to live in that kind of house, of course, because the father was only making $200 a month and the most he could afford to pay for rent, unless the family cut down on its food bill, was $50 a month. So this was the kind of house in which they were living. Around the comer there were two families living in three rooms, with no closets, no bathtubs, no hot water.
In a survey made of one of Winnipeg's oldest areas in 1960, and I use this survey because nothing has been done to improve conditions in that area since, the welfare council of greater Winnipeg found that of 309 residential buildings only 1.76 per cent could be classified as being in good condition, 25.6 per cent in fair condition, 27.2 per cent in poor condition and 45.26 per cent in very poor condition. According to the report, in the same area 20 per cent of the houses have toilets shared by more than six people, 27 per cent have no baths, 32 per cent have no washbasins and 34 per cent are heated only by stoves.
Finally, after years of the kind of haggling to which the hon. member for Vancouver East has just referred, after years of planning and discussions between the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba, the government of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a beginning has been made in the city of Winnipeg. The first redevelopment project in Winnipeg is now under way. As a matter of fact, the minister has issued an invitation, which I and other members from Winnipeg will certainly accept, to go to Winnipeg toward the end of the month for the official opening. I have had the opportunity of seeing the houses in which the people were living, and they were living under the same kind of conditions which I have already described, although I was referring to a different area in which no redevelopment is yet planned. I have also had the opportunity of seeing the housing units into which these people are moving.
I could criticize the plans which were made; I could criticize some of the details of the new project, but it is a fantastic improvement for the people who are moving in there. But, Mr. Chairman, let us face the fact that this housing project of which I am speaking,

which the minister has mentioned and of which we can all be proud, will only house a couple of hundred families. When you realize that Winnipeg has literally thousands of substandard units, to say that we in Winnipeg have finally begun to meet the problem by rehousing a couple of hundred families is merely to indicate that we have barely begun, and how little we have done to meet the problems which face us.
In the redevelopment area in which close to 2,000 people had been living most of the houses were over 50 years old. A house built in 1839 to accommodate two people was found in a recent survey to be housing seven. A house that had a single family back in the early 1900's was occupied by three families with a total of 16 people. Of the 337 families in the area, 129 had five or more children and most lived in cramped, poor quarters, some without bathtubs and hot water.
Such was the shortage that tenants in rooming houses in these areas were taking in roomers. A high percentage of the people there, who were by no means paying low rents, were receiving welfare assistance. In other words, the people of Canada through their municipal, provincial and federal governments were and are in fact subsidizing slum landlords. This is true in every city in Canada. It is true of Ottawa; it is true of Montreal; it is true of Toronto; it is true of Vancouver. This is something of which we should all be thoroughly ashamed. As I have said the accommodation they are moving into is fantastically better.
A very good reporter in the city of Winnipeg wrote an article in the Winnipeg Tribune of December 28 last in which he describes the contrast and I should like to read a couple of paragraphs. He says:
Next spring Mr. and Mrs. E. are going to plant
flowers in front of their home-All their married
life they had lived in the slums of Jarvis ave. Two months ago they moved to the city's first low rental housing development at Burrows-Keewatin. In the slums the snow is grey with dirt and grime from crowded living. At their new home the snow is as clean as the neighbourhood.
In front of their apartment is a wide expanse of sod, waiting for the shrubs and trees in the spring. At their old home their five children were strangers to grass and flowers. It had no yard and the front boulevards were ground to dirt from use__
At Jarvis the lights are naked bulbs, with cords hanging from the ceiling. Mrs. E. needed no more persuading. Their apartment has two storeys and a basement. There are three bedrooms. The kitchen is bright and efficient with new equipment and ample cupboards. It is not elaborate, for an eye was kept on costs. But there is nothing of the appearance of cheap row housing. It has an air of solidity. And it has more breathing space outdoors than many commercial blocks.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have indicated what can be done and what

the minister talked about so eloquently the other day. But how many units of this type have we built in this great country? I have already mentioned that Winnipeg is just building its first project for less than 200 families, and we need several thousand. I doubt that we have built 10,000 public housing units altogether in Canada, despite the fact that we probably need 200,000 units in our cities alone.
We are doing almost as bad a job in the field of supplying adequate housing for our old people. Tens of thousands of our old people are living in the central parts of the cities of Canada in single rooms. They are cooking on a hot plate and reading by that little naked bulb which hangs from a cord in the centre of the ceiling.
We have seen what can be done. The service organizations and the Legion branches should be given a great deal of credit for the work they have initiated in every city in Canada, for the units they have built in which old people in receipt of old age pensions can live at a relatively modest rent. They are to be congratulated and the government which encourages this should be thanked; but when you compare what has been done with the existing needs we can see how little we have actually done.
It has been estimated in my own city that despite the efforts of the service clubs and the Legion we have accommodated just 700 of the 4,200 people who need special accommodation, and for the rest we are still giving them the kind of talk which the minister gave us this afternoon.
I do not want to be too critical of Toronto, as probably half the public housing units built in Canada are in Toronto; but if you compare what has been done in Toronto with what has been done in the United States, really it puts us to shame. I say this, even though we in Canada like to think the Americans are pretty callous and business minded, and we do not like to follow their lead in everything.
For the past four years Toronto has been talking about redeveloping the tumbledown section south of Queen street, opposite the new city hall. In the same period of time the city of Hartford has spent almost $45 million redeveloping a similar downtown area. Boston, which has a population about the same size as Toronto, has a 300 man redevelopment staff, while Toronto has a staff of just four people. In New Haven, which is about a quarter the size of Toronto, they have allocated 1,000 acres for redevelopment. That is as if Toronto had tackled the whole area bounded by Bathurst, Yonge, Bloor and
National Housing Act
Queen Streets. In Baltimore one in every five houses in that city has been marked for redevelopment.
Similarly, if one goes to Europe and looks at Great Britain, Sweden or any of the other western European countries, he can see projects for housing tens of thousands of people, projects which make ours look absolutely sick.
I was happy to hear the minister's speech and I am looking forward to having a chance to examine the bill in detail. But I suggest to the minister, and to the government, that the best bill in the world will not do the job which is required because too many of the provinces and the cities have wanted to ignore the problem. They seem to feel that if they ignore it, it will go away by itself. The minister can have the best bill in the world, and have virtually unlimited money available, but if it is only theoretical it will not accomplish very much.
If we are going to get on with the job of clearing out the slums, putting the people in the low income groups and the people who have reached retirement age into the kind of houses we would like to see them in, then it will be the job of the minister, his deputy, and central mortgage and housing to explain to the public, to the provincial governments and to the cities of Canada what can be done, what needs to be done, what should be done; and to explain how little this will cost in money, and certainly how little it will cost in comparison to the ills which are the results of the ignoring of horrible housing conditions which has gone on all these years.
I hope we will give less thought to the housing of people in the upper income brackets, people about whom the hon. member for Greenwood spoke, because they have been able to get housing accommodation and will be able to get it. It is time we thought about the people who need housing and who, until now and under previous governments, have been almost completely ignored.


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman,
while we are at the resolution stage of a measure to amend the National Housing Act, I would like to make a few remarks in order to help families who may take advantage of this act. Indeed, one can say that up to now, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an organization that has rendered prominent services to Canadians. In fact, I have had the opportunity of taking advantage of it myself, and I have been very pleased with it. Nevertheless, there are surely many improvements that could be made to this act.
3820	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Housing Act
First of all, I would like to call the attention of the minister responsible for the administration of this corporation to the fact that there is only one French Canadian on its board of directors.
I do not think that is being fair to French Canadians, who represent 30 per cent of the Canadian population. I suggest there is room for improvement there, because it is not by giving them one member out of ten that we are giving French Canadians a fair deal.
Mr. Chairman, I notice also that the balance sheet shows an accumulated reserve in the mortgage insurance fund, etc., of $122,440,000. And, once again, I do not think the main purpose of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to accumulate reserves, but to serve the Canadian people and to try and grant as many loans as possible in order to promote the building of family housing units.
For instance, if I am not mistaken, the minister stated the other day that 100,000 dwelling units were needed in Canada. It is a truly extraordinary number of dwellings and when considering the needs of, families it is therefore urgent to take the means to facilitate the construction of housing units for all families who wish to take advantage of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I also note that the money will be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund, that is from taxes. I wish to point this out, because I consider that it is an extremely serious anomaly to tax Canadians once again in order to increase the assets of this corporation. In my opinion, owing to the power held by parliament, such a situation could easily be corrected by returning some regal rights the Bank of Canada. The latter could make some funds available to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a nominal cost instead of levying them by means of taxes, as this bill seems ready to do.
That would make a truly substantial change and it would make capital directly available to the consumer, because it is said that activity in the building trade is a sign of prosperity. It is a fact that a great activity in the building trade is profitable to the whole nation.
On the other hand, when the building trade slows down, thousands of businesses are affected and thus, thousands of people are thrown out of work. Therefore, the federal government should take back its legal rights and grant the credit required to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a nominal or administrative cost, because the system as it is actually advocated, is basically incorrect and fundamentally wrong.
[Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi) .1
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that in the development of residential housing, it is important to consider that the majority of houses built today for families are a bit too small. Plans should be taken into consideration to provide for the building of larger houses to meet the requirements of families.
Another very important point is that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should not only grant loans in urban areas, but also in rural communities, because many family heads and individuals do not like to live in urban centres, but would like to build their own homes or have them built on contract. And if C.M.H.C. could grant them a loan, the social condition of a large number of families would be improved as a result.
Finally, I call the attention of the minister to the fact that the Quebec government grants a 3 per cent rebate on family houses in accordance with some rather strict standards. The federal government, in my opinion, should consider the possibility and feasibility of granting a rebate of at least 3 per cent to all the borrowers who took advantage of the National Housing Act because, as some hon. members mentioned, it is a difficult problem today for thousands of family heads to meet their monthly instalments, because the interest rate is too high.
Therefore, that advantage of a 3 per cent rebate should in fact be extended to all parts of Canada and not only to a special area of our country. It would a wonderful opportunity to be of assistance to the Canadian people.


Mr. Macdonald:: I should like to address a few words on this subject, as one who comes from a constituency which has within its limits not only one third of the existing public housing in Canada but also substantial areas of ground which should be redeveloped for public housing or otherwise included in an urban renewal program.
I should like to make a few comments on what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He referred to the fact that in the city of Toronto we have been dilatory over the years in developing the south side of Queen street. He was critical, I gathered, because this project is not going forward. I would point out that the development proposed for the south side of Queen street is not a housing development but a commercial redevelopment. In my opinion housing has a priority which should be well ahead of the kind of civic monument which is in the minds of those who are contemplating this redevelopment.

One aspect of the speeches made by both the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Vancouver East was an exhortation to the minister to get on with this particular job. Both of them ignored the fact that responsibility for the primary initiative has under the constitution of our country been given to the municipalities. It is with the municipalities that the initiative in this field lies. It is they who must decide how the downtown areas are to be redeveloped, how land is to be used, and so on. It is they who must put up the basic equity which will make these developments possible.
However, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that there have been serious shortcomings from the municipal standpoint. He gave a number of examples from Winnipeg and I will give one from my own riding. In an area not a mile away from where Toronto is proudly raising its new city hall, down a narrow laneway with broken sidewalks can be found a row of 15 or more houses about 75 years old, leaning at a precarious angle, with windows broken and the refuse deposits of several weeks lying outside uncollected. My visit was made in January of this year in response to a request for assistance. In the house I entered there was no running water in the bathroom, the toilet had fallen off the wall on to the floor, the ceiling had fallen in in several rooms and in one, immediately above the kitchen, it was possible to see right through the floor. The furnace was not operating and had not been operating since October. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that my visit was in January and that the city of Toronto has a specific bylaw requiring landlords in these circumstances to heat buildings. I was advised subsequently by the public health inspector for Toronto that he had had to issue an order requiring the tenants to clean out the lice and cockroaches in this building. Yet for this hovel the occupants were paying $55 a month, a substantial amount of what they were receiving from city welfare sources. Once again, this is not something out of Oliver Twist in 19 th century Britain, nor is it mid-depression Britain pictured by George Orwell in "The Road to Wigan Pier". These are conditions which exist in metropolitan Toronto in 1964; I may have mentioned an extreme example, but many other such cases exist.
The root of the problem is failure on the part of the general public to realize that there are these pockets of bad living conditions and it is our responsibility and that of the public generally to recognize that they do exist. It rests with the municipalities to assume their responsibility in this connection. First of all, something must be done at the municipal level to enforce the bylaws already on the
National Housing Act
books. I brought the particular example I have just given to the attention of several municipal councillors in Toronto and they looked with horror on my suggestion that the bylaws should be enforced, pointing out that the enforcement of bylaws was unpopular politically. I am not suggesting that this problem will be solved by mass housing developments of the kind which have been referred to by one or two hon. members. In 1949, with assistance from the federal government, the Regent Park North project was built in Toronto largely at the instance of the late Mayor Robert Saunders. This was followed in 1956 and 1957 by the Regent Park South project, the two together making up about 3,500 units. These particular projects, which led to the congregation of a large number of residents in a relatively small area, engendered social problems all their own. It is reassuring to note from the resolution on the order paper that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has learned from the Regent Park experience that it is far better to partially dehabilitate an area, using some of the existing structures where possible, as opposed to the mass levelling and reconstruction which was carried out in the case of Regent Park. In the case of Regent Park South, the land cost over half a million dollars an acre. With the adoption of the policy set out in this resolution, more and more adequate housing can be achieved for low income families with the same expenditure of the tax dollar. Equally, by retaining some of the houses in private ownership and by selective redevelopment we can also avoid the segregation of many welfare cases into a small area, which has inclined to create its own type of social problem in some of our developments.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the minister some further requirements which in the future I would like to see added to the National Housing Act. First I would like to see provision made in the National Housing Act to provide mass developments such as Regent Park South, and area redevelopments with recreation centres and facilities for children so that some of the social problems which have arisen in mass housing projects in which there are insufficient recreation facilities can be overcome.
I would also echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Greenwood earlier this day, when he pointed to the work of one of the vice presidents of my association, Mrs. May Birchard, toward providing daytime shelters for out of work and unemployable men. I would like to see in time a resolution introduced into this house to amend the statute to make it possible, in those areas where residential redevelopment is not possible, to

National Housing Act
clear the land and then have the city sell or lease it on a long term basis for commercial or industrial purposes in order to improve the economics of housing development elsewhere in the city. Perhaps our cities could be assisted in this way. In the example I have mentioned the project is within a quarter of a mile of major rail lines and of the new Gardiner expressway. Very obviously land is of great value there for commercial or industrial purposes. It should be possible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist in the development of that land for commercial purposes and then to use the profit gained to subsidize improved housing development elsewhere in the city. We have heard a great deal in the last year or so about Michael Harrington's "hidden poor", that group which in one way or another our existing social measures fail to reach. Better housing will not answer all the problems of the hidden poor, but without providing better living accommodation for them none of the other social measures we might have can hope to be successful. I therefore hope that this resolution will soon pass and C.M.H.C. will be empowered by the provisions included in the resolution, to support the municipalities in engaging in this type of urban renewal project.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, it was not our
intention to hold up this resolution at all at this stage. No member of this party has risen this evening, in the hope that the committee would pass the measure through the resolution stage and we would have the bill before us. The minister informed me in a discussion I had with him that the bill has been printed and is now ready for distribution, and we have been hoping all day that the resolution would pass and we could have the bill before us so we could offer some substantive contribution to the specific measures to be enacted. Now, since several members of the parties to my left, and a government member have entered the debate I think it is only fair, even though in all likelihood there will be no acknowledgement of the co-operation we are endeavouring to give the government in this matter, to say a few words on this subject. None the less, we are eager to see the resolution stage dispensed with, and I would submit to all members of the house through you, Mr. Chairman, that more constructive contributions can be made to the debate once the bill is before us and once we have the specific proposals before the committee, particularly as they concern problems in connection with the operation of the act in local constituencies.
I could say, Mr. Chairman, that the last government, the Progressive Conservative government, when it was in office did more in that short time to improve the operation of

the National Housing Act than any other government since the act was first introduced in 1935. But I will not say that because I do not want to take up the time of the house in doing so. I could, too, say that the provisions of the resolution the committee has before it are substantially the provisions of the measures that were proposed by the former government or an extension of those measures that were brought in by the former government. But I will not take up the time of the house in doing that tonight either; I think it is important that the resolution stage be proceeded with and dispensed with so we can have the bill before us.
On behalf of this party, the official opposition, I will say that we endorse those remarks that have already been made with respect to the late minister, Jack Garland, and Mr. Stewart Bates. I knew Mr. Bates personally and I received nothing but cooperation from him, and always a dedication to the operation of the act for the benefit of all Canadians. Suffice it to say that the resolution itself substantially contains provisions which were proposed by the former government, with one or two exceptions, the loans to existing homes, and so on. These are very good provisions and ones which would have seen the light of day had we not been faced with the obstructionism of the then opposition whose members now sit on the government benches.
The minister has made reference to the Winnipeg urban renewal scheme. This is a project to which he attached great importance as one of the largest in Canadian housing history. We, of course, are bound to agree with him. Here again, the Winnipeg scheme was conceived, generated and commenced by the previous government and we have nothing but praise for that scheme. I am sure the minister wants to be fair and will immediately concede that this is so. Also the provisions with regard to the extension of loans for the construction of accommodation for university students was another measure with which the former government was concerned. So I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee in going through them item by item.
However, there are one or two provisions in the resolution which are of interest and we will have to wait until we see the bill before we can be constructive in our contributions with respect to these matters. I would hope, once again, that we can get the resolution through this evening and have the bill before us. It has been printed and is ready for distribution. Once we have it before us I am sure we will all be in a much better position to make some constructive contribution to the debate.


Mr. Slenson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks about this resolution. After looking through the different items in it, it is my belief that we should be attempting to give more aid to municipalities, especially those municipalities with large national housing projects and those considering urban development. I would like to speak for a few minutes this evening on the question of land assembly or the federal-provincial development which we have in Peterborough. This development was set up in 1952 by the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality of Peterborough. It includes 660 acres and the intention was to have a continuous supply of lots, but from 1952 to 1957 there was very little accomplished with regard to this development. Since 1957 a total of 692 lots have been developed and built on; but this has been accomplished over a period of 12 years, with most of the development taking place after 1957.
This is one of the largest developments in Canada at the present time. This development was divided into four or five phases but it has not given contractors and individuals a steady supply of serviced lots. I do not know whether this fault lies with the federal government, the provincial government or the municipality. This type of planning when there are no serviced lots for contractors or individuals to purchase is not good for the city. I should like to point out to the minister that this is the type of development that hinders any private developer competing in such a project. This is where I feel the federal government should consider more assistance to municipalities if this type of development is to continue.
I should like to read part of the agreement which the federal and provincial governments have signed with the city of Peterborough, and I imagine other municipalities have also signed similar agreements. This is what is required by the city in regard to services:
At its own expense, to provide all trunk services which may be required to the edge of the project.
This item alone I feel adds a considerable burden to any municipality's tax structure. These services entail main trunk sewers, water mains and storm drains. I would also mention that traffic arteries must be built to service large land assembly projects.
Another item to which I should like to refer asks the city that no municipal tax rate or charges of any nature whatsoever be levied by the city while the lots are owned by or on behalf of the corporation. In 1952 the city turned over to the corporation 660 acres of land to develop. Since that time the city has received no taxes from this property unless it was developed and sold. This has been a
National Housing Act
subsidy that the city has been asked to carry. No private developer has ever had such concessions.
I consider that in the case of the city of Peterborough the city has lost thousands of dollars in taxes over the past 12 years. On checking with the municipality I understand that this land assembly at the present time which is owned by the corporation is assessed at $500,000. With a mill rate of 70 mills on the dollar, this amounts to $35,000 being lost by the city in taxes. Spread over 12 years means that close to $400,000 may be owed to the city of Peterborough by the corporation. I do not feel that these concessions should be granted the corporation.
Right now in this land assembly there are only ten lots available and there will be no more available this year. There are no services in there at the present time. When this site was chosen for the project I do not think consideration was given to the distance to the sewage plants. It has been an expensive drain to the city, which services the area with trunk sewers. The corporation is authorizing help for municipalities with sewage treatment plants. I think they should consider main trunk sewers, especially for this type of project. If the municipality is responsible for supplying these services it may be a reason why they are not advancing with these projects as fast as they should. The trunk service which went to this land assembly a few years ago cost over $1 million. I do not feel that all of this amount went into services in this area, but most of it did, and I understand that another trunk sewer service will be needed there shortly.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the corporation should add to paragraph (g) of the resolution, along with sewage treatment projects, main trunk sewers, water mains and storm drains which will service housing projects. We must also consider main arteries for traffic with which municipalities such as mine find themselves saddled. For this reason I think the government should consider assistance for main streets or thoroughfares which are going to service this type of development.
In the agreement to which I referred there is also an item regarding the engineering of the project. The city is asked to carry out engineering designs of all services required by the project. Such engineering design is to include field investigation, surveying, preliminary and final planning and preparation of all plans, working drawings and specifications. After they are finished the city is allowed to pick up 3 per cent of the cost of this project from the corporation. Any businessman realizes that any engineering or

National Housing Act
consulting firm would get at least 10 per cent on this type of work. I imagine that this government would not want to pay anything less, and here again I feel that the cities are subsidizing the corporation.
Another feature I should like to bring out regarding this project, something which the contractors must contend with, is that when lots are being purchased in land assemblies the builders must pay double price. If the lot is selling for $1,500 to individuals a builder must pay $3,000; and on completion of the home, if the builder sells it at the price set by C.M.H.C. he is refunded the extra $1,500 which he paid for the lot. This is referred to as an end price. I realize that this clause was inserted to protect the public from speculators and builders, but at the present time I do not think that these controls are desirable or necessary. Competition among contractors building this type of home makes it very unlikely that prices will rise. It might also encourage builders to put better workmanship and materials into the homes if this selling price is not applied. This set price tends to make builders cut corners and thus lower the standard of the homes which people are purchasing today.
I have spoken to the minister regarding this matter and I feel that he is going to have an answer for me. I feel that the corporation should take a careful look at the Peterborough area and other similar areas with a View to seeing that more lots are made available for builders, so that cities such as Peterborough are not left to pick up all the cost of these subsidies. I understand that the federal and provincial governments lose no money in this type of development, but I feel the municipalities are certainly subsidizing them. I feel that if these subsidies are needed they should be carried out by the government. Before I sit down, I should like to say that I am not criticizing this development in Peterborough or this type of project. I am criticizing the financial burden that is being loaded upon the municipalities.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a long time since we witnessed such an unwarranted display of parliamentary selfrighteousness as that demonstrated by the hon. member for Yukon a few minutes ago. He occupied the time of this house in complaining that some members were obstructing the passage of this resolution. Then, he spent seven minutes making inconsequential remarks.
Since I am a great respecter of the rules, I wish to make a few remarks which are more appropriate at the resolution stage-


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a matter of opinion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -than on the bill. I do not know what is happening to my right, Mr. Chairman.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I was saying that was only a matter of opinion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, that is generally the case in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what this house is for.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say that I rise to support the resolution. Personally, I am very pleased to note the provisions relating to further assistance to provinces and municipalities in carrying out urban renewal programs authorized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is a very important aspect of this question to a number of communities in my constituency. I am very glad that the measure will provide for the inclusion of existing houses in urban renewal programs. Then there is the matter of providing loans to co-operative associations and charitable corporations to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families. The resolution also refers to authorizing the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for public housing projects or subsidized housing accommodation for families of low income. I believe that that is very necessary indeed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks. I must say that I appreciated the tone and the tenor of the minister's remarks.
I thought his opening statement introducing this resolution was most appropriate. It is obvious some considerable thought has been given by the minister and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the particular needs in Canada at this time which make these amendments necessary. I have a few suggestions to make. In contrast to the hon. member for Yukon, I do attempt to have ideas.
First of all, I suggest to the minister that greater consideration should be given to the smaller communities, especially in the unorganized districts. I am not underestimating what corporation officials have tried to do in the past. The insurance companies have overlooked these isolated villages, incorporated or unincorporated, because I understand they do not like the cost of administration from a central office in Vancouver, or some large city. There is also the difficulty that ensues as a result of their distance from the investment and the lack of opportunity to oversee it periodically. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has the staff and the facilities to render these services and to give advice to the organizations and people in

these smaller communities who are anxious to take advantage of the provisions of the act and who will be more anxious to take advantage of the amendments that are indicated now.
I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that there should be more visits by officials of the corporation to the smaller communities. I realize that this is not always easy, but they should contact the proper organizations which, in some cases, will be the city council, the chamber of commerce, the Rotary club, the Legion, farmers' and women's institutes or other organizations. The corporation officials should advise them as to what can be done under the act, and the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with regard to the administration of the regulations relating to the various sections of the act.
Now, I believe it is necessary that there be a wider understanding of the purposes of the act and of the opportunities that are provided under the act. If I may give an illustration, last year one or two communities in my constituency were quite put out about the fact that organizations and individuals could not obtain loans from the corporation in areas that were outside the accepted or, shall I say, the ancient boundaries of the village. I discussed this with one of the senior officials. I forget his name, but he was the least bureaucratic type of person I have ever met. He came up to my office and explained the whole situation. I asked him to write me a letter outlining the policy of the corporation in this respect. Then I was able to send this letter back to the organizations concerned and to the builders concerned. They were quite satisfied because they realized they were not being picked on. They were under the impression at the time that this little community was the subject of some discrimination. Once they understood the situation, the feeling of indignation passed away. There has been a local official visit this district and give a talk to the chamber of commerce, but he dealt with the situation on a purely local basis without indicating to them that this was a national policy and there was no discrimination.
I believe that there should be a great deal done to increase the understanding of the act and the advantage that can be taken of it. In this way, a good deal of misunderstanding would be avoided. I want to support what previous members have said in respect of the need for the extension of homes for senior citizens. In my opinion, it is pathetic to witness the distress of older people who are wrenched away from their friends and familiar surroundings because they have to go to a larger centre to live in one of these homes for senior citizens. I do urge that
National Housing Act
special consideration be given to this problem by the officials of the corporation. They should go to these smaller communities and inform interested local organizations such as chambers of commerce, women's and farmers' institutes, the Legion, Rotary clubs and so on, who may be interested in sponsoring one of these projects, what can be done under the act. Their advice in planning a project like that would be most useful indeed.
I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister the need for increased accommodation in the city of Nelson. I am not going to speak at length; I am going to give him the details of these complaints later. I have been asked to mention this in the house-


Mr. Francis:: I wonder if the hon. member would consider making some of these remarks at the bill stage so that we can get this resolution through now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am watching the clock. I said I was not going to detain the passage of the resolution. However, when I have been asked by my constituents to rise in this house and speak, I do so, and nobody stops me.
In any event, I have been asked to raise the question and I want to deal very briefly with the correspondence. I have a letter here from the editor of the Nelson Daily News, who is very concerned about this situation that exists in Nelson.
He says:
A private concern by the name of Transco Development Limited has indicated their intention and desire to construct a large high rise apartment building in Nelson with accommodation for slightly over 70 families. Financing is being attempted through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
There seems to exist in the minds of C.M. and H. officials some doubt as to the need for decent accommodations in the city of Nelson to the extent proposed. From my own personal experience in Nelson I can truthfully state that there is a decided lack of decent rental accommodation in Nelson from the standpoint of housing or apartments. Most of the available rental facilities are of ancient construction and many of them stand vacant for this very reason. Many people are unwilling to accept substandard accommodation and poor living conditions when their income would provide much better if only the proper type of facilities were available.
It would be a shame if the city of Nelson were to lose this opportunity to provide a mere handful of families a decent place in which to live. As member for Kootenay West you can do your constituents a great service by bringing this matter to the attention of the proper authorities in Ottawa and perhaps it would be a good idea if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was informed that the people of the Kootenays will not sit still much longer waiting for development and progress which only easier financing can attract. Perhaps it is time that people of the Kootenay investigated the possibility of bringing

National Housing Act
American development funds into the province. I trust that you will give this matter your early attention, sir.
Then I have a letter from the corporation of the city of Nelson in somewhat similar vein. I have another letter from Nelson school district No. 7 about a survey. I have another letter from the Nelson chamber of commerce in similar vein. I also have numerous letters from various firms in Nelson interested in the building of these apartments and quite a large number of letters from persons employed in Nelson who are seeking accommodation. I urge the minister and his officials to give further consideration to the need for increased accommodation in Nelson to meet the increase in employment, population and economic activity.
I have one other matter to mention and I am quite sure that if the hon. member for Port Arthur was here he would say that this is a Victorian idea. I am accused by my colleagues on some occasions of having some Victorian ideas. I have raised this question before but I have not had a very sympathetic response from any former minister or the officials. However, I expect a more sympathetic response from the present minister because he knows something about the lumber industry. He has been closely associated with it and he knows all about forest materials.
I suggest that when houses are being built in a district where lumbering is the major industrial activity, every consideration should be given to using wood in its various forms in the building of houses, instead of shipping in asbestos shingles. If they are put on the side of a house and a boy happens to throw a rock at them they break up in a year or two. I urge that every consideration be given to permitting the building of houses from local materials as far as possible, and in our district of course they are wood products.
My second suggestion is that consideration should be given to loans to persons who wish to build log homes. This is a point about which I can well understand the hon. member for Port Arthur might snort, but I think the suggestion offers some scope for the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to investigate. In the Kootenays we have young men who are building homes and are importing synthetic materials. They are putting asbestos roofs on their homes. At the same time Californians are coming up to the Kootenays and taking pictures of the exterior and interior of log homes. Then they are going back to California and buying logs, and these very men who are buying asbestos for the roofs of their houses are making shakes to be sent to California at a terrific price.
I happen to be one of those persons who are interested in the production of shakes,
[Mr. Herridge.l
and if the minister or his officials will read the literature with respect to the value of shakes they will realize that they make the most efficient roof that has been devised by mankind to date. I have shakes on the roof of my office which were put there in 1898, and they are almost as good today as the day they were put on.
I do ask that consideration be given to the granting of loans to persons who can prove that they can have nice log homes built. We have plenty of first class timber of the right type. We have plenty of cedar for the production of shakes. I should like to see some variety in homes. I am not suggesting that this type of home would be suitable in the suburbs of a large city, but this type of home is very suitable in small communities and rural areas. I do urge that consideration be given to introducing some variety into housing designs. I am one who is not much given to conformity. I should not like to live in a house that was exactly the same as my neighbour's, and like hundreds of others in the same suburb. I like variety, and I think most people do if they get the opportunity to take advantage of it. I do urge that consideration be given to the granting of loans to persons who want to build log homes.
We have a lot of young men in our district who are quite capable axmen. They are interested in it, and once they see log homes and see the possibilities for beauty both on the exterior and the interior they are very taken with them. They would like the opportunity to use their own skills and local materials in order to build homes that would be most suited to the district in which they would be built, and would be something a little different from the uniform houses that are produced today, and I suppose necessarily so because of the attempt to reduce costs. I see that you are looking at me with a rather anxious eye, Mr. Chairman, so at this point I will conclude my remarks.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-102, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and Wednesday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall proceed with the debate on second reading of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, after which we will take item No. 5 on today's order paper, a bill to authorize the

construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between Ste Foy and St. Nicolas. If there is time left tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill to amend the National Housing Act although, beginning Wednesday, unless some other arrangements are made after consultation with the house leaders, we will be taking the resolution, which will be printed tomorrow on the notice paper, for the purpose of obtaining the ratification of the Columbia river treaty and protocol.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there is some urgency about the bridge across the St. Lawrence would it not be wise to take it first? I doubt if it is controversial although I do not know what the facts are.


Guy Favreau: This is an excellent suggestion and we could take it first; I think it was not controversial. That would be a proper order of business, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the convenience of members can it be definite? We will take it either way, but let us be definite.


Guy Favreau: If the parties agree, as suggested, let us make it definite and take it tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on May 6 last I asked the following question of the Prime Minister:
In view of the fact that Canada has been an adult and independent country since the Statute of Westminster, could the Prime Minister assure the house that his government will give us but one distinctive national flag, without union jack or red ensign, so that Canada may not be mistaken for some foreign country as happened at the time of the Suez crisis?
Mr. Speaker, personally I object entirely to the inclusion of either the union jack or the red ensign in any bill for, in my opinion, both flags represent imperialism and foreign domination.
I would prefer a bill establishing a single distinctive flag bearing, for instance, a single maple leaf.
Those who are against the inclusion of such a symbol because there are no maple
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion trees in certain parts of the country should remember that the coat of arms of Canada includes lions and yet, I have never seen one in our forests.
The government is asking us to take illogical action when it invites us to accept two flags.
Mr. Speaker, what would you think of Napoleon if, when he was crowned emperor of the French, he had proclaimed the tricolour as the official flag of France to please the revolutionists and if, at the same time, he had kept the white flag fleur-de-lis to keep the support of the Bourbons and the aristocrats?
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Justice will have another try at it, for he failed in his duty by accepting two flags, including the union jack; I hope he will make amends, so that we may have one distinctive flag which will be a symbol of unity and not a symbol of division in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of only one flag, without any foreign symbol, because we are a sovereign nation which, on the domestic level, is self-governing and, on the international level, is not subservient to any other country.
Sovereign does not mean absolute, for every country is subject to public international law.
We can state with pride that our country enjoys today the eight main attributes of a sovereign state.
These are the right to legislate; the right to give our legislation extraterritoriality; the right to have diplomatic representation abroad; the right to have Canadian courts of last appeal; the right to declare peace, war or neutrality; the right to amend our constitution according to our wish and our decision; the right to negotiate and sign our own treaties; and finally, the recognition of our sovereignty by the other countries of the world.
Many factors and events have enabled the realization of such a maturity. But the most outstanding was the Statute of Westminster passed on December 11. 1931-
Mr. Speaker, I took my inspiration for the foregoing from a speech made in the house a few years ago by the former member for Sherbrooke, Mr. Maurice Allard.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will reconsider the matter and make amends.
We have seen tonight on parliament hill a scene of division which reflects to some extent the picture of our country today.
I hope that the government will give us only one distinctive national flag and not two. Personally, I would rather see it wait a few years instead of giving us two symbols, two flags representing two Canadas, that is the complete destruction of national unity.


Mr. Habel:: The last chance.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to call to order the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. 3828	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Habel) who, behind the curtains, is making remarks-
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call to order the hon. member for Cochrane.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, parliament is waiting for the government's answer. It is illogical to refuse it that answer.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- WITHDRAWAL OF FILM RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER

Douglas Mason Fisher: Since I raised this question in the house I had an opportunity to make remarks about it the other night in the grievance period, but there was no answer from the government benches. I intend to put the question again with some added information. I see the Prime Minister's valuable, emotional and colourful parliamentary secretary is here and I am looking forward to a brilliant response to my question, such as he gave last week when he entertained us all with that wonderful reading from one of the Prime Minister's speeches.
The question; is really the relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Prime Minister's office, an independent producer of films, Intervideo Productions Limited and its head, Richard Ballentine. I should like to begin by putting on record some opinions of one George Hogan which appear tonight in the Toronto Telegram because in this case I agree with the opinions expressed and I think they set out the points I wish to make. Mr. Hogan says:
The C.B.C. has the right not to show the film if it so wishes. And I personally think the country's Prime Minister ought to have the right to ask that a film about himself not be shown if he feels it will be personally or politically harmful.
But surely neither has the right to achieve these purposes by hiding behind charges which may well destroy the career of a man who has done his job in good faith.
That seems to be the problem. The latest news in this case is that the C.B.C. has informed Mr. Ballentine that it refuses to pay him for the services rendered in connection with this film unless he gives up the slash prints which he feels he will have to show in order to vindicate his reputation. Well, I am making an effort in association with some other members to arrange for the railway committee room to be available some night so that Mr. Ballentine can show the film there and be sure of an audience of people who will perhaps be most expert in judging

whether the film is good or not. We shall put it on and see what led Mr. Reeves Hagan of the C.B.C. to say that it was just a peep show and that the production showed a lack of intellectual grasp.
I have been trying to find out something about the Prime Minister's lack of intellectual grasp, or his intellectual grasp, by reading some of his material and I have not yet arrived at any decision because it is a hard thing to decide whether a person lacks intellectual grasp or not. I want to begin this part of my comment by saying, though, that the Prime Minister obviously is not very decisive if he has to bring in every Tom, Dick and Mary to give an opinion as to whether this is a good film and puts him in a good light or not. I think one of the real unfortunate aspects of this is that though we have a minister of culture, the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), he was not even called in to look at the film. Instead, we have Tom Kent saying it is brilliant, Mitchell Sharp saying it is an astounding document and Keith Davey telling us it is absolutely brilliant. And still it was turned down.
I want to ask whether it was turned down because it showed the Prime Minister trying to make a difficult decision about whether he wanted to watch the world series game or hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) about the S.I.U. problem which was forcing itself forward into a crisis. This may seem picayune but it is important. Why, after six months preparation, after all these screenings, after all this enthusiasm by the C.B.C. and its public affairs department, was there this sudden switch? Either the Prime Minister, after all this advice from his coterie, who gave their decisions as to whether it would show him in a favourable light, so informed the C.B.C. and they switched, or we need an answer from the C.B.C. as to how they can be so wasteful and extravagant and so much off on the wrong track to spend six months and $35,000 on something that at the last minute they say is not technically good enough. The question arises whether Mr. Hagan, the public affairs representative who was dealing with this matter, was overruled by the senior people in the C.B.C. If they did overrule him, does it come down to the fact that the senior executives of the C.B.C. overrule the heads of their departments? Or did they get a message from the Prime Minister's office? We do not know. All we know is that this is one of the silliest, most wasteful affairs imaginable. On the one hand, they spent all this time and money to find out that something was technically inferior at the end, and so publicly slur the producer; or it is a really tragic situation of inadequate liaison between the Prime Minister's office and the C.B.C.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have answers to these questions, and we need good, clear answers. Questions have been put on this subject and I think we should have a reply from the government now. Before concluding, I would like to say a word about this aspect of the matter. I hope we can prevail upon the government so that we can see this slash print that the C.B.C. demands back and which they want to suppress. I hope we can see it right here on parliament hill, so we can get the whole story on the world series and see whether its producer is so technically incompetent as the C.B.C. has had the nerve to say.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the film "Mr. Pearson-the man and the office", two things, I think, should be made quite clear: first, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation thought up the idea; and second, it was the C.B.C. which finally decided not to release the film. This was to be a candid camera production; it was to cover a day in the life of a Canadian prime minister; it was to cover private discussions with cabinet ministers; it was to show policy being formed. As some of this material was bound to be confidential, and because the dignity of the office of the prime minister had to be protected, the Prime Minister asked for the right to review the film. The right was readily granted and work began.
During the editing stage the film was viewed on four separate occasions. On two occasions the Prime Minister himself was present; the first was in December in Toronto, to see the earliest assembled version, and the second was in Ottawa after substantial editing but without the advantage of a sound track. All discussions as to content were carried on with the C.B.C. by members of the Prime Minister's staff, principally Mr. O'Hagan. Every effort was made to protect the editorial prerogatives of the producer.
The office of the Prime Minister is content that there was no transgression in this area. At no time was any judgment as to the quality of the film transmitted to the C.B.C., formally or informally, by any member of the government or any representative of the Prime Minister.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question that stands in my name concerns the Alaska highway, and I am glad to see that of all the responsible ministers who were supposed to be here tonight to answer questions, the Minister of Northern Affairs and 20220-243
1, 1964	3829
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion National Resources (Mr. Laing) is at least in his seat. The question arises out of a press report I read in the Montreal Gazette concerning a speech the minister made in Vancouver to the Vancouver chamber of commerce. The Gazette refers to the minister as having at last caught the vision, which they term the bold, booming vision. The contents of his remarks to the chamber in Vancouver inferred, according to the press article at least, that there had been some discussion with the government of the United States with respect to a joint cost-sharing project for the paving of the Alaska highway. The minister knows that I have asked several questions on this subject in this house over the last year of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Public Works, and of the minister himself.
I should like to read to him now a copy of a letter which I have in my possession written by Mr. Frederick G. Dutton, the assistant secretary to Mr. Rusk of the United States. The letter is headed up on department of state stationery of the United States government and is addressed to congressman Rivers, with whom I have co-operated for some time in regard to the paving of the Alaska highway. The letter is dated March 11, 1964, and reads as follows:
Dear Congressman Rivers:
I refer to my letter to you of November 15, 1963 in response to yours of November 5 requesting that this department open discussions with the government of Canada to ascertain whether or not Canada is sufficiently interested in the idea of blacktopping the Alaska highway to consider some joint cost sharing arrangements.
As I said in my previous letter, the department felt it necessary to review the matter with other interested agencies prior to opening any discussions with the Canadian government. In the absence of a United States government initiative in support of such a proposal, the department 'did not feel that a direct approach to the Canadian government requesting their views was appropriate. However, the department has taken the opportunity of calling to the attention of the Canadian government the bills recently introduced into congress, H.R. 9667 and H.R. 9716, and S. 2417, relating to this proposal and providing copies for its information.
The minister is also aware that last February 21, 1964 I asked a question in this regard of the Minister of Public Works, and his reply indicated that until an economic assessment had been completed on the economic feasibility of paving the Alaska highway the Canadian government did not intend to proceed further with it.
My specific question last Friday, I believe it was, to the minister asked for his comments with respect to the press article, and whether the Canadian government had had any discussions with the United States government, formal or informal, which would justify the minister stipulating in Vancouver
3830	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that if the United States government offered to pay the whole cost of the paving of the highway the Canadian government should accept such a proposal. That is the way the press printed the story. It may have been distortion, because apparently several ministers have been complaining about being given unfair press treatment of late, and perhaps the minister of northern affairs did not say that in Vancouver. However, I am sure that I and certainly the house would be interested in this matter.
I am also wondering whether the minister would tell us whether or not any negotiations are now under way, formal or otherwise, with the government of the United States or any agency of the United States government with respect to any paving program on the Alaska highway; whether it is to be a joint cost sharing program or whether it is to be paid for in whole by the United States; or whether the Canadian government intends to pave the highway on its own.
The other question I am interested in and I am sure the house is interested in is this. If such discussions have not yet taken place, when does the minister anticipate they might take place? The minister seems to have had this information at his fingertips when he addressed the Vancouver chamber of commerce, and my constituents in the Yukon are very vitally interested in this highway, since it contributes substantially, as the minister well knows, to the economic well-being of the Yukon throughout the length of the highway in the Yukon. Since the army will be moving out almost entirely by the end of this month, with the Department of Public Works taking over the maintenance operation-I am sure they will do an excellent job-there is a reduction of approximately $1,200,000 a year in the army payroll in the Whitehorse area alone. Therefore we are all extremely interested in what are the plans for the paving of the highway, and I would suggest that the minister take this opportunity of giving some information to the people of the Yukon regarding the government's plans for the paving of the Alaska highway. Since the minister has made certain statements to the Vancouver chamber of commerce, I think this is the least the people of the Yukon are entitled to from the minister this evening.


Arthur Laing: I am quite certain that there is no subject of greater interest to the people in western Canada, nor one of any greater economic interest to the people of the whole of Canada, than having a modern Alaska highway. This high-

way was built in 1944 as a war measure by the United States at an estimated cost at that time of $125 million. In 1946 it was turned over to Canada without cost by the United States government. Since that time it has been improved on the southern end, from mile zero at Dawson Creek, by about 83J miles of paving northward. I am very proud to be able to say that the paving was done by a government represented by this side of the house and not the other.
If my hon. friend from Yukon is somewhat jealous and envious of the further activity we have undertaken in respect of the Alaska highway, I can understand that. We have been extremely energetic to see to it that we can amass public opinion, not only in British Columbia, in Alberta and in the prairie provinces, but particularly in the western tier of the United States which, as the hon. member will realize, notably Montana, would profit most from the use of this highway. We happen to be the corridor through which access by land is necessary if two parts of the United States are going to be put together. It seems to me that as a good friend and neighbour of the United States we owe it to them to provide better accommodation for a land connection as equitably as we possibly can. At the same time, I believe we owe ourselves the responsibility of seeing to it that we exploit the advantage we have as far as we possibly can.


Erik Nielsen: How about negotiations?


Arthur Laing: I am coming to that, if I have time. We have been in negotiation. First of all, the Department of Public Works embarked upon a cost review. They are working on that at the present time. Lately there has been an indication from the United States that they believe that tourism is the future of Alaska. It is quite obvious in discussions that took place here in Ottawa not very long ago with Mr. Udall, that the United States is desirous of making this a comfortable highway for traffic to Alaska. Negotiations through my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), have been begun through the ambassador who is at a comparable level in Washington, to get some idea of their idea of cost sharing. In the meantime we are embarking upon a cost benefit analysis which will be announced very shortly, parallel to the one undertaken by the Bat-telle institute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret to inform the hon. minister, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, June 2, 1964